‘Dunki’ (2023) Movie Review - Shah Rukh Khan is Good in a Bad Film

All three Shah Rukh Khan movies released this year are so lousy that you merely need to ask yourself, "How much of the film is tolerable?" to assess their quality. In this respect, only Pathaan achieves victory because its writing remains engaging even when the film slightly surpasses mediocrity. Jawan and Dunki, however, more or less exist on the same spectrum. They are incredibly unwatchable. Rajkumar Hirani's film, though, is somewhat better than the nonsense served by Atlee. Make no mistake, Dunki is also nonsense - a complete patriotic nonsense. But unlike Jawan, I didn't get this intense desire to leave the theater during the interval. That feeling only came near the end when Hardy (Khan) threw his Indian passport in the water. If only he had similarly thrown me out of the screening.

Who is Hardy? Good question. He is a soldier, and...umm...he likes his country. He apparently has no parents, no friends, and no siblings. Hardy is the kind of man who can, at any time, just pack his bag and go anywhere. He doesn't have to submit his resignation letter or leave application. This man has no superior officer. No one checks up on him on the phone. No one waits for him at home. Speaking of which, where is his home? I suspect if you ask Hardy the same question, he will open his arms and say, "India." In reality, however, Hardy is nothing but cardboard. This flat, unidimensional character is only bearable because Khan fortunately returns with his charm here. He was terribly dull in both Pathaan and Jawan, as those movies merely required him to give empty poses. His voice, too, seemed artificial. It felt like Khan lip-synced his dialogues on the sets, and then a voice artist dubbed his lines in post-production. Thankfully, no such jarring issues come from the actor's side here. Dunki would have instantly collapsed without Khan's appealing presence.

Still, you can't help but wonder if the people who passionately defended and mined mind-bogglingly hilarious subtexts from the mediocrity of Pathaan and the clumsiness of Jawan would also defend a boring character like Hardy by saying things like, "He is meant to be this way. He, after all, represents India!" Would they bring up the age gap (Taapsee Pannu is 36, and Khan is 58, and they are lovers in the film)? Would they be able to see that Khan, like Akshay Kumar, is slowly moving into the "patriotic territory?" Dunki even resembles a second-rate Akshay Kumar vehicle. It's just that due to Khan's presence, you also view Dunki as a dull Swades. Like that Ashutosh Gowariker film, Dunki is all about how great our country is. It's so brilliant that NRI's return after becoming homesick.

Dunki's message, however, is muddled. It merely contradicts itself. The film says that poor people cannot afford to legally cross the border, and many of them die through illegal passages. Meaning: A Hindi-speaking fifth fail student deserves to go to, say, London through the same route that's taken by an English-speaking graduate who has rich family members. The process should be smooth, and affordable. If the Britishers can come and rule over the Indians, why can't the Indians go to England? But then, Dunki screams that life in a foreign land is actually not that glorious. The grass merely looks green on the other side. People should seek comfort in their own homes because there's no place like home. Yawn. So, should you demand a fair visa process or eliminate the idea of settling in foreign countries altogether?

The title refers to the illegal process through which the characters go to England. Hirani presents the tribulations with all the dramatic power of a Wikipedia page. Namaste England depicted this process better and with more detail. The low-IQ jokes turn out to be better than the low-IQ emotional moments. The first half consists of chuckle-worthy scenes like the one set inside a barber shop and the one where Hardy rants in front of a stranger. We also get a nice, clever joke involving the national anthem, which suggests that there is an appropriate time and place for showing patriotism. Post-interval, however, even the jokes become weak as you are left with something as stupid as Hardy hitting men over a kiss. This gives rise to a situation with the police that ends up separating Manu (Pannu) and Hardy. This is all supposed to be taken seriously, but you merely wonder if Hirani, Kanika Dhillon, and Abhijat Joshi wrote Dunki along with the writers responsible for this year's biggest atrocity - Ganapath.

Vicky Kaushal is in the film. The more time he spends on the screen, the more depressed he becomes with his situation and his surroundings. Things become so terrible that he commits suicide (it's an awfully executed scene). Did his character secretly know that there is no hope for this movie? Thoughts like these keep your interest (faintly) alive in Dunki. This is unfair, no? The audience goes to the movies for entertainment. But films like Dunki take our money and tell us, "Thank you for the cash. Now go and amuse yourself." Perhaps next time, Khan should give a speech about the importance of good films. If his hardcore admirers think that the tokenistic gesture he shows in his movies can change the landscape of politics, his cinema speech might motivate the filmmakers to make - and this actor to act in - enjoyable films.

Final Score- [3.5/10]
Reviewed by - Vikas Yadav
Follow @vikasonorous on Twitter
Publisher at Midgard Times