Thugs of Hindostan Review - Captain Jack Harrow!

Thugs of Hindostan is a bloodless costume drama that is 160 minutes of draggy cinema. There is absolutely no life here. And unlike in Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Padmaavat (2018), Thugs is technically clunky. Its VFX is off and in places amateurish. Other than the visually stunning Manzoor-E-Khuda, which comes so far into the film’s bloated runtime, there is very little to ogle at. It mainly consists of a leading man whose new brand of comedy is dangerously unfunny, his monotone-baritone co-star who looks like he’d rather be any place else, a fierce female warrior who comes to life in spurts and a bar dancer who only appears for two songs and one climactic joke

There is so little here to praise that I’m surprised leading man Aamir Khan could see some vitality in this script. The basic plot follows Khudabaksh Jahazi (Amitabh Bachchan) and his band of ‘Thugs’, including a grave Zafira (Fatima Sana Shaikh). Their sole mission is to defeat John Clive’s (Lloyd Stevens) East India Company. To put a wedge in their plans, Clive hires Firangi Malla (Aamir Khan), a deceitful thug himself, who wants 400 acres of land in exchange for Khudabaksh’s head. Add into the mix ships, cannons, action, a revenge plot and more, and Thugs of Hindostan is exhilarating on paper. On screen, it translates to tacky and exhausting cinema.

Because writer-director Vijay Krishna Acharya’s script is so faulty and in places, flat out tedious, that it can’t lend itself well enough to the grand vision it touts. And that’s a damn shame, because in places, Thugs can get a little fun. But, to be fair, you can’t really give this team the credit for that. The film is derivative of Pirates of the Caribbean and even Sholay, which ironically starred Amitabh Bachchan himself. There, Thakur Baldev Singh hired two ex-convicts named Jai and Veeru. Here, the ‘gore aadmi’ hire Firangi, who in his own words is white on the inside, with just a little remaining on the outside.

In fact, its thrills and action sequences are so uninventive, stretched out and repetitive, that even the sight of 75 year old Mr. Bachchan swinging and gyrating in all directions wielding two swords gets tiring. It doesn’t help that Clive and his team of baddies have no shades to them. They are peddled as the bad guys, and the villainization of the characters makes them cardboard. So, even as Firangi has his fun with them, you are so uninvested in these people, that in the climax, all of them cease to matter, with one even casually tilting towards the Indian side. The only way you can describe such tomfoolery is bizarre, to say the least.

Aamir Khan, at 53 years, proves that his effervescent spark isn’t going to die out. He single-handedly carries Thugs, even when it drags. Honestly, his scenes are the weakest in the film and his character transition, which is predictable, doesn’t spring organically enough for you to emotionally connect with Firangi. Amitabh Bachchan does his action scenes with earnestness and a great amount of panache, but even great actors need a coherent script. We never see Khudabaksh at an emotionally vulnerable point, so we never connect to him. Instead of being rousing and powerful, Bachchan’s baritone slowly transforms into monotone.

Fatima Sana Shaikh as Zafira is the only one that gets some emotional moments and she moves with grace, but Zafira’s true mental struggles are hidden behind a stoic facade, and even as she exacts her revenge, you never sympathise with her, nor do you cheer with her. And Katrina Kaif also shows up in the film. She pulls another stunt like she did in Dhoom 3 (2013), ironically also directed by Vijay Krishna Acharya. Suraiyya is a fiery woman, but other than two playful songs - Suraiyya and the stunning Manzoor-E-Khuda, she never shows up and has little to do in the narrative. But the real loser in Thugs of Hindostan is director Vijay Krishna Acharya, whose vision for his films seem to dwindle with each consecutive project. In Dhoom 3, an offspring of his own brainchild, Dhoom, he created something so bland and nonsensical, that you couldn’t care. With Thugs of Hindostan, he does the same thing, but he does so with a 300 crore + budget. It’s sad though, because the film is so haphazardly put together. The storyline is stitched erratically, the film has no constant tone and the language of the film changes with each scene.

The action scenes remain convoluted and the film at large never truly springs to life. Thugs of Hindostan is ultimately a bore - it’s lifeless and over bloated yet barely scratches the surface when it comes to the emotions of its interesting characters. It’s a hit and a miss and a colossal waste of money, time, effort and most importantly, talent.

If you plan to watch Thugs of Hindostan, be sure to serve it up with a good helping of the Drugs of Hindostan, you’ll need it because your head will throb and your heart will break.