This would be the WORST movie of the year 2018 and WORST movie for Aamir khan for this decade after disaster of bollywood hindi movie “Mela”. And the whole credit goes to Director: Vijay Krishna Acharya as he couldn’t take out perfect acting from our great actor Amitabh Bachhan, Aamir khan and Kathrina Kaif. Also, the story background plot and visual effects are also very bad. Here is the detailed review of the movie and link to watch movie online as I would not recommand to waste your money to Cinema and better watch it online.
Critic’s Rating: 1/5
Thugs Of Hindostan Story: After the British company’s officer Clive (Lloyd Owen) takes over the kingdom of Mirza (Ronit Roy), princess Zafira (Fatima Sana Shaikh) and Khudabaksh aka Azaad (Amitabh Bachchan) form a band of rebel pirates who swear to defeat the English officer and win their freedom back. The British Company in return, hire the wily thug Firangi (Aamir Khan) to track Azaad’s gang and thwart his plans.
The story begins in the late 1700s, where a conniving British officer named Clive deceives the honest king Mirza and dupes him off his family, life and kingdom. The young princess Zafira is the only one who escapes, along with the king’s trusted guard Khudabaksh, and many years later they form a gang of pirates who are basically a bunch of goodfellas. Their only mission is to get their kingdom free from Clive and his Company rule. Thugs Of Hindostan is based during the British rule in India, when the English used their trading position to dominate India’s princely states. But the fact that the heroes of this tale are pirates, doesn’t quite fit into the Indian context, given that Indians never gained notoriety as pirates. The Maratha navy under leaders like Kanhoji Angre did gain bandit status during the 1700s, but Thugs Of Hindostan (TOH) doesn’t quite look like it’s a story emerging from the coastal regions of the country.
Historical inaccuracy aside, TOH is an adventure movie and you need cinematic liberty to setup a swashbuckling story. While the production design by Sumit Basu and cinematography by Manush Nandan are excellent, the predictable nature of the writing by writer / director Vijay Krishna Acharya doesn’t help the movie at all. You can guess every plot development and the fact that the movie doesn’t throw up a single good surprise or twist, just rocks the boat. The tiresome screenplay features scenes that are too prolonged and overtly dramatised, as a result the story hits choppy waters. What’s also funny is that the British officers speak in fluent Hindi, even when they’re talking to each other.
[eafl id=”1748″ name=”A2 Hosting” text=”A2Hosting”]
Another disappointing aspect of the movie is the music by Ajay-Atul, that doesn’t add to the narrative. While the individual performances by Aamir Khan and Amitabh Bachchan are noteworthy, the rest of the cast just never comes together. Aamir is good with the physical comedy and banter, however an Aamir Khan film generally comes with mammoth expectations, so will the disappointment of this movie leave his fans high and dry and impact his brand value, only time will tell. Mr Bachchan pulls-off the heroics and the intense dialogues well, but the rest of the cast isn’t able to rally up any serious effort. Katrina Kaif is limited to two songs and a few lines of dialogue, while Fatima Sana Shaikh is left at the mercy of some badly choreographed action sequences.
[eafl id=”1637″ name=”Fat Cow” text=”Click here to Get FREE Fat Cow Web Hosting details!”]
Apart from the stray funny moments and consistently good visuals (thanks to decent CGI efforts), TOH doesn’t really have the punch or the thrill that is required to pull off a film of this scale. At 2 hours and 45 minutes, the film feels a little too long, blame it on weak editing. The grand canvas of the film does hold sway in terms of the visual experience, but at the end, this one is all show and shallow in substance. If you are expecting TOH to give you a dose of entertainment this festive season, this one will leave you all at sea.
Director – Vijay Krishna Acharya
Cast – Aamir Khan, Amitabh Bachchan, Katrina Kaif, Fatima Sana Shaikh
Rating – 1/5
It takes a lot to make pirates boring. Without a doubt, Thugs Of Hindostan is a whole lot of movie – the biggest budget Yash Raj production of all time, the first film to star both Amitabh Bachchan and Aamir Khan — and yet this giant period epic turns out to be feeble, formulaic and entirely forgettable. Directed by Dhoom 3’s Vijay Krishna Acharya, here is a film so dull and unoriginal that it can only inspire the shrugs of Hindustan.
This is Pirates Of The Caribbean without a pirate or Caribbean, a knockoff to suit prejudiced audiences like cricketer Virat Kohli who prefer to exclusively admire the locally made. In this 1810-set adventure, Aamir borrows the Jack Sparrow eyeliner, while Amitabh is literally given the bird, his entrances on screen preceded by a noisy hawk. Bachchan plays a rebel, a freedom fighter rallying troops against the colonisers, while Khan is a two-faced rogue on the Company payroll sent to infiltrate Bachchan’s squad and bring him down.
The plot is so childish I fear the Yash Raj writing room may be an illegal sweatshop. This film, alongside Ashutosh Gowarikar’s painful Mohenjo Daro, may – alarmingly enough – make a strong case for leaving historical Hindi hysterics to Sanjay Leela Bhansali, who understands scale and pageantry. Acharya shoots far too much action in slow-motion, from swordsmen swinging on conveniently placed vines to collapsing mothers, amping up the frames per second to disguise the lack of storytelling craft. Nearly three hours long, Thugs Of Hindostan is a film hardly ever larger, but certainly slower than life.
A word, now, about Jack Sparrow. Think what you will of Johnny Depp today — and it is true nobody remembers the last Pirates installment — but when he brought Sparrow alive in 2003, it was an audaciously original act. It rightly earned the actor an Oscar nomination (one he should have won) for the way he created a wholly unprecedented protagonist. That fey swagger, that air of constant bewilderment… We never saw a kohl-eyed, rum-fetishising hero like Captain Jack. Khan, who told the press he wants people to forget Sparrow after seeing his character, Firangi, may have taken his own advice to heart too soon and forgotten the majesty of Depp. Firangi is one of Khan’s most unremarkable characters, a rogue free of charisma or cleverness, with barely a line worth remembering.
This is principally why Thugs Of Hindostan sinks. It prioritises size over smarts, set-pieces over the script. The size, too, is unimpressive, with cardboard-y visual effects, poor rope-physics, haphazard continuity and decks of ships that look too small, but all that could have been forgiven – a $41 million budget wouldn’t go far in Hollywood – if the film gave us characters worth caring about or laughing with. Set-pieces matter, but adventure films become special because of the lines we end up quoting and the protagonists we cheer. Instead we have Khan-in-kajal, alongside a gruff and grizzly Bachchan, weighed down by armour and cliché, crying himself hoarse about azaadi.
[eafl id=”1636″ name=”eToro” text=”Click here to Follow FREE Top Investors & Traders and Earn lots of Money”]
The girls have it worse. Fatima Sana Shaikh, who was so good in Dangal, plays a princess who doesn’t have a line for the first hour, but is a fierce combatant – just, mind you, not fierce enough. She’s a warrior who repeatedly needs to be rescued, but hey, at least she makes excellent sandcastles. Shaikh doesn’t bring much to the part, and when she does speak, she does it flatly enough to justify her lack of lines. Also, there is an upside-down stick figure tattooed on her chin, like someone played Hangman on her face while she was sleeping.
In the other corner, dancing whenever you look, is Katrina Kaif. She’s a sassy girl who says the word ‘bekhauf’ correctly, and makes an unsubtle dirty joke – she says it twice, in case the audience had successfully ignored it – and while she slaps Khan and seems in charge of their dynamic, there are frequent lapses. From time to time, she looks suddenly and improbably aroused, like Khan’d been momentarily swapped out for a bottle of mango juice. Kaif, who presumably did crunches instead of acting classes in preparation for her role, shakes her abs with gusto, but the songs are odd. I can’t quite get over a scene where Sheikh, without warning, breaks into a sad song that goes “Baba, Baa-baa,” to which Kaif reacts by pirouetting aggressively in sequinned silver shorts, as if channelling a black sheep.
[eafl id=”1635″ name=”Top View Sight seeing” text=”Click here to Get FREE NYC Hop On Hop Off Bus Sight seeing details!”]
The spectre of old Bollywood looms large over Thugs Of Hindostan. An old man sings about imli, Sharat Saxena tries to look valiant, Ila Arun plays a medicine woman, while Mohammad Zeeshan Ayub, who plays Khan’s man Friday, is literally named Saturday. And then – by the beloved beard of Bob Christo – there are the redcoats, hamming it up. The British villain is given the naturally despised name Clive, and speaks to his fellow Englishman in Hindi, even when the two are alone and he’s saying he’ll never understand Indians.
I may be old school, but I believe pirate movies need to have eye-patches. This one doesn’t, and that’s a shame. The viewing experience would have been hugely improved. I should have gone in wearing two.
Director: Vijay Krishna Acharya
Rating: 2.5 Stars (out of 5)
Big, bloated, bombastic, Thugs Of Hindostan is a period saga that banks solely upon actionand spectacle for impact. The characters that populate it are, like the thousand ships that the film launches in the service of a bitter early 19th century battle between the fast-expanding British East India Company and a band of intrepid rebels who refuse to be enslaved by a foreign power, are as flimsy as cardboard. Thugs Of Hindostan barely ever hits terra firma. And when it does on the rare occasion, it fails to stay rooted long enough for those moments to make a difference.
[eafl id=”1633″ name=”Liquid Web” text=”Click here to Get FREE Dedicated Managed Liquid Web Hosting Here!!”]
A gravelly-voiced Amitabh Bachchan and a puckish Aamir Khan bring everything that they have – the combined weight of the two superstars is undeniably significant – to the table, but director Vijay Krishna Acharya’s screenplay and the film’s big-budget surface veneer lack the solidity to guide this overwrought vessel out of the deep waters. What this aspiring blockbuster proves conclusively is that no matter how glossy a film is and how unique it might seem in the Indian context, there can be no substitute for an intelligent script and enterprising direction.
Thugs Of Hindostan is all sound of fury: there is no dearth here of cannons and guns, bows and arrow, and swords and daggers. However, the narrative weapons it presses into service are hopelessly blunt and ineffective. It tries hard to impress but hardly ever does.
[eafl id=”1631″ name=”Interserver Hosting” text=”Click here to See Interserver Hosting Details”]
Amitabh Bachchan plays Khudabaksh Jahaazi, a dyed-in-the-wool patriot who marshalls his people against a tyrannical British officer named Clive (Lloyd Owen). Is he the Robert Clive that we know from our school history books? It really doesn’t matter. For one, Robert Clive died well before 1795, the year in which Thugs Of Hindostan opens. The character is, of course, ruthless in dealing with the Indians that he has been sent out by the Empire to tame and exploit.
The heroic and invincible Khudabaksh, on his part, is completely beyond the control of the Company. He spouts philosophy about bravery, trust and the courage to dream. He declares in one scene that freedom isn’t a dream. It’s a yakeen, a firm belief. The veteran actor delivers that line – and all the others peppered though the film – with customary panache, but given the confused tone of the film – it flits between the earnest and the frivolous – that piece of dialogue is lost in a maze of dramatic detours.
[eafl id=”1623″ name=”Bluehost Details” text=”Blue Host Details”]
Aamir Khan, complete with kohl-lined eyes, ear rings and a nose pin, slips into the skin of a shifty Firangi Mallah, a duplicitous mercenary who thinks nothing of repeatedly switching sides for a few guineas more. His character is placed here as the counterpoint to the imperious Khudabaksh. Betrayal is the man’s defence mechanism. When he is called upon to shed his deviousness, he has to grapple with conflicting impulses. Had he played the role with a little more subtlety, it might have passed muster as a variation on the classic anti-hero.
The two lead actors are required to tilt heavily towards the excessive – the former is overly stuffy; the latter is a comic conman who has to resort to runaway methods to raise a few laughs. You do laugh but not at the gags but the silliness of the endeavor.
Wherever Khudabaksh goes, he is followed by a computer-generated falcon, which, too, gets its moment in the sun, albeit briefly, late in the film when the winged creature prevents Firangi from turning his back on a crucial mission assigned to him.
Going by the lingo that Firangi employs and his repeated references to Awadh, it is fair to surmise that north India is the setting. In one scene he claims he belongs to gaon Gopalpur, zila Kanpur; in another, he traces his origin back to gaon Rasoolpur, zila Fatehabad. But the jungle hideout of Khudabaksh’s ‘azaad‘ army is on either side of a creek by the sea, which allows the comings and goings of sea-faring vessels.
Clearly, geography isn’t the film’s forte – Thugs Of Hindostan goes wherever its whims takes it. If one is able to take this cavalier approach to locations – the argument could be that the film borders on a fantasy and so we should cut it some slack – some parts of it might actually work.
Thugs Of Hindostan is also a tad mixed-up in its idea of religions and cultures. While the principal characters are mostly Muslim, the rituals that they perform reflect Hindu practices. Is this a blow for positive integration or just plain negligence? The climax of the film unfolds in a fort on a Dussehra day and the burning of Ravana, symbolizing the triumph of good over evil. The cliché is couched in what could be seen as a departure from norm – it is one of the two heroines who gets to slay the demon.
There can be no denying that the film has been well shot. But the rather garish backdrops and the frequently shoddy, unnecessarily flighty VFX undermines the work of cinematographer Manush Nandan. Although the makers of this film have chosen to set the action two centuries ago, both the musical score (Atul-Ajay) and the dance moves smack more of kitschy Bollywood rather than evoking any sense of genuine time and place.
The girls in this male-dominated universe inevitably play second fiddle although Fatima Sana Sheikh, in the guise of Zarifa, whose father, Mirza Sikander Beg (Ronit Roy), is killed by Clive at the outset of the film before she finds protection under the wings of Khudabaksh, does have a few scenes in which she comes into her own. In contrast, Katrina Kaif, cast as dancing girl Suraiyya, is used primarily to liven up the song and dance routines.