I don't get the hype around Dhurandhar Returns - Page 4

The movie is one of its kind. it should not be compared with regular movies that shows violence. there is no mysoginy, vulgarity. Just pure storytelling. audience accepted it with open arms.

I think even Indians, who are not patriotic can thoroughly enjoy this.

Originally posted by: naaznin

Even fighter had indo pak theme n many other movies but they couldn't click with audience.

Please 😹😹

So are you going to describe the very recent Border 2 as ‘pro-Pakistan’ next? The joke’s on you

https://x.com/box_off_india/status/2017887555815875047

Originally posted by: Sparkle_Soul

Please 😹😹

So are you going to describe the very recent Border 2 as ‘pro-Pakistan’ next? The joke’s on you

https://x.com/box_off_india/status/2017887555815875047

Couldn't understand what you r trying to say

Also haven't watched border 2

The complete first overview by AI was this for Sarfarosh controversies (which doesn't mean that it reflects my own opinion, okay?) - SouthPark only quoted the first one...

• "Aamir Khan's Defense: Aamir Khan, who starred in the film, recalled that they had to argue with the board that if Indian officials could name Pakistan in Parliament, the film should be allowed to do so as well.
• "Othering" and Identity Politics: The film has been analyzed for focusing on a "Hindu-Muslim" insider-outsider narrative, with some critics arguing it "othered" Indian Muslims by making them prove their national loyalty, while simultaneously presenting Pakistanis as inherently dangerous.
• Post-Partition Anxiety: The film used the figure of a Pakistani Ghazal singer as a "Muhajir" (refugee) who has turned into a terrorist, which some researchers felt amplified anxieties about historical partition and loyalty, reinforcing a "US vs. THEM" narrative.
• Direct Naming: The film is credited as one of the first Indian films to boldly use the names "Pakistan" and "ISI" explicitly instead of euphemisms like "padosi mulk" (neighboring country), which made the film highly controversial at the time but later set a trend in Bollywood.

Despite these worries, Sarfarosh was released and went on to be a huge success, coinciding with the Kargil War, which made it appear topical rather than merely jingoistic."

When scrolling down, one can find media-articles relative to that matter...

Actually, to me, it is a matter of doing research about a subject I want to get informed about instead of blindly giving a judgement

Originally posted by: Clochette

The complete first overview by AI was this for Sarfarosh controversies (which doesn't mean that it reflects my own opinion, okay?) - SouthPark only quoted the first one...

• "Aamir Khan's Defense: Aamir Khan, who starred in the film, recalled that they had to argue with the board that if Indian officials could name Pakistan in Parliament, the film should be allowed to do so as well.
• "Othering" and Identity Politics: The film has been analyzed for focusing on a "Hindu-Muslim" insider-outsider narrative, with some critics arguing it "othered" Indian Muslims by making them prove their national loyalty, while simultaneously presenting Pakistanis as inherently dangerous.
• Post-Partition Anxiety: The film used the figure of a Pakistani Ghazal singer as a "Muhajir" (refugee) who has turned into a terrorist, which some researchers felt amplified anxieties about historical partition and loyalty, reinforcing a "US vs. THEM" narrative.
• Direct Naming: The film is credited as one of the first Indian films to boldly use the names "Pakistan" and "ISI" explicitly instead of euphemisms like "padosi mulk" (neighboring country), which made the film highly controversial at the time but later set a trend in Bollywood.

Despite these worries, Sarfarosh was released and went on to be a huge success, coinciding with the Kargil War, which made it appear topical rather than merely jingoistic."

When scrolling down, one can find media-articles relative to that matter...

Actually, to me, it is a matter of doing research about a subject I want to get informed about instead of blindly giving a judgement

Here comes the lying jihadi trash again lol. Didn’t say it was your opinion, okay? Asked for your non existent sources. Everything you write is AI, you have no original thought of yourself. Try actual research but even then that’s too hard for a Pakistani.

Originally posted by: Clochette

Whatever others see in or feel about Dhurandhar (1), it is a well made movie (imo).

The only reason I watched was because this hype. But for me it didn’t quite live up to it.

Predictable but decent screenplay, and the pacing was good, but there is nothing to write home about. In some scenes, the music also felt overpowering, undermining the sense of espionage realism. Maybe my expectations were high as it was touted as a well-made spy thriller, and it leans towards tapping into nationalistic emotion (and aura farming?). It was hardly a spy movie; there’s no character arc for the protagonist (which may be covered in the second part), and there are no interesting espionage mechanics (Raazi handled the genre better). The action often felt like it relied on gore mainly for shock value. Madhavan's righteous character, something about the way he is written or portrayed, does not quite work. The heroine's father, the one who might sell Karachi, is interesting. He is so flawed in a somewhat contrived way. The rest of the characters come across as largely one-note or predictable. And the classic "fiction" in the disclaimer then tries to adopt a documentary style to dodge accountability, which is narratively dishonest.

At the end of the day, you don't get a 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' nor 'Mission Impossible'.

The grace I can give it is that it didn’t piss me off like 'The Great Flood', which I watched around the same time. Short review: I was rooting for the flood.

I agree with you relative to the content... (although I wasn't 'disappointed' as I didn't expect something else).