Faysal Quraishi, Hareem Farooq raise concerns over paid reviews of ‘Mango Jutt’

Actors Faysal Quraishi and Hareem Farooq have raised concerns over alleged paid negative publicity targeting their Punjabi-language film Mango Jutt, warning that such campaigns could damage both the film and Pakistan’s struggling cinema industry.

Quraishi addressed the issue in an Instagram video, questioning the practice of publishing negative reviews without watching a film and arguing that paid campaigns could undermine efforts to bring audiences back to cinemas.

He questioned the impact of what he described as paid propaganda, asking how many people were being harmed by those seeking personal gain.

“Because it is a negative thing, which has been fed [to them], you’re saying the same thing. But seriously, while focused on your gains, how many people are you harming?” he said.

Quraishi also questioned the speed at which some reviews appeared after a film’s release. He said some serious critics wait until the weekend has passed before reviewing a film, while reviews linked to alleged paid campaigns begin appearing much earlier.

The actor said a film’s commercial performance should ultimately be determined by audiences, adding that differing opinions were a normal part of cinema.

However, he argued that genuine criticism should be distinguished from deliberately generated negativity.

“Paid propaganda against anything, whether it’s a drama or a film, causes loss to the industry. We [already] have a very small industry,” he said.

He also pointed to the financial considerations involved in going to the cinema, saying misleading online narratives could further affect audiences’ confidence in their choices.

Meanwhile, Farooq, who produced and stars in Mango Jutt, shared screenshots on Instagram that appeared to raise questions about whether some negative posts about the film had been paid for.

In a separate post, she highlighted reports that several cinemas had dropped the film, while others had reduced its showtimes or shifted screenings away from prime-time slots.

The post attributed the reported decline to competition from Hollywood releases and negative word of mouth.

Screenshots shared during the discussion included an exchange about whether a negative post about the film was paid content. One message asked, “And is it a paid post?” The reply was affirmative, followed by the question, “Will you share the cost or budget?”

The allegations have drawn attention to the challenge filmmakers face in distinguishing genuine audience feedback from potentially commercially motivated online content.

Negative reviews remain a legitimate part of film criticism, and audiences are entitled to express their views. The concerns raised by Quraishi and Farooq centre on whether some criticism is being presented as independent opinion when payment or coordination may be involved.