Dhurandhar is “long but strong,” as fans insist online
- Elizabeth Sanate
- Dec 6, 2025
- 3 min read
Some films don’t try to dazzle you at first glance. They take their time, settle in the shadows, and slowly make themselves impossible to ignore. That’s exactly what Dhurandhar is doing, and that’s exactly why fans are defending it so passionately online. They’re not celebrating its length. They’re insisting that the length is its strength.
The trailer itself hinted at this. Instead of racing through exposition or showing off action, it lingered on silences, stares, and tension. If even the preview refused to hurry, then the full runtime wasn’t meant to be fast either. Fans aren’t calling Dhurandhar long because it overstays its welcome. They’re calling it “long but strong” because its weight needs room to breathe.
So the real debate isn’t whether Dhurandhar is long. It’s whether stories built on infiltration, corruption, and consequence should ever be short.
Why Dhurandhar’s slow burn makes the film stronger
At the heart of Dhurandhar is a brutal mission set in motion by Ajay Sanyal, the IB chief who wants to dismantle a terror-underworld nexus that crosses borders. His answer isn’t a polished agent. It’s a damaged man with nothing to lose, sent to infiltrate Karachi’s Lyari underworld under Rehman Dakait, a name spoken more like a threat than a label.
A story like this can’t be rushed. It isn’t about explosions and chase scenes. It’s about the slow turning of a human being into an asset. Dhurandhar doesn’t throw its hero into action. It forces us to witness how survival becomes obedience, how fear becomes strategy, how identity becomes disguise. A transformation like that can’t be told quickly without lying about the cost. And that’s why fans insist the film isn’t long; it's long for a reason.
What Dhurandhar gains by taking 212 minutes
As the undercover web deepens, Dhurandhar doesn’t simply depict crime and espionage. It uncovers loyalty, trust, manipulation, and the desperate relationships built in places where morality can’t afford to exist. Rehman Dakait isn’t just a villain to be defeated; the film spends time showing why people follow him, why they fear him, and why they don’t walk away.
The young spy doesn’t just suffer one dramatic shock that “changes him.” We watch him grow strong and influential through meticulous deception. That’s why the runtime, one of the longest in modern Hindi cinema, doesn't feel like excess to its defenders. It feels necessary. You don’t earn betrayal, dread, or loyalty in minutes. You build it, moment by moment, until it hurts. And hurt takes time. That’s why fans aren’t praising the duration; they're praising the depth that only duration can give.
Netizens have spoken on Dhurandhar
X is now full of verdicts from people who walked out feeling overwhelmed but satisfied with the kind of exhaustion that comes from being pulled into a world instead of merely shown one.
Harshvardhan Ram (@FaaltuBooi7) kept it straightforward:
“If you enjoy big, gritty spy thrillers and don’t mind a very long runtime, ‘Dhurandhar’ is worth a theatre watch. I loved it.”
Translation? It’s long, yes. But the strength makes the length worth it.
Critic Subhash K Jha (@SubhashK_Jha) delivered a harsher praise:
“Water retention for 3.5 hours is not Aditya Dhar’s problem. Don’t think, don’t breathe, just watch Dhurandhar.”
He isn’t minimizing the runtime; he’s warning you that the film doesn’t intend to apologize for it.
Even mixed voices end up defending the film’s strength.
Malhar (@BackchodGPT) wrote:
“Could have been a bit shorter, but doesn’t feel stretched… there's enough material for this runtime.”
That’s the core argument: Dhurandhar is long, but it isn’t empty.
Meanwhile, others like Parth Chaturvedi (@_mrchaturvedi) question if dividing it into two parts is necessary. Yet even criticism proves the title right; the battle isn’t about whether Dhurandhar is long. It’s about acknowledging that its strength comes from taking its time.
Why Dhurandhar needs patience to leave an impact
Maybe Dhurandhar isn’t asking us to simply watch a long movie. Maybe it’s demanding patience because the world it builds isn’t entertainment meant to be skimmed. It feels like a test, a slow immersion into fear, loyalty, and survival where every minute adds weight, not waste.
The runtime becomes part of the experience. The exhaustion mirrors the character’s journey, the slow burn mirrors the infiltration, and the silence echoes the cost of living behind a disguise. A shorter version might have been easier to sit through, but that would take away the discomfort that gives the story its grip.
Fans defend it because the investment changes the impact. You walk out not just having watched something, but having carried it a heaviness that lingers long after the screen goes dark.
For more updates and film insights, stay tuned with The ScreenLight.
