‘Thugs of Hindostan’ reunites writer/director Vijay Krishna Acharya and leading Bol­lywood star Aamir Khan, whose previous team up gave us ‘Dhoom 3’—the 2013 heist film that saw Khan play an illusionist turned bank rob­ber. Accused of drawing on plot elements from ‘The Prestige’ and ‘Now You See Me’ and featuring VFX mayhem of crazy and outright silly action stunts, the third installment of the Dhoom series was mostly panned. But despite its weak critical reception, it went on to become a Bollywood blockbuster. While still riding on the high wave of making one of the highest earning Hindi films ever, Acharya and Khan were handed a mammoth budget for their next film, Thugs of Hindostan, deemed to be the most expensive Hindi film ever made. If only lavish spending could mag­ically transform mediocre storytell­ing. Thugs of Hindostan is a poorly structured film that tries to cover up its design faults with patchy VFX work and overbearingly loud action sequences. Movie audiences will fail to find a true Bollywood adventure; but rather an exhaustive ordeal that whirlpools with predictability.

The year is 1795 and India is under the control of British East India Company. We meet Firangi Mallah (Aamir Khan), a smooth-talking trickster who earns his bread by helping gangs of Indian thugs rob passing travelers and then dou­ble crossing those Indian thugs by handing them over to the British officials. Impressed by his tricks and charms, and the notion that his loyalty can be bought, the cruel Brit­ish officer Clive (Lloyd Owen) gives Firangi the job to infiltrate the gang of outlaws led by Khudabaksh Azaad (Amitabh Bachchan), who seeks to chase away the British from the kingdom of Raunakpur, so that Prin­cess Zafira (Fatima Sana Shaikh), the rightful heiress to the throne, gets her kingdom back.

Even though Vijay Krishna Acha­rya sets his film during the Brit­ish Raj, Thugs of Hindostan is his­torically inaccurate. He chooses the aesthetics of classic Holly­wood swashbuckler adventures featuring pirates, cannon fights and swords duels. Khudabaksh’s outlaws live like gypsies in a cave and Firangi’s dressed like the Mad Hatter in ‘Alice in Wonderland’. Anyone used to this familiar narra­tive could easily guess how things proceed after Firangi penetrates Khudabaksh’s gang and how his unchanging deceitful nature is trans­formed by a greater calling. Acharya packs in no new surprises to chal­lenge our assumptions.

Aamir Khan makes do by portray­ing Firangi in animated and playful strokes. What’s essentially missing from Firangi is that he’s not much likable as the film’s protagonist. His double crossing intention is stretched so far that when he has a change of heart, it feels very make believe. Bachchan as Khudabaksh mostly glooms and harps on about “freedom” and “country’s soil”. Fatima Sana Shaikh, who ought to be the film’s emotional core and the one who wants to come to peace with her parents’ murder at the hands of the British, is sidelined by the stature of both Khan and Bachchan. She strictly maintains a tight face and emotes the feeling of distaste throughout the movie. And poor Katrina Kaif is restricted to two song sequences and in very brief flirty exchanges with Firangi.

Thugs of Hindostan is very pre­dictable and rarely has moments that take you to the edge of your seat. If the film turns out to be a box office winner for Aamir Khan and Vijay Krishna Acharya, then the real victims will be the audiences who let themselves get tricked by a movie made with sheer lack of imagina­tion, ambition and purpose.