How Do Critics Review The Ullu Web Series Originals?

Critics often meet Ullu originals with a skeptical eyebrow, and I get why — I do too sometimes. I’m the sort of viewer who pays attention to pacing, script logic, and whether characters feel alive or just props for a punchline, so when I watch a lot of the platform’s stuff I notice the same recurring critiques: uneven writing, reliance on sensational hooks, and production shortcuts. That said, I also notice bright spots; there are episodes and mini-series where a director leans into mood, a composer lifts a scene, or an actor finds a fragile center in what looks like a one-note role. Titles like 'Charmsukh' and 'Riti Riwaj' get called out a lot for leaning into titillation, but even within those formats some segments show surprisingly sharp observations about relationships and power. Critics frame their reviews around a few pillars: craft (editing, cinematography), narrative (character arcs, stakes), and social impact (how the show treats consent, gender, and class). I often agree with critiques that accuse certain shows of trading nuance for shock value, but I’ll also defend moments where creators take risks or where a simple setup reveals a messy, human truth. Reviews tend to split: some reviewers write off the platform as formulaic, while others treat it like a laboratory for bold-ish short-form storytelling — imperfect, but interesting. Personally, I find it useful to read a mix of hot takes and careful breakdowns; that’s how I decide whether an episode is worth my time or if I should skip to something with more depth. In the end I enjoy poking at what works and what doesn’t, and I’m always curious to see if future releases will outgrow their clichés — that would be exciting to witness.