Master in Dhurandhar: Revenge

Dhurandhar Part 2 – Review

Part 1

I just returned from Part 2. Like the first installment, the movie is longer again. While individual scenes feel a little faster compared to Part 1, the overall impact isn’t as effective. There is a significant amount of action and violence, but much of it doesn’t have the same weight or memorability, making parts of the film feel repetitive over time.

The only section that stands out is the opening chapter. Jaskirat’s intro fight along with the flashback portion work well and align closely with the tone and quality established in Part 1. It feels controlled, engaging, and purposeful. However, beyond this point, the film struggles to maintain the same coherence. The change in treatment is notable and the rest of the narrative does not reach the same level of commitment.

On the topic of narrative choices, certain elements feel more pronounced here compared to Part 1. The demonetisation scandal subplot, for example, doesn’t seem naturally integrated into the story. It feels somewhat forced and less convincing in its execution, which affects the perfect fit with the rest of the film.

In terms of character writing, there are some areas that seem underused. The character of Arjun Rampal’s father does not add much to the overall narrative and could have been removed. The antagonist track also seems less impactful at the end compared to the presence and build-up seen in Part 1. Uzair Baloch, who had a stronger presence earlier, is also not used significantly in this installment, which seems like a missed opportunity.

Dawood’s performance is another aspect that stands out, although not particularly effectively. The description of him being physically weak and at the same time appearing to control larger operations like the ISI does not seem very convincing. It creates a disconnect that makes it harder to take the character seriously within the context of the film.

Ranveer Singh performs well in the flashback portions, where his appearance and performance are more aligned with the setting. In the rest of the film, however, the characterization seems less consistent with the grounded approach seen in Part 1. The film leans more toward a stylized masala presentation, with greater use of slow motion and giant sequences. Even moments designed to be shocking, such as recreated walking sequences, don’t have the same effect. In comparison, Akshaye Khanna’s walk in Part 1 with “FA9LA” remains more memorable than the repeated “DiDi” sequence used here. Ranveer’s overall appearance, particularly his long hair, also feels a bit excessive and distracting. A more moderate approach might have worked better. Overall, Ranveer is likely to receive a lot of recognition for this performance, including a national award.

As in Part 1, the leading lady doesn’t seem like a completely convincing match opposite Ranveer Singh, especially in the context of playing a mother of a young child. The cast seems slightly uneven in terms of age and partner. Additionally, her character follows a familiar Spy Universe pattern where she is aware of the protagonist’s identity but continues to help and protect him. This aspect seems somewhat predictable and should have been avoided, coming from Dhar.

Aditya Dhar, who demonstrated solid world-building and detail in Part 1, seems less consistent in control here. While the scale of the film is larger, the narrative execution doesn’t feel as tight or cohesive. The narrative doesn’t progress in a way that adds meaningful new layers, and at times the film feels stretched without enough added substance.

Another area where Part 2 falls short is the background score and musical integration. The score doesn’t leave much of an impression and the songs don’t always align effectively with the sequences they accompany. In Part 1, the use of background music and older tracks felt more carefully integrated, contributing to the overall mood and continuity. Here, the execution seems more rushed and the absence of recurring musical themes from Part 1 affects continuity. This results in a less cohesive audiovisual experience.

Some parts in the middle are more engaging, like the Pinda sequence. The montage of rival eliminations also recalls stylized sequences seen in films like Satya and Company, although the impact is somewhat uneven. Furthermore, the way the timelines are presented, including references to events such as Major Iqbal’s death in 2011, demonetisation in 2016, and the Atiq Ahmed incident in 2023, appear rearranged in a way that serves the narrative structure rather than following a strict chronological flow.

Overall, Part 2 has its moments, particularly in the opening stretch, the interval portion, and moments at the end, but it doesn’t maintain the same consistency throughout. While the scale and ambition are greater, the overall execution feels less tight compared to Part 1. The grounded storytelling and controlled presentation that worked well before are not as prominent here, which affects the film’s overall impact.

The film offers some closure towards the end, which makes it worth watching, and it is likely to succeed for that reason alone.