The 'Khalifa' debate: Organic criticism or coordinated campaign?

A debate has been quietly gathering momentum online around Prithviraj Sukumaran’s latest Malayalam action thriller, Khalifa. Released in theatres on August 20, the film has faced an aggressive wave of negative reviews, online trolling and what some fans describe as “review degrading” on platforms such as X, formerly Twitter.

The central question is simple: Is Khalifa genuinely being rejected by audiences, or is an organised online campaign trying to create the impression that the film is worse than it actually is?

There is, of course, no reason to assume that every negative review is part of a campaign. Movies are subjective. What works for one viewer may not work for another. A film can be simply poorly received. At the same time, the possibility of coordinated online negativity cannot be completely dismissed.

The debate has gained attention because of the wider context surrounding Prithviraj’s career. The actor has faced intense scrutiny and criticism since his early years in Malayalam cinema. More recently, three of his films in succession have reportedly faced significant online negativity, prompting some observers to wonder whether the response is purely about the films themselves or whether a particular impression is being deliberately created to discourage audiences from watching them.

Fans and supporters of Prithviraj argue that Khalifa is the latest target of a pre-planned online hate campaign. They point to the appearance of large numbers of highly critical and sometimes seemingly identical reviews almost immediately after release. Some of these, they claim, came from accounts that had apparently not even watched the film.

Others strongly disagree. For neutral viewers and critics, the negative response can be explained by the film itself. Several critics have described Khalifa as relying on an “outdated” script and a familiar commercial formula. The story's 1980s-style gold-smuggling backdrop, combined with a conventional revenge narrative, has been criticised for lack of emotional depth. From this perspective, the mixed response is simply organic.

The political angle has added another layer to the debate.

Khalifa combines a gold-smuggling story with an overt criticism of corrupt politicians. In Kerala, gold smuggling is not merely a cinematic subject; it is also a politically sensitive real-world issue that opposition parties have often used against the Left.

In the film, which takes place over different timelines, Prithviraj plays Aamir Ali, a young carefree textile shop owner forced to take up international gold-smuggling after his honest father is falsely implicated and destroyed by corrupt politicians linked to a syndicate. Seeking justice and attempting to repay his father's debts, Aamir eventually revives his grandfather Mambrakkal Ahmed Ali's criminal empire, played by Mohanlal, who makes a grand entry in the third-act.

Some have therefore speculated that the political content could have provoked hostility from left-wing groups in Kerala. But people working in the Malayalam film industry are far less convinced.

A seasoned Malayalam associate director, speaking on condition of anonymity, offered three possible explanations. He first referred to the earlier controversy surrounding the political thriller Left Right Left, which faced backlash for obvious reasons.

“Back then, a certain political party felt their ideology was being criticised, and their prominent leader was targeted due to similar mannerisms, and the makers were forced to withdraw the film from theatres, especially in Malabar. But that’s not the case with Khalifa,” he says.

He argues that the political theory surrounding Khalifa does not necessarily add up.

“We have to consider the possibility that if a left-leaning political party comes forward and criticises a movie, it will mean they’re taking ownership of this gold scam. If they are not protesting against this film, there’s no reason to think they’re involved, right?”

The associate director also acknowledges that Prithviraj has faced sustained online attacks in recent years.

“In Prithviraj’s case, it is true that after Empuraan, his films — beginning with Vilayath Buddha through I, Nobody — have undoubtedly been under constant cyber attack from a particular section. It’s anyone’s guess who that group is. They have indeed released campaigns declaring that they’re not going to see his films. As someone who constantly monitors social media, I’ve never felt that, so far, the attacks came from the left wing. So I would say it’s baseless.”

For him, however, the quality of the movie remains the most important factor.

“Ultimately, we’ll also have to think of the quality of the film. When you show something in the promos and then deliver the exact same thing without any novel ‘wow’ factor, not to mention the same tried-and-tested formula of having a superstar appearing in a cameo role, it won’t salvage a film.”

He also believes that Khalifa faced a difficult comparison at the box office. During the Onam season, it competed with the family comedy Bethlehem Kudumba Unit. Had Dulquer Salmaan’s I’m Game arrived as planned, the discussion might have been very different.

“The Onam competition would’ve revolved around Khalifa vs I’m Game — two action thrillers being compared instead of with a comedy. That’s what is being reflected in the box office performance,” he adds.

His conclusion is straightforward: “I don’t think it has anything to do with a particular campaign.”

He points to Left Right Left once again, arguing that controversy can sometimes increase a film's visibility rather than destroy it.

“The reason I mentioned Left Right Left is that it got a certain level of reach because of the controversy. So, my point is, if the quality of a movie is exceptional, no negative campaign or review can bring it down.”

A prominent Malayalam film editor, also speaking anonymously, agrees with this assessment. According to him, theories about hate campaigns can sometimes become a “coping mechanism” for fans when a film fails to perform as expected.

He cites Kannada superstar Yash's Toxic as a comparison. “If it had worked like KGF, people would’ve kept quiet. When a film doesn’t work due to some unappealing qualities, they tend to magnify them and make it seem far worse than they felt it was. Everyone has the right to express their opinions. Whether it’s right or wrong, we always have a side to pick, don’t we? And when people find a quote on the internet that supports their view, they latch onto that. It’s as simple as that.”

The editor also points to Nivin Pauly's recent career developments as an example of how quickly the narrative around an actor can change. After the success of Sarvam Maya last Christmas, Nivin had two setbacks with Baby Girl and Prathichaya, before returning to the box office with Bethlehem Kudumba Unit.

“There was a time when Nivin also had to encounter intense negativity and ‘hate campaigns’,” he says. “Since Bethlehem is a hit, those things no longer apply.”

Here’s another important point that complicates the “hate campaign” theory: Khalifa has not exactly collapsed commercially.

Despite the heavy online criticism, the film has reportedly earned an estimated ₹40 crore in its first week. As Khalifa: Part 1 - The Ruler enters the second week of its theatrical run, its overall ticket sales have shown a significant commercial rebound compared with Prithviraj’s previous releases, Vilayath Buddha and I, Nobody.

Indeed, the film has already comfortably surpassed the combined worldwide lifetime gross of those two films, which together earned approximately ₹24.20 crore. While I, Nobody struggled considerably outside Kerala, data shows that Khalifa has benefited from stronger international business, particularly in West Asia, where it has reportedly collected more than ₹18 crore.

The contrast between the films is also significant. Director Jayan Nambiar's Vilayath Buddha and director Nissam Basheer's I, Nobody were relatively experimental, slower-paced thrillers that received mixed-to-negative word of mouth. Khalifa, directed by Vysakh, takes the opposite approach: it is designed as a high-octane commercial action film with a larger scale and broader theatrical appeal.

That difference may explain why Khalifa has opened on a much larger scale despite experiencing a similar weekday decline after its initial run.

Ultimately, the debate over a “hate campaign” may never produce a definitive answer. Social media can amplify genuine criticism, but it can also exaggerate negativity and create narratives that are difficult to separate from reality. At the same time, fans can sometimes interpret legitimate criticism as an organised attack when a film they support does not perform as expected.

For Khalifa, the box office provides a more complicated picture than social media alone. The film has faced substantial criticism, but it has also demonstrated significant commercial reach, particularly overseas.

The more useful question, then, may not be whether every negative review is genuine or coordinated. It may be whether the film itself has enough strengths to overcome the noise surrounding it.

As the associate director puts it, “if the quality of a movie is exceptional, no negative campaign or review can bring it down.” For Khalifa, the coming weeks will ultimately determine whether its theatrical performance can speak louder than the noise surrounding it.