Dev’s DeSu7 Review Removed: Rupam Speaks Out About Legal Notice

A review can praise a film and still find it disappointing. That should not make it disappear. Rupam’s Review has published a statement saying he was compelled to remove a Bengali film review after receiving a notice that referred to a court order. He says the review had been available on YouTube for roughly an hour, and that other creators received similar notices.

The statement was posted on 16 October 2026. Its Bengali title, “Sorry আমি সিনেমার রিভিউ সরিয়ে দিতে বাধ্য হলাম!”, says he was forced to remove a movie review. Watch Rupam’s full statement.

What Rupam says happened

Rupam says he uploaded the review at approximately 4–4.30 pm. Around an hour later, he received a notice identifying the video and demanding its removal, citing a court order. He says he took the review down because of that notice.

He says other creators received similar notices, naming Entertaining Prince and Filmy Retake.

His review included praise: this was not a blanket dismissal

Rupam stresses that he discussed the film’s good points and did not simply attack it. BMR’s existing DeSu7 record is consistent with a mixed review: its summary credits Dev’s heroics, Anirban’s stylised character and the sound design, while criticising a screenplay pulled between several kinds of film.

BMR’s view: answer criticism instead of making it invisible

If the purpose of a removal demand is to suppress an honestly expressed critical opinion simply because it is inconvenient, that is unacceptable. A reviewer’s job is not to complete a production house’s publicity campaign. Audiences deserve to hear the reservations as well as the applause, especially when they are deciding whether to spend money on a ticket.

A specific false factual allegation can be identified and answered. A disagreement about performances, pacing or storytelling should be argued on its merits. Making an entire review disappear deprives viewers of that argument. It also pressures the next reviewer to think about consequences before speaking candidly—the chilling effect Rupam describes in his statement.

This is an editorial position on independent criticism. It is not a conclusion about the validity, wording or scope of an unseen court order, and it is not a claim that a named person acted unlawfully. Those questions require the actual documents.

Dev’s earlier statement makes the principle especially relevant

Before release, Dev alleged that offers were being made for paid negative coverage of DeSu7. Ei Samay’s 7 October report also records his stated respect for viewers’ independent opinions, including criticism. That principle deserves support. It must apply after release too: an unfavourable opinion is not, by itself, evidence that the reviewer was paid.

That earlier statement does not identify the sender of the notice Rupam now describes. Nor have we verified a public response from the production house addressing this particular removal account. Neither silence nor the earlier dispute supplies the missing evidence.

Is this the first such case in Bengali cinema?

Rupam says no Bengali producer or production house has treated his reviews this way before, despite his having strongly criticised films by major names. He also describes it as a disturbing development for the industry. That is a significant claim about his experience. BMR cannot certify an industry-wide “first” from this account alone. The reported treatment deserves scrutiny without turning an unverified historical claim into a headline.

Watch the statement and read the reviews

Read DeSu7’s collected critic reviews and BMR score, visit Rupam’s Review on BMR, or compare all four Durga Puja releases. A film’s quality and a dispute over criticism are separate questions; readers should have access to both.

Reporting and image note

Sources: Rupam’s public statement, BMR’s retained review record and the contemporary report linked above. Rupam does not identify the film or sender in his statement; the DeSu7 connection comes from BMR’s existing record. Lead image: editorial artwork based on the supplied video still.