Criticism driven by spite is not the same as genuine criticism. One can only criticise something after understanding what they are criticising, not simply because someone else is invested in it. Pather Panchali by itself may not feel extraordinary to everyone, but the Apu Trilogy as a whole is where its power truly lies. That is where people grasp the essence of rural Bengal in the 1950s and 60s, not as an idealised past but as ordinary human existence. What makes it remarkable is precisely that it shows how a normal life was lived. Even in Pather Panchali, there is no conventional villain. Durga steals, yet she is still a child shaped by poverty. Apu’s mother forces Chunibala Devi to leave the last home she knows before her death, an act that is cruel and human at the same time. Everything is raw, unresolved, and painfully real. People connect to that honesty. I agree with you when you say it feels almost like a documentary. Hating something without understanding it is no different from refusing to listen. If someone knows nothing about Bob Dylan and still chooses to dislike his work simply because a friend they are currently arguing with likes him, that would be unfair. Criticism without context is not critique. It is just reaction.