Bollywood movie reviewers tend to fall in four categories. First, there are the lazy and ignorant kind who will say things like 'film's editing is good...at the end the script tends to slow...so and so's work is okay". Then there are reviewers of big newspapers who are victims of their particular biases and business interests. Then there are fawning fan boys and girls posing as movie reviewers, whose only reason for existence seems to be their closeness to the stars. Lastly, and this is a growing breed, who read up on the movie reviews of the west, pick up on a select ideas and motifs, and resort to position themselves as movie experts to an Indian audience who generally don't know or care. In doing so, their reviews come off as showy exercises in self-importance and the reader comes up short about any meaningful knowledge about the film under review.

Writing in the Hindustan Times, reviewer Mayank Shekhar risks fallling into this last category. In trying to appear as an 'expert' reviewer he overreaches and falls. Reviewing 'Love, Sex and Dhokha", he informs that it is a Dogma film. His reasoning:

This film appears with a background that has no score; actors who are not meant to be; and scratchy images that bear no polish, leave aside cinematic flourish.

This generalization does serious movie fans a serious disservice. The Dogma 95 sets out these criteria for a film to considered a Dogma Film,  which is basically a movement against tradtional Hollywood and general film-making make believe strategies.

1. Filming must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in. If a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found.
2. The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. Music must not be used unless it occurs within the scene being filmed, i.e., diegetic.
3. The camera must be a hand-held camera. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. The film must not take place where the camera is standing; filming must take place where the action takes place.
4. The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable (if there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).
5. Optical work and filters are forbidden.
6. The film must not contain superficial action (murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
7. Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden (that is to say that the film takes place here and now).
8. Genre movies are not acceptable.
9. The final picture must be transferred to the Academy 35mm film, with an aspect ratio of 4:3, that is, not widescreen. Originally, the requirement was that the film had to be filmed on Academy 35mm film, but the rule was relaxed to allow low-budget productions.
10. The director must not be credited.

Compare these to what you see in 'Love, Sex and Dhokha' and you will find the differences. Would it have been a little too hard for the reviewer to have called the movie belonging to the realism genre?

That's not all. Mayank tops it all by pointing to Dogma as his favorite film genre and then commits another mistakes when he says that Beyonce starred in 2000's "Dancer in the Dark" film from Dogma specialist Lars Von Trier. Let me correct him on this one too. Icelandic singer Bjork starred in the said movie. She even won an award at the Cannes film festival for her role.

However, all this bad movie review business should take away the shine from Dibakar Bannerjee, who remains one of India's original directors who makes interesting movies. 'Interesting' is a key word, however talented you are. When the multiplexes ask you to pay Rs. 200 and upwards for a ticket, you expect some good times,  and you certainly do not want to subjected to the torture of an experimental film. And, "Love, sex and Dhokha" does not seem to be an experimental film.

So, even if the Hindustan Times reviewer wanted to impress upper class movie reviewers, he should have stopped with his movie gyan and instead focused on what made the film an interesting watch. If a movie is made for a certain audience, then inform the audience what made the movie interesting, or not. Even if it is a song-and-dance extravaganza, tell me if the songs and sequences are indeed new and fun to watch. This is what one expects from a good movie reviewer. Honesty, instead of smug know-it-allness.