Dhoom 3

Cast: Aamir Khan, Abhishek Bacchan, Udhay Chopra, Katrina Kaif, Jackie Shroff; Music: Pritam; Direction: Vijay Krishna Acharya

The biggest drawback of Dhoom 3 is that Aamir Khan is in it. Had he not been there, the makers would not have attempted to ‘build’ any story in the first place. Therefore, where the story is absent, lots of bikini clad chicks would have been there. Those cool bikes would have been more visible. Those one-liners would have been cheekier and, also, there would have been many more of them. The camera would have longingly lingered more on abs and biceps of men and midriffs and cleavages of women.

Instead, because this actor called Aamir Khan has been signed to play Sahir, the villain, there’s a need to build a story, write a layered script, and attempt to give dimensions to the character. Because, obviously, only Aamir would have insisted on these things, the writers had bothered to create a story, a goal and some existential dilemma for his antagonist character. All others, however, just appear as cut outs! Especially the bankers, who are actually the real villains in the story, are portrayed in a pathetically half-dimensional form! The chief of the bank has only four lines in the entire film and he utters them at the most mechanical precision. And Jai (Bacchan Jr.) has nothing better to do than look serious throughout and wear some laughably simple disguises. And then, you can’t have Dhoom without a chick to work with the villain and dance in skimpily clad attires, can you? Looks like only the choreographers had been informed that Katrina has been signed in the film and so the writers didn’t factor her at all in the script. And, since the main premise of the film is so darn serious, we don’t even hear Ali’s (Udhay Chopra) one-liners, which are far and few anyway.

In another Dhoom movie, without Aamir in it, the Chicago cop Victoria would have danced to a song (in a bikini; yes, that’s important). And Jay’s wife would have accompanied him to the US to dance along in those songs too. Finally, Ali would have imagined marrying and having children with many more women in Chicago.

Therefore, because of the weight of the story of the Sahir character, any semblance of light-hearted fun is sapped from the film. To be fair, this would have worked perfectly if Sahir’s story itself had been made as a separate film. That film should not have been titled as Dhoom though. Imagine the story of an ingenious bank-robber-in-the-day-and-a-circus-artist-cum-magician-in-the-night in Chicago who carries a painful past and a secret present. That is a killer formula and the revelation of his secret present would have moved audience to tears.

Not in a Dhoom movie. Here, they come to ogle at the movie, not watch, participate, reflect, etc. It’s like making a thinking James Bond film. Yes, you’re right, there’s no such thing!

In his review of Dhoom 2, Rajeev Masand says he believed that  ‘the makers (of Dhoom 2) secretly went into the heads of young women and men and listened to their most private thoughts and ultimate fantasies, and then decided “let’s give it to them”’.

Well, the makers of Dhoom 3 apparently went into the heads of Forrest Gump fans and listened to their deepest fears, and then decided ‘let’s give it to them’.