अब आप न्यूज्ड हिंदी में पढ़ सकते हैं। यहाँ क्लिक करें
Home » Entertainment » Thugs Of Hindostan review: A lesson on how not make a period film

Thugs Of Hindostan review: A lesson on how not make a period film

By Vanshika Garg
Updated on :
Thugs Of Hindostan review: A lesson on how not make a period film

One of the highly awaited films of this year was Aamir Khan’s Thugs Of Hindostan. With the release, the word of mouth spread that it wasn’t a good watch but no one expected it to be a colossal disaster.

Aamir Khan, the perfectionist of Bollywood, is known to pick scripts which have value and finesse to it, Thugs had neither.

There was little to go wrong with a movie which has consummate actors like Amitabh Bachchan and Zeeshan Ayyub who were completely misused in the film along with newcomer Fatima Sana Shaikh, who inspite of having a lot of screen time fails to leave a mark.

The movie is an out and out formulaic revenge drama, yet the first half is devoid of any logic or seriousness.  Aamir’s role of a shifty, cunning Firangi Mallah also fails to salvage the movie. His role will remind you of his chichora Mela days, but we assumed he had left those back in the 90s itself. Amitabh Bachchan, however, has been given a terrific entrance scene and it is arguably one of the best by a lead in this year. The first half is marred by poorly written scenes and dialogues. The screenplay is patchy, flawed and terribly executed for the screen. However, the worst is yet to come.

The second half of the film apart from the predictability that it has to offer is outlandish and will leave you smacking your head in disgust.

The character of Zafira who is a Muslim is shown performing a Hindu ritual for a Muslim man itself. This is downright lame and stupid even for a regular movie goer who is clueless as to what is happening on the bigscreen in front of him Vijay Krishna Acharya, the director who shot TOH in Thailand, fails to replicate Durgapur in the supposed fictional account, as one can easily guess from the backdrops that it was shot in Thailand. Who was Vijay Krishna Acharya even trying to fool? The entire movie is based on a revenge story of Fatima and Amitabh trying to avenge her parents’ deaths at the hands of a Britisher named Clive. Is it Robert Clive, the tyrant who we read in our history books? If it is so, then he died in 1774 while the movie is set in 1795 and thereon.

Since it was based on a book Confessions Of A Thug, we can give benefit of the doubt to the makers who have recreated a fictional account or so it seems.

Zeeshan Ayyub was arguably the best performer along with Aamir Khan and Amitabh Bachchan, who fail to salvage this film. Katrina Kaif is present in barely 3 scenes and 2 songs and one often wonders why an A-list actress like chooses to do projects that have such negligible roles for her and is kept in the periphery.  By and large the second half makes you cringe as you are absolutely clueless about the storyline and by the time you reach the climax, you cant wait to reach the nearest exit in the cinema hall. ‘This might perhaps be the last time Aamir Khan joins hands with Vijay Krishna Acharya who helmed him in Dhoom 3 as well. However, that film raked in the moolah and proved entertaining for the masses except the critics who had panned the film.

This one, however, can neither attract the audiences nor please the critics. It is best avoided.

Rating: *