Reviewer’s note: The following review of “Sikandar” contains what could be considered major spoilers of the film’s plot.

Mounted on a budget of approximately US$23.3m, the Hindi-language action potboiler “Sikandar”—directed by A. R. Murugadoss (“Sarkar,” 2018)—is the second most expensive movie starring Salman Khan (“Tiger 3,” 2023) in a leading role. And, for all intents and purposes, it fulfills all prerequisites to be called a feature film. With a runtime of 135 minutes and the presence of both a cast and crew in making an audiovisual intellectual property comprising cinematography, music, and performances, one can call this a movie—possibly even one that’s competently made.

Then again, so are the most expensive mainstream blockbuster tentpoles. To put it bluntly, the bar for masala films is on the floor here. All the makers of “Sikandar” had to do was to exhibit an ounce of sincerity in its storytelling for its viewers to connect with the story they’ve paid the price of a ticket to watch on the big screen—and for its first 20 minutes, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s a smarter undertone to this big-budget potboiler.

The opening action sequence perfectly establishes the cool factor of its eponymous character—it’s reasonably well executed, and we’re immediately made aware that the protagonist is a rich daredevil with a heart (and probably literal heaps) of gold when he saves a woman from sexual harassment from a leery nepo-baby of a corrupt politician. But its biggest show of promise is when Rashmika Mandanna (“Animal,” 2023) enters the frame. Essaying the role of Sikandar’s wife, Saishri, who balances shrewd political strategy with the traits of an emotionally mature empath, Mandanna is an absolute powerhouse, and her conviction makes you desperately want a political thriller with her as the sharp, strategic antihero.

Of course, the Sikandar giveth, and the Sikandar taketh away. Saishri’s character is fridged less than halfway through the movie. The rest of the narrative centers around Khan’s eponymous character traveling to Mumbai to keep the memory of her good deeds alive, coming directly into conflict with corrupt politician Rakesh Pradhan (Sathyaraj; “Baahubali: The Beginning,” 2015), who won’t stop at anything to bring him down.

While the film itself feels like it’s coasting on Salman Khan’s (currently dubious) star power, the issue here lies in its insistence to be a poor man’s Batman, without the Campbellian Hero’s Journey Bruce Wayne goes through or the proper narrative framing for a larger-than-life protagonist in a position of privilege helping civilians. With Khan, we’ve got someone whose text tells us he’s rich, beats bad guys up, and is a ‘Good Guy.’ What the framing tells us, however, is that he’s an underdog at loggerheads with systemic corruption and class disparity—which feels like a real whiplash by the time you’ve watched half the film.

This turns what is framed as a high stake into a minor inconvenience because most systemic obstacles imposed by the antagonist are course-corrected with either a phone call or—because Sikandar is stacked with generational wealth—making his money do the talking. What remains, then, is the physical combat, which he already seems to have mastered.

So then, what’s the point? The answer is simple: there is none, at least not beyond the Salman Khan die-hards who just want to watch the movie star be cool on the big screen for a couple of hours. Sure, it’s competently made content and fulfills the basic tenets of technical quality control. Of course, if that were the only barometer to judge whether a film succeeds, we’d be showering praises on the infamous 2011 Adam Sandler comedy “Jack and Jill.” Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case then, and it can’t be one now, either.