Unless time and more reviews under your belt tell you that this particular piece that you got a bad review on wasn't your best effort, then very often the likelihood is that if it was a passionate piece in some way, whether generating good or bad emotions, you might have simply taken someone somewhere they weren't prepared to go. Or, they had a preconceived idea that to generate this or that emotion, or to convey this or that idea, that you should have gone about it in an entirely different way.
Lots of folks that have never written many pages all at once have preconceived ideas about how your finished product ought to come out. Or, on a rare occasion your writing might have reminded someone of some other piece you've never heard of, and you're the victim of an unfair comparison when they wouldn't even cite the work they had in mind so that you're left wondering why they thought something was either total crap or deficient in some small enough of a way for them to find it annoying enough to give you a bad review.
Tiger Woods, the golf legend, doesn't always have the kind of game he intended, and even if you're eventually more famous than Spielberg, you'll still always have folks that'll think this or that wasn't the best they've seen of a certain genre, didn't speak to them, or that in some other way they find it deficient. Critics are a part of life and when you do your best, something just honestly either wasn't for that critic in particular (which is fine since not everything speaks to everyone at the same level or about the same things), or your work will be appreciated a lot more in the future.
Michael Philips wrote a foreword to one of the George MacDonald novels that he'd "edited for today's reader" that when he'd first read it years ago, he really didn't like the work at all. But he'd committed himself to doing an edition of the entire trilogy that this was the second book of (if I remember correctly) and when he went back over it those years later for the edition that he prepared for publication, he was totally astonished at how good it was and that he'd completely missed the main idea, or the whole point, those years before. He had never understood the story to his own embarassment and now the implication was, in this foreword that he wrote, that it was one of his favorites after he finally understood it.
Just as people can be under appreciated, writings can be prematurely judged only to be respected, well received, and cherished years later. Excellent cooks go through the same thing. Something could be totally fabulous to both of us, yet some critic won't find it sweet enough, or spicy enough, or sour enough (depending on what it's supposed to be), or it'll have the one ingredient that gives that critic a rash -- in which case you can definitely count on a lousy review in that situation -- or the waiter didn't get it out to him fast enough so that it was cold when he got it, which always reflects upon the cook, unfortunately, etc.
Critics compare works within a genre, whether you're talking about a dish or whether you're talking about a book, play, poem, song, etc. Whether or not they tell you what they're comparing your stuff to, everybody's already got an opinion before they've reviewed your work. It's like people that prejudge relationships and people by body type, style of dress, or some other way. Blond jokes come from the fact that there are some ditzy blonds out there that some have come across in the past. Yet an equal number of blonds are world renouned philosophers, theologians, professors, mathematicians, psychologists, relationship gurus, etc., etc., etc. The moment you're gutsy enough to be open to feedback about your work, then somebody's going to be a wiseguy!
Blow it off and continue to do your best. Distance yourself from the criticism emotionally and look at it objectively. If something in particular was cited about your work that got criticized, weigh carefully whether or not it's helpful for a second edition or whether they were just being a snaught. Occasionally a critic that tells you why something's so wrong with what you did will make you rich if it makes you rethink through the whole thing on how it could be better and ultimately a best seller. But as I've said, one critic of your work could have simply been taken somewhere by your work that they weren't prepared to go, or you're being compared to another author they like or despise, or they're full of ideas of how it should have been done but no published works of their own besides the review.
