One trailer. Four minutes. And suddenly, Bollywood’s biggest controversy of 2025 isn’t about a leaked script or a casting scandal.
It’s about whether a mainstream film has crossed into terrorist propaganda territory.
On Monday, November 18, 2025, mere hours after the Dhurandhar trailer dropped online, one of India’s most influential YouTubers with millions of followers unleashed a critique so savage, so uncompromising, that it made the film’s graphic violence look tame by comparison.
Dhruv Rathee, the political commentator known for his no filter approach to controversial topics, didn’t just say the trailer was too violent. He didn’t simply critique the gore. He compared it to ISIS beheading videos. He accused director Aditya Dhar of crossing “limits of cheapness.” He claimed the filmmaker’s “lust for money is so unhinged” that he’s “willingly poisoning young minds.”
Those aren’t movie review buzzwords. That’s declaring war.
Within hours, Bollywood actor Ranvir Shorey fired back. The internet split into warring factions. Fans defended the film’s artistic freedom. Critics demanded CBFC intervention. And suddenly, a spy thriller about cross border operations became ground zero for the biggest debate about violence, ethics, and responsibility in Indian entertainment.
This isn’t just about one movie anymore. This is about where we draw the line. Share this with everyone arguing about it because the conversation is just getting started.
The Tweet That Launched A Thousand Arguments
Dhruv Rathee didn’t hold back. His post on X (formerly Twitter) landed like a bomb on November 18.
“Aditya Dhar has truly crossed a limit of cheapness in Bollywood. The extreme violence, gore and torture shown in his latest film trailer is the equivalent of watching ISIS beheadings and calling it entertainment.”
ISIS beheadings. Not “a bit much.” Not “too violent for families.” ISIS. Beheadings. The terrorist organization that became globally infamous for publishing execution videos designed to terrorize the world.
That’s the comparison Rathee made. To a Bollywood film. Starring Ranveer Singh. Produced by Jio Studios. Set for mainstream theatrical release on December 5.
He continued: “His lust for money is so unhinged that he is willingly poisoning the minds of the young generation, desensitizing them to gore and glorifying unimaginable torture.”
Those are fighting words. Rathee didn’t critique the film. He attacked the filmmaker’s character, questioned his motives, and accused him of causing social harm for profit.
The post currently has millions of impressions. Thousands of comments. And created the most polarized reaction to a film trailer in recent Bollywood history.
The Specific Scenes That Sparked Outrage
So what exactly is in this trailer that triggered such extreme criticism?
According to multiple reports, the four minute Dhurandhar preview contains:
Extended torture sequences showing characters being brutally beaten while restrained. Blood splattering across walls and floors in graphic detail. A scene where Arjun Rampal’s character, playing an ISI major, appears to flay a man alive. Akshaye Khanna portraying a Lahore gangster shown stoning someone to death. Close up shots of knives piercing flesh. Characters screaming in agony during prolonged suffering. Ranveer Singh’s spy character covered in blood, cigarette dangling from his mouth, delivering threats in a gravelly voice.
This isn’t stylized action violence like Marvel movies where heroes punch bad guys and everyone falls down cleanly. This is realistic depiction of torture, mutilation, and death. The kind of imagery that makes audiences physically uncomfortable.
The trailer markets the film as based on true events about Indian intelligence operations in Pakistan. The tagline calls Ranveer’s character “The Wrath of God.” And every frame drips with blood, rage, and the promise of more brutality to come.
For context, Animal starring Ranbir Kapoor faced similar criticism for extreme violence in 2023. That film became a massive box office success despite controversy. But even Animal’s defenders admit Dhurandhar’s trailer goes further.
Don’t miss what Ranvir Shorey said that turned this into an all out Twitter war.
The Ranvir Shorey Counterattack That Made Everything Worse
Dhruv Rathee’s criticism might have been just another controversial opinion. But then Bollywood actor Ranvir Shorey entered the chat.
In a follow up post, Rathee wrote: “I was wrong, back then I didn’t understand the impact such films have on society.”
Shorey, known for his outspoken personality and recent Bigg Boss appearance, replied with dripping sarcasm: “Buddy, you’re wrong most of the time, but I love how you’ve turned that into a career.”
The gloves came off.
Rathee fired back: “Better than a career where you have to do fake fights on Bigg Boss for livelihood 🥲🥲”
And just like that, a debate about film violence became personal. Shorey mocking Rathee’s career as a political commentator. Rathee hitting back about Shorey’s reality TV stint. The internet watching with popcorn as two public figures went for each other’s throats.
The exchange highlights how polarized this debate has become. Shorey’s defense of the film positions it as artistic freedom being attacked by self righteous critics. Rathee’s counterattack suggests actors defending the violence are complicit in normalizing brutality for paychecks.
Neither side is backing down. And the film hasn’t even released yet.
The CBFC Question Everyone’s Asking
In his original post, Dhruv Rathee directly called out India’s Central Board of Film Certification: “Now is the time for the Censor Board to show what it actually has a problem with: people kissing or the skinning of a living person.”
That’s a pointed critique of CBFC’s history. The board has historically been criticized for censoring kissing scenes, romantic content, and political satire while allowing extreme violence to pass. Rathee’s sarcasm suggests the board’s priorities are backwards.
Fans of the film are terrified CBFC will impose heavy cuts. Social media is filled with pleas begging the board not to ruin Dhurandhar with censorship. One viral post read: “#Dhurandhar trailer is absolutely insane. The cast looks transformative, Ranveer is on another level, and #AdityaDhar’s vision screams vengeance and intensity. One of the finest action trailers in years. CBFC, don’t mess this up!”
Memes have already started circulating. One shows CBFC preparing scissors, beep sounds, and mute buttons specifically for Dhurandhar. Another jokes “CBFC office mein rona dhona chal raha hoga” (CBFC office must be crying right now).
The irony is delicious. Critics want CBFC to ban or heavily censor the film for extreme violence. Fans want CBFC to leave it untouched to preserve artistic vision. The board is caught between accusations of being too strict and not strict enough.
And the film’s three hour runtime means there’s a lot of potential content to cut. If even the four minute trailer is this controversial, what does the full movie contain?
The Animal Comparison Nobody Can Avoid
Every discussion about Dhurandhar eventually mentions Animal. Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s 2023 film starring Ranbir Kapoor became one of the year’s biggest blockbusters while simultaneously sparking massive controversy for toxic masculinity, graphic violence, and problematic relationship dynamics.
Critics hated it. Audiences loved it. The film collected over 900 crore rupees worldwide despite or perhaps because of the controversy.
Dhurandhar seems to be following a similar playbook. Extreme violence that makes critics uncomfortable but potentially attracts audiences craving intense theatrical experiences. The difference is Animal was about a flawed protagonist’s descent into darkness. Dhurandhar is marketed as patriotic cinema about heroes fighting terrorism.
That distinction matters. When violence serves a nationalist narrative, criticism becomes more complicated. Defenders can argue you’re unpatriotic for questioning the film. Critics can respond that weaponizing nationalism to justify graphic content is manipulative.
One fan tweet captured the sentiment: “After Animal, #Dhurandhar is the only trailer that’s giving me I CAN’T MISS IT IN THEATRE vibes.”
Another wrote: “Excellent! But the only issue is we don’t know how many scissors CBFC is going to use on it. With this much violence, an uncut release looks difficult.”
The Animal comparison cuts both ways. It proves controversial violent films can succeed commercially. But it also proves they spark lasting debates about cinema’s social responsibility.
What Aditya Dhar’s Silence Reveals
Here’s what’s interesting. Aditya Dhar, the director being accused of crossing limits of cheapness and having an unhinged lust for money, hasn’t publicly responded to Dhruv Rathee’s criticism.
Neither has Ranveer Singh. Neither has the production team at Jio Studios or B62 Studios.
The official silence is strategic. Engaging with the controversy validates it. Defending the violence risks escalating criticism. Ignoring it lets the film’s supporters fight the battle while the creators stay above the fray.
Dhar’s previous film Uri The Surgical Strike earned him a National Film Award and became a cultural phenomenon. That film had violence but positioned it within feel good patriotism. Dhurandhar clearly aims for darker, grittier territory.
The question is whether Dhar sees this controversy as vindication that he’s pushing boundaries or concern that he’s alienated potential audiences. His silence suggests he’s confident in his vision and willing to let the film speak for itself on December 5.
But silence also means Rathee’s accusations stand unchallenged. The ISIS comparison. The poisoning young minds claim. The lust for money charge. All of it remains on the record without rebuttal.
That’s either extreme confidence or calculated risk.
The Divided Internet Shows No Middle Ground
Scroll through social media reactions to Dhurandhar and the Dhruv Rathee controversy. You’ll notice something fascinating. There’s almost no middle ground.
People either passionately defend the film’s right to show graphic violence or vehemently condemn it as irresponsible. Few opinions fall in between.
Defenders argue:
- Artistic freedom allows filmmakers to explore dark themes
- The film is based on true events involving real brutality
- Adults can handle mature content without being corrupted
- Censorship is worse than controversial content
- Critics are virtue signaling rather than engaging honestly
Critics counter:
- Graphic violence desensitizes audiences, especially youth
- Profiting from torture imagery is ethically questionable
- Nationalist framing doesn’t justify glorifying brutality
- The film industry has responsibility beyond entertainment
- There’s a difference between showing violence and reveling in it
Both sides have valid points. And that’s what makes this controversy so compelling. There’s no obvious right answer. It’s a genuine ethical debate about art, commerce, society, and responsibility.
The polarization mirrors larger cultural divides. Political leanings influence how people interpret the film. Dhruv Rathee’s known liberal positions make some dismiss his criticism as agenda driven. Ranvir Shorey’s defense gets framed through his political stances.
What started as film criticism has become proxy warfare for broader ideological battles.
The True Story Angle That Complicates Everything
Dhurandhar markets itself as inspired by incredible true events. That framing changes the ethical calculation.
If you’re making a fictional torture film for shock value, criticism is straightforward. But if you’re depicting actual operations conducted by real intelligence officers who risked everything for national security, does that justify graphic content?
The film appears based partially on stories involving Ajit Doval’s undercover work and Major Mohit Sharma’s infiltration of terrorist networks. These were real people conducting dangerous operations under unimaginable pressure.
Defenders argue showing sanitized versions dishonors their sacrifice. The reality of intelligence work is brutal, ugly, and traumatic. Pretending otherwise is disrespectful to people who lived through it.
Critics respond that you can honor sacrifice without graphic torture sequences. Schindler’s List dealt with Holocaust horrors without becoming exploitation. Saving Private Ryan showed war’s brutality without reveling in gore. Mature filmmaking finds balance.
The true story angle also raises questions about exploitation. Are real people’s trauma and sacrifice being commodified for box office returns? Or is telling their stories an act of honoring their service?
There’s no easy answer. And that ambiguity is precisely why this controversy has such staying power.
What December 5 Will Actually Reveal
All the debate, all the criticism, all the passionate defense means nothing until the film releases December 5.
Here’s what we’ll learn on opening day:
Will audiences show up despite or because of the controversy? Animal proved controversy doesn’t hurt box office. But direct ISIS comparisons might be different.
How much did CBFC cut? If the theatrical version is heavily censored, does that vindicate Rathee’s concerns or prove the system works?
Does the full film justify its violence? Maybe context makes everything less exploitative. Or maybe it’s even worse than the trailer suggests.
What’s the critical consensus? Will respected film critics side with Rathee’s assessment or celebrate Dhar’s bold vision?
How does international media react? Dhurandhar depicts Pakistan and terrorism. The geopolitical implications could spark reactions beyond entertainment criticism.
Does it launch a trend or become a cautionary tale? If successful, expect more ultra violent mainstream films. If it underperforms, studios might pull back.
The three hour runtime means audiences will experience sustained intensity. That’s either immersive filmmaking or exhausting excess. Early reviews will indicate which.
The Bigger Question This Forces Us To Answer
Strip away the personalities, the Twitter beef, the political undertones. The Dhurandhar controversy forces a fundamental question:
Where’s the line?
How much violence is too much for mainstream entertainment? Who decides that line? Should audiences vote with wallets? Should certification boards impose standards? Should critics shame filmmakers who cross boundaries?
Every society throughout history has grappled with art’s relationship to violence. Greek tragedies featured brutal imagery. Shakespeare piled bodies on stage. Tarantino built a career on stylized gore. The question never gets definitively answered because tolerance changes with culture, technology, and context.
What’s notable about Dhurandhar is how quickly the debate escalated. One trailer. One critical tweet. And suddenly we’re having society wide conversations about ethics, responsibility, and artistic freedom.
That suggests we’re at an inflection point. Cinema is pushing boundaries faster than cultural consensus can keep pace. Filmmakers exploit that gap. Critics try to pull things back. Audiences navigate the space between.
There’s no resolution coming. But the conversation itself matters. Because it forces examination of what we consume, why we consume it, and what impact that consumption has on individuals and society.
Drop a comment: Is Dhruv Rathee right to compare Dhurandhar to ISIS videos? Or is he overreacting to artistic expression? Will you watch the film December 5?
Share this with everyone arguing about it. The debate is just getting started. And follow for updates when the film actually releases and we discover whether the controversy was justified.
When a YouTuber’s movie criticism starts Twitter wars and forces conversations about cinema’s soul, something bigger than entertainment is happening. Whether you agree with Rathee or think he’s wrong, the Dhurandhar controversy is 2025’s most important film debate. And it’s far from over.
