Neil Welch
Louis Mountbatten is appointed Viceroy of India to shepherd through India's independence: he will be the last Viceroy after 300 years of British government. However, the Muslim population of India wants the simultaneous creation of Pakistan, splitting India, and Mountbatten hasn't been told everything agreed by the British establishment prior to his appointment. Meanwhile, a young Hindu man in the Viceroy's household loves a young Muslim woman...This film tells two stories simultaneously: the story of independence and the accompanying partition of India, and the rather soapy accompanying romance of Jeet and Aalia. I assume that they are fictitious in the manner of Titanic's Jack and Rose, sympathetic characters to hang your audience identification on, so as to give the events more impact.The film is nicely presented, with production value on display all over the place. OK, so perhaps the crowd scenes aren't quite as extensive as they were in Gandhi, but the location work and set design is still very impressive.And we have a quality cast, too, with Hugh Bonneville looking and sounding nothing like Mountbatten, but providing a pleasing screen presence. Gillian Anderson as his wife gets much closer to the accent one expects. And the rest of the cast is solid, too - first division, reliable English thesps, with some names among the Indian cast members who are recognisable to Western filmgoers.It is interesting, especially if you are not well-informed about this period in Indian (and British) history, and very slickly put on screen, but it is just the tiniest bit dull. The romance sub-plot does hold the interest but if, as I suggest it may be, it is fictitious, that perhaps reduces the credibility of the film as a whole.I'm glad I watched this, but I don't anticipate watching it again.
Martin Bradley
A history lesson but a good one. Gurinder Chada's "Viceroy's House" is about the British withdrawl from India and the eventual partition of the country and it's a highly intelligent picture, full of good talk. In order to sell it to a wider market there's a 'Romeo and Juliet' style love story between two young Indians that makes up a fairly substantial subplot though it is the divisions that exist between the Hindu and Muslim staff that provides the film's real interest.Cast as Viceroy Lord Mountbatten, Hugh Bonneville brings more than a touch of Downton Abbey to the Viceroy's House though Gillian Anderson is outstanding as Lady Edwina while the entire supporting cast deserve kudos. Hardly likely to set the multiplexes alight on a Saturday night this is still well worth seeking out.
Suradit
While the movie dealt with the disaster that was the handover of India to it's people and the carnage of partition, the story centered its attention on the ridiculously palatial British Viceroy's House, the farcical pomposity of the British who conducted their business there and the countless number of Indian servants whose behavior and attitudes which reflected those of the Indian population at large.As Churchill said, "History is written by the victors," and thus British colonialism in general, and people such as the Mountbattens in particular, have long been blindly glorified and exculpated.
At least this movie helps to expose Mountbatten as the fatuous tool of the politicians that he was, chosen for his gullibility and his obsession with inflating his reputation. His wife and daughter come across as being the sympathetic, but clueless ego-centric do-gooders that they were.The rush to hand over India, as one servant in the movie aptly stated, was because the British didn't want to be accountable for the inevitable carnage. As we were informed at the end of the film, countless millions were displaced and one million died, with the blame conveniently shifted onto independent India.
This moment in Indian history, the obvious focus of the movie, and the resultant blood shed, as horrific as it was, would pale in comparison with an honest assessment of the death, destruction, enslavement and exploitation visited on India during the previous centuries of British rule. Shashi Tharoor recently claimed that Britain was responsible for the deaths of 35 million Indians. The accuracy of his numerical claim is irrelevant, but it does provide a contextual comparison.The family of the film's director, Gurinder Chadha, suffered from the partition debacle and from the irresponsible colonial rulers. Possibly the time has come for history to be portrayed by its victims, rather than the supposed victors. Gurinder Chadha has been accused of bias in her film's portrayal of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Indian Muslims.
jeffreyvisualarts
Had uninteresting, dull characters. Music was annoying and inappropriate. Length was too long. Weak romance attempt. Boring dialogue. Tiring political discussions pondering to those who pretend Hollywood can be informative. If you're too lazy to read a history book, desperate for something to do, don't care about substance or quality filmmaking, will watch anything, and remain stubbornly/falsely positive about what you spend your money on, (and have $12 to blow,) you'll probably love this movie.
AD
