"Thugs of Hindostan" is like Koffee with Karan, but without the gossip

The films challenge us for various reasons. Some are distinguished by their "what" (content), others by their "how" (form), others by their "what" and "how". Then there is the fourth type: the one concerning "who". It is the cinema of the privileged – wealthy producers who make possible the "who", the factor that transcends the "what" and the "how". The main curiosity here revolves around the stars. This multiplies if the manufacturers reach a cast shot: to convince two big names, not known for their collaboration, to share the time spent on the screen. This is sufficient in itself, since the filmmaker's job becomes irrelevant. The public indulges in voyeurism: watch the stars react to each other. It's a bit like Koffee with Karan, but without gossip and pretentious narration.

Such films will always be requested because we do not just love our stars, we venerate them. That's why it's no surprise that 'who''s cinema is being screened at festivals. In this Diwali, we have the film Thugs of Hindostan, by Vijay Krishna Acharya, produced by Yash Raj Films. An ancestral drama, Thugs of Hindostan takes place in 1795, when the East India Company began its rapid colonization of the country. The resistance comes from a gang of thugs, led by Khudabaksh Azaad (Bachchan), who aspires to liberate the Indian subcontinent – Hindostan – from foreign domination. Then there is another thug, the little rogue Firangi Mallah (Khan), completely devoid of conscience and object, hired by the British to capture Azaad and dismantle his group.

There is no need to reread the synopsis to understand the mechanics of this film. Two big stars, opposed one to the other, generate a hype and a plot: check. Play as hostile characters to each other to generate conflict and tension: check. Gather them later under the pretext of fighting the common enemy (because the stars who keep their images obsessively can not make any mistake): check. Sufficient sequences of action to distract you: check. Harsh clashes leading to a soft resolution and a meeting: check. It's a predictable movie and cliche, and if you've seen enough multi-roles, T Hindostan hugs – with one eye to the box office and the other to the vanity of the stars – do not will not surprise you.

However, this lack of ambition is not as problematic as lack of effort. At best, Thugs of Hindostan could have pleased the crowds. Which would have been nice: nothing was expected more. And for that to happen, his main actors had to do only one thing: show up for work. But they also fail to cross this ridiculously low bar.

Bachchan, who can wander through the masala films, leads the pack with his utter indifference and stupefying incompetence (like the chagrined eagle who follows him everywhere). His Azaad lacks fire and wit – this essential quality called on-screen presence – which makes you root for him, buy his greatness of language and manners. At 70, Bachchan may be too old to play a role that requires significant on-screen cascades, but even in dramatic sequences, based on loaded dialogues, he is totally dull. Katrina Kaif (there is no doubt when she starts playing) has a more anglicized accent than British commanders, illustrating the casual mediocrity that littered this film. Khan, who plays the role of a funny and amoral thug, constantly changes his loyalty, is a charming and attractive presence and, quite easily, the saving grace of the film. Firangi keeps us in a state of pleasant confusion and takes the essence of a film that is sometimes taken a little too seriously.

Take, for example, an exchange between Azaad and Firangi shortly after their first meeting. Azaad is cultivating a piece of land, all alone, sterile for ages. Perplexed, Firangi asks what he wants to cultivate. Azaad solemn and solemn says: "Sapnein [dreams]". There is a kind of game that blurs the line between melodrama and trolling: Bachchan realizes that in Thugs of Hindostan . Then, in the same scene, he says, "Azaadi is bada nasha kya hai [what is a better intoxicant than freedom]?" If this sentence had been delivered with a bit of conviction, you might have been moved. This dialogue gives rise at most to a shrug followed by "What floats in your boat, man."

What reminds me: Thugs of Hindostan is no shortage of ships, which form the backdrop for most action sequences. A majority of them, though well drawn, are spoiled by a distinctly poor CG, looking like snippets of a poorly crafted video game. The film is constantly missing – a predictable scenario, a mediocre game, poor visual effects – making it easily forgettable.

: the rapprochement of Khan and Bachchan. Two actors having very different approaches to acting, they could have raised this standard masala fare. The closest parallel of such an expected pair was evident in Mohabbatein (another production of Yash Raj), where Shah Rukh Khan and Bachchan shared an inflamed chemistry, resembling actors intended to act together. The Aamir Khan-Bachchan couple, on the other hand, has no spark, no humor, no intensity. We just expect to look at them and thank them. No matter what they do, the important thing is who they are. It's time for us to pull the cinema out of 'who'.

Published in agreement with The Wire.