Dhurandhar Review Drama: Anupama Chopra, The FCG Statement & Why The Internet is Not Buying It

Okay, stop scrolling and grab your chai because the tea is absolutely piping hot today. 🫖 If you thought the on-screen action in Dhurandhar was intense, wait until you see the absolute warzone happening on Twitter (X). We aren't just talking about a bad movie review here; we are witnessing a full-blown cultural clash between the "elite" critics and the desi internet. It’s giving "Main Character Energy" gone wrong, and honestly, the drama is living rent-free in our heads right now. The Film Critics Guild (FCG) just dropped a statement defending Anupama Chopra and Sucharita Tyagi, and let’s just say... the internet has some notes.

The Breakdown: What Even Happened?

The Spark: Anupama vs. The "Testosterone"

So, here’s the TL;DR: Dhurandhar, the Ranveer Singh-led espionage thriller directed by Aditya Dhar, dropped recently. The janta was vibing with the high-octane action, but the critics? Not so much. Anupama Chopra (Editor of The Hollywood Reporter India) dropped a review that was... let's call it spicy. She called the film "exhausting," complained about "too much testosterone," and slammed its "shrill nationalism." She basically said blending real tragedies (like 26/11) with fiction was "dangerous and clunky." The Internet's Clapback: Fans immediately pulled up the receipts. They pointed out the hypocrisy of praising similar action beats in movies like Pathaan while tearing down Dhurandhar for the same vibe. The internet screamed, "Make it make sense!" Even Paresh Rawal jumped into the comments. It was chaos.

The Mystery of the Vanishing Review

Then, things got weird. Three days later, Anupama's review just... vanished. Poof. Deleted or privatized without a single word of explanation. Usually, if you stand by your take, you keep it up, right? The silence was louder than the review itself. It felt like a "delete and retreat" strategy, but screenshots are forever, bestie.

The "System" Strikes Back: The FCG Statement

Here is where the plot thickens. The Film Critics Guild (FCG) released a heavy statement condemning the "targeted attacks" and "coordinated abuse" against critics. They claimed this backlash threatens "editorial autonomy." But wait, here’s the catch: Guess who is the Chairperson of the FCG? Anupama Chopra. Guess who is the Vice-Chairperson? Sucharita Tyagi. So, the people at the center of the controversy are leading the organization that is defending them. It’s giving inception levels of conflict.

Why The Critics Might Be Getting It Wrong

Okay, putting my serious glasses on for a second because we need to dissect this properly.

Look, nobody supports abuse or threats that is never okay. But there is a massive difference between trolling and legitimate accountability, and that is where the FCG and our faves Anupama and Sucharita might be misreading the room. 1. The "Ivory Tower" Syndrome The core issue isn't that they disliked the movie; it's the lens through which they viewed it. There is a growing intellectual disconnect where Mumbai's critic circle seems to view mass-market, nationalistic cinema with a gaze of disdain rather than understanding. When you dismiss "nationalism" in a spy thriller as merely "shrill" or "testosterone-heavy," you aren't just critiquing a film; you are implicitly mocking the audience that resonates with those emotions. It feels less like film criticism and more like a cultural lecture from a high horse.

2. The "Judge, Jury, and Executioner" Paradox The FCG statement is problematic because of the conflict of interest. You cannot effectively be the "victim" of a narrative while simultaneously wielding the institutional power to silence the rebuttal. By using the Guild an official body to shield themselves from backlash, the leadership is effectively gaslighting the audience. It frames all dissent as "abuse," conveniently ignoring the valid counter-arguments about bias and inconsistency.

3. If You Can't Take the Heat... Criticism is a two-way street. In the age of the democratized internet, the Critic is no longer the final authority; they are just another voice in the group chat. If you have the platform to tear apart a filmmaker's hard work (which involves hundreds of people and crores of budget), you must have the intellectual stamina to withstand the audience tearing apart your review. Deleting the review was a tactical error—it signaled that the critique couldn't stand up to scrutiny.

The Verdict: You can't demand "editorial autonomy" while refusing to engage in "editorial accountability."

TL;DR

• The Movie: Dhurandhar (Starring Ranveer Singh, Dir. Aditya Dhar).

• The Critics: Anupama Chopra (Chairperson, FCG) & Sucharita Tyagi (Vice-Chairperson, FCG).

• The Controversy: Harsh reviews calling the film "jingoistic" vs. Fan backlash calling the critics "biased."

• The Plot Twist: Anupama's review was deleted/privatised without explanation.

• The Response: The Film Critics Guild issued a statement claiming critics are being "harassed," sparking a debate on double standards.

Fans Also Asked

1. Why did Anupama Chopra delete her Dhurandhar review? While there is no official statement from her, it appears the review was removed due to the intense backlash and accusations of hypocrisy, particularly regarding her differing standards for Dhurandhar vs. other action films like Pathaan.

2. Who are the heads of the Film Critics Guild (FCG)? The FCG is led by Anupama Chopra as the Chairperson and Sucharita Tyagi as the Vice-Chairperson. This has led to debates about conflict of interest since the Guild issued a statement defending them specifically.

3. What did the Film Critics Guild statement say about the Dhurandhar backlash? The statement condemned the public reaction as "coordinated abuse" and "targeted attacks," arguing that such backlash threatens the freedom and editorial autonomy of independent film critics in India.

4. Is Dhurandhar a hit or flop despite the reviews? The audience sentiment (the real vibe check) seems positive, with many praising the action and performances, suggesting a disconnect between the critical ratings (FCG gave it 5.7/10) and the box office reality.