When I see somebody judge others judgement, like above thread, it makes me cringe.

Art is art, not science. This very definition makes it subjective. What defines a good artist and what makes one artist bad is very subjective and rather complicated.

Just because somebody is acting all natural, doesn't make him/her an actor. Performing is one part of acting, but you have to understand the difference. Daniel Day Lewis is considered a top-echelon artist. Look at his last memorable movie: There will be blood; a brilliant performance piece. Some critics argued, though, that it wasn't natural. He still is a great actor of our time. In Bollywood, you either love or hate Nana Patekar; he could be over the top - over acting Or just right for some. He is a great performer, now is he is a good actor? Most will say yes, some hard critics might disagree.

Hari Vansha dai, in that terms, is a great performer. I agree his acting is not as deep as others mentioned above but this is what the situation required. Is Heath Ledger a great actor? If you think of The Dark Night or the Broke Back Mountain then you will agree, if you think of other chick flicks he acted in then you might argue otherwise. He was doing his job according to what it demanded. My point thus is that you have to see things in context. Hari Vansha dai was good because he was more than apt for what he was catering.