Do Movie Critics Deserve Criticism?

They say it is easy to become a critic, but difficult to become a director. Judging a film is not bad, but the way the critics throw their opinions, had forced me to write something on the topic. There are two kinds of criticism - Constructive criticism and destructive criticism. However, it seems that Indian movie critics prefer the latter one mostly, following in the footsteps of western movie critics. People can argue that in a democratic country every one has to accept criticism. I agree. But, do we ever contemplate that the criticism could spoil the business of an entire movie? Producers invest whopping amount of money in making a movie, but these critics destroy the fate of a movie by giving poor ratings. Now, what if a critic makes a movie? Take the instance of Khalid Mohammed - widely regarded as one of the finest movie critics of India. He directed four movies - Silsiilay (2005). Tehzeeb (2003), Tareekh (2003) and Fiza (2000). All these four movies bombed at the box office and than Mohammed saab disappeared from movie making and preferred to continue his career as a journalist. There is absolutely no problem if a movie journo tries his hand in movie making, but he must have to face the criticism, the way he has been criticizing other movies. I strongly believe that many journalists from electronic media contribute a lot in giving negative remarks (by taking sound bytes of few people) as soon as a movie hits theatres, without possessing sufficient knowledge. Thus, the audience blindly follows their verdicts and avoids hitting the theatres. So who suffers? Everyone including actors, producers and director. It is often said that the fate of cinema in Hollywood is sealed in the hands of critics, who are mostly fastidious. Are our critics following in their footsteps? Perhaps the time has come to curb the hands of these critics, who in the name of freedom of expression are killing the fate of a movie with their opinions.