New Delhi. Actor and self-proclaimed critic Kamal Rashid Khan aka KRK, known for his outspoken comments and unfiltered film reviews, often sparks controversies and he is once again in the spotlight for his recent tweet in which he targeted Bollywood actor Salman Khan. However, KRK spoke to the media while attending the birthday party of singer-turned-actress Amika Shail at Cava Lounge in Mumbai and answered all the questions of the media present.
Addressing his reputation for sparking controversies on social media, KRK asserted, " I don't know; I don't understand this. I express ordinary thoughts, but people perceive them as strong. I can't control how others interpret my words. If people find it controversial, there's not much I can do about it. I express my thoughts." The conversation took an interesting turn when KRK was questioned about his comments regarding Salman Khan. KRK clarified that he does not only refer to Salman as ‘Budhaoo’ and explained the court ruling on the matter. He emphasised using the term for all individuals around the age of 60 and affirmed, "It's not bad; they are all stars, and it's evident in today's date that even at the age of 70+, stars like Sunny Deol and Shahrukh Khan continue to shine in the industry. I feel that actors around the age of 60 are all elderly. Salman Khan filed a case against me, but the court ruled that using the term 'Budhaoo' is not derogatory." In response to questions about his offensivtatements about various actors, directors, etc. on various blogs and self-publishing websites KRK said, "I know Bollywood from the inside; I know people personally. When I speak, it's evident that what I'm saying is from this insider knowledge and experience."
On being asked whether he does film reviews only to entertain people or express frustration KRK said "If I criticize a bad film, how does it become venting? The issue is that every actor has a dedicated fan base, and for them, any film featuring their favourite actor is a blockbuster, regardless of its quality. They believe in praising the film no matter how poorly it performs at the box office. Personally, when I review a movie, I approach it objectively. There's no bias based on the actor's stature, friendship, or enmity. I critique the film for what it is – if it's good, I acknowledge it; if it's not, I express that as well. It's not about venting frustration or forcing opinions on someone; that's not my intent. I watched Tiger 3, and I wondered why the Indian audience needs to know the story of whether the government of Pakistan's Prime Minister will stay or be overthrown by the military. What does RAW have to do with saving the government there? Considering our strained relations with Pakistan, it seems unlikely that RAW agents would go there to rescue their government. So, I said, 'This story doesn't seem right for the Indian public.' I expressed that the film was not good and it did not resonate with me as an Indian and the same would be true for all Indian audiences. Some people perceive it as venting frustration, there's not much I can do about it.
0 Comments