Shashi Tharoor Praises Dhurandhar Films but Criticises Violence and Political Messaging

A review that combines praise with sharp criticism

Congress parliamentarian Shashi Tharoor has offered a notably mixed assessment of the Dhurandhar films, praising the suspense, performances and technical craft while objecting to excessive violence and political messaging. The remarks were discussed in reports published on October 20, after he shared a video assessment of the two-part spy thriller. This is not simply a politician attacking a popular film: Tharoor also said he found much of the experience compelling. That combination is why the response has attracted attention. The substantive story is how a public figure distinguishes admiration for cinema from disagreement with some of its portrayal of politics and intelligence operations.

What Tharoor liked about the films

Tharoor credited the plotting, twists, acting and production design, and reportedly preferred the second installment to the first as an entertainment experience. Reports from The New Indian Express and The Indian Express describe praise for the actors playing antagonists, including Akshaye Khanna and Arjun Rampal. That positive reaction deserves to be stated alongside his complaints. A headline focused only on the word propaganda would give readers an incomplete picture. He was weighing a broad cinematic experience rather than asking audiences to reject it outright, and his view contained both enthusiastic and critical elements that are best read together.

The concern about graphic violence

The strongest criticism concerned the amount and intensity of violent imagery. Tharoor said the depiction of brutality struck him as excessive, according to the published account of his video. That is an opinion about how the film tells its story; it is not a factual determination that a law was broken or that viewers necessarily experienced the material in the same way. Audiences differ in their tolerance for graphic action. Some consider it central to a spy thriller's atmosphere, while others feel it overwhelms the story. Reporting his criticism accurately means acknowledging that it is evaluative rather than an official classification decision.

Why he used the word propaganda

Tharoor also argued that the films contained political messaging and wondered how some Pakistani viewers might respond. That assessment reflects his interpretation of the film's presentation of India-Pakistan tensions. A scripted action story may use recognisable real-world history but remains a work of fiction, and political interpretations will vary among viewers. Saying a movie contains propaganda is a value judgment about its purpose or effect, not proof that its cast or crew secretly coordinated with a political organisation. The clearest account attributes the criticism to Tharoor rather than presenting the label as an objectively established classification of the films.

Fictional intelligence operations under scrutiny

The politician contrasted the thrilling activities depicted on screen with his experience of interactions involving intelligence officials, suggesting that dramatic operations should not be mistaken for routine administrative reality. He also questioned the plausibility of one senior security figure remaining in essentially the same position throughout a long historical timeline. Such observations are useful reminders that spy thrillers compress time and give individual characters a narrative importance that real bureaucratic organisations may spread among multiple officeholders. That does not automatically make fiction defective. It identifies one of the artistic choices that viewers are free to find convincing or implausible.

A public official can also be an audience member

Much of the reaction to the review reflects Tharoor's political identity, but the occasion itself was a person offering his assessment of a film. Public figures do not surrender the ability to discuss entertainment when they hold office. At the same time, their comments carry additional attention and may be interpreted as political statements even when they include standard film criticism. The best way to avoid caricature is to recount the specific points he praised and criticised. Treating the entire review as a single partisan endorsement or condemnation overlooks its varied substance and encourages a misleading either-or debate.

How a two-part saga shapes the response

A film series invites comparisons of pacing, revelations and emotional payoff between installments. Tharoor's preference for the second part is consistent with his praise for plot twists and the resolution of threads left open earlier. Those reactions concern storytelling structure, which can be discussed independently of an individual's response to the politics. A sequel may satisfy an audience member narratively while leaving objections about violence or historical plausibility unresolved. That distinction is a useful framework for readers who enjoyed the films but remain uncomfortable with particular scenes or messaging.

The difference between acclaim and agreement

A technically accomplished film can contain ideas that some viewers dispute, just as a politically agreeable story can be weakly made. Tharoor's comments are newsworthy partly because he resisted reducing the viewing experience to one of those dimensions. His praise of craft does not invalidate his criticism of violence, and his criticism does not erase the performances he admired. Entertainment coverage is more useful when it makes this distinction visible rather than translating every review into a binary social-media feud. Viewers can reach different conclusions without treating each other as dishonest or disloyal.

What should not be inferred from the review

The comments do not establish the reaction of every Pakistani viewer, prove claims about every country's exhibition rules or reveal the director's private intentions. Reports may reference overseas restrictions, but any specific ban requires its own dated regulatory evidence. Likewise, Tharoor's comparison with his professional experience should not be treated as a disclosure of classified operations. The video is an identifiable public review, and its strongest factual use is to show what he said about the films. A responsible article avoids turning observations about cinema into unsupported claims about diplomacy, national security or the creators' personal beliefs.

Why the debate has staying power

Dhurandhar has become a prominent example of how big-budget action films attract discussion beyond ticket sales and acting. Viewers talk about violence, national identity, cinematic ambition and the line between drama and historical representation. Tharoor's balanced-but-critical reaction adds one more identifiable perspective to that debate. It does not settle whether the films are artistically successful or politically fair for everyone. What it offers is an opportunity to discuss individual dimensions of a popular movie on their merits: the strength of the plot, the design of action, the realism of the setting and the ideas audiences take away.