Viceroy's House

I admit at the beginning that I only know about movies from what I see on thé screen and this film satisfied me in all respects. Of course, thé subplot was more than a little overworked and had I been more knowledgeable concerning the minuscule of the dialogue I perhaps could be more inflammatory regarding my comment, but alas I am far more uneducated than my fellow commentators. I loved the beauty of the film; the costumes, the buildings and the makeup of the individuals. I loved the street scenes, the fact that the extras were really there and not just computer composites. These components of the film are more important to me than the nuances of dialogue or the accuracy of that dialogue that took place seventy years ago. It is easy to understand why some commentators object so strenuously to unhistoric or inaccurate dialogue but to me, "close enough is good enough." It is a wonderful historical epic about a little-known facet of history so please attempt to see it before it is buried by the nay-sayers.

The picture Viceroy's House directed by Gurinder Chadha was screened out of competition at the Berlinale. The film tells the story of love between Jeet and Aalia set against the historical scenes surrounding partition of India in 1947. Their differing religious backgrounds become a source of conflict as the colonial rule terminates and India gets divided into Muslim Pakistan and secular India. Queen Victoria's great-grandson Lord Mountbatten arrives to Delhi as the last viceroy; he has the task of trying to make the smooth transition of power. The film broaches serious problems and is a skillful examination of the political turmoil of that time. The picture is shot in a dynamic fashion, has good camera-work and even has some humor. The film shows well the everyday life of the last viceroy of India, many interesting details create the unique atmosphere which is complimented by the soft sense of humor. It is a lavish production, features many impressive crowd scenes, beautiful interiors and exteriors as well as costumes. Some flaws of the film include that the romantic subplot was less developed than the historical narrative, which was shown in a more interesting way. Bonneville's acting as Lord Mountbatten is very convincing. Read more at: http://indie-cinema.com/2017/02/viceroys-house/

British Asian Gurinder Chadha has directed a hugely ambitious and well-intentioned film that has some serious flaws. It attempts to tell the story of the independence of India and the creation of Pakistan in 1947 - involving both the unseemly haste and the alleged political duplicity of the British and the intransigence of both the Hindu leader Jawaharlal Nehru and Muslim secessist Muhammad Ali Jinnah - through the device of an "Downton Abbey" upstairs/downstairs model in which the military and political figures upstairs have lines of stilted dialogue announcing information to the viewer, while the Hindu and Muslim young lovers downstairs are underwritten roles before ending up in a clichéd finale. The film looks grand with colourful sets and costumes and it sounds fine with a score by AR Rahman, while an array of thespian talent is on show from Hugh Bonneville as ever-reasonable Lord Mountbatten, Gillian Anderson as his plummy-speaking wife Edwina, Michael Gambon as conniving General Hastings Ismay, Simon Callow as the boundary-drawer Cyril Radcliffe, and less well-known but equally able actors in support roles. The problem is in the script which tries to telegraph too much information in an unnaturalistic manner, presents the local politicians in overly simplistic terms, and makes a serious charge against Winston Churchill with too little evidence. The partition of India was a tragedy of immense proportions: 14 million people were displaced - the largest migration in human history - and up to a million died as a result of sectarian violence, starvation and disease. For Chadha, it is a very personal story: many of her relatives were directly affected including her father's youngest sister aged 10 who starved to death. She clearly wanted to bring these huge issues to our attention in a manner that would attract viewers into a cinema and it is a partial success. However, critics have included Fatima Bhutto who has written: "Not once do you witness any violence on behalf of India's foreign rulers; they are serene and encouraging, weighed down with the heavy burden of soothing these wild, intemperate people."

This ought to have been excellent . Ghandi it is not , this period was covered far better by Richard Attenborough. What really let it down was the script , too many of the lines were contrived and delivered poorly . Gillian Anderson's stiff upper skirt's accent was so irritating and Hugh Bonnerville just played Hugh Bonnerville so you'd be forgiven if you thought you were watching an episode of Downton Abbey ! There was an attempt to add a bit of Shakespearean romance with the beautiful Huma Qureshi playing a Muslim with a Sikh love interest in Jeet. Her father being played excellently by Om Puri RiP . The cinematography was excellent as should be expected of such a beautiful country . The costumes were stunning . The newsreels however were embarrassing to watch as the CGI department were hired from a primary school superimposing the actors very poorly into actual footage . It was undoubtedly a personal film for Gurinder Chadha and we must not forget that this artificial division of India caused the death of over one million people through inter race violence and the displacement of some 14 million people - so historically it was an important film but it felt more like a documentary than a drama , there was no real engagement .

If you saw something similar in a high school world history class it would be interesting and effective. As a theatrical movie it misses the mark. It's 1947 time to grant India it's independence but there is a social, religious problem. The telegraphed answer is two countries. The movie is poorly writing and directed with way too many dialogue driven scenes. People sit around and talk about what is happening. On more then one occasion the question is asked and answered by throwing down the newspaper with the dramatic answer. The only time the movie was visual was the last few minutes showing rather then talking about the refugee issues. The house in the title serves as a metaphor for the division of the country with the silver flat wear being proportionately divided. Other scenes in the house seemed forced. The movie is in limited release and available on home platforms. No need to see this in a theater. Free is almost too much to pay for one.

Elephantine production that basically delivers very little, apart from the fact that 14 million people became displaced, and 1 million died, as India and Pakistan went separate ways. I always thought Mountbatten's only qualification for vice-royship was his membership of the royal family, and I continue to think that he, and the UK, just could not walk away fast enough from the entire mess that India's independence had become by late 1947. Direction is un-memorable; photography is too clever by half at times, and pedestrian for the most part; acting is uneven, with Anderson the saving grace. I kept expecting - flamboyant Bollywood tradition no doubt influencing my judgment - to see Gillian Anderson and her partner go into a dance where they nearly kiss, to some strident oriental tune, but the plodding plot just... plodded... to a sentimental, convenient, and schmaltzy ending, apart from the B&W photos at the end, showing some rather dire moments. There are better ways to spend money, let alone waste time (which is also money), than watching this overblown, long and often subjective account that commercializes history at best. Best avoided.

Viceroy's House-720P

Viceroy's House-360P

Viceroy's House-480P

Beautifully made movie with two main story lines: a political-world- line, and a very personal-love-line. Somehow it was so true about how life IS or CAN BE that it moved me and touched my heart deeply. Besides: Great actors (good casting!) and very beautifully spoken language. Whoever spoke was so good at it! (I'm into voices for my profession).The movie is a blueprint-story for all countries that have suffered and had profits from countries that were their 'masters'. It also shows that there are all sorts of 'masters'. Besides, that it's time to become brothers and sisters. the other storyline makes clear that LOVE can be something very special, especially when you live in between millions of countrymen and there's all kind of wars going on.The director points it out very clearly!!Good for her, because this could have ruined the movie, but it somehow didn't. GO!!