UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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.

Paul Allaer "Viceroy's House" (2017 release from the UK) brings the story of the partition of India. As the movie opens, the screen opens with "History is written by the victors". We then go to "Delhi, India. 1947", where the massive staff (all Indian, of course) is preparing the house (more like a palace) for the arrival of Lord Mountbatten, the last viceroy of India who is tasked with transferring power. In a parallel story, the viceroy's personal assistant Jeet (who is Hindu) reconnects with the beautiful Alia, who is the personal assistant of Mrs. Mountbatten and who is Muslim and already betrothed to another Muslim guy. At this point we are 10 min. into the movie but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from British-Indian director Gurinder Chadha, best known for directing "Benf It Like Beckham" (has that really been 15 years ago already)? Here she goes the direction of a historical drama reminiscent of, say, "Lawrence of Arabia" or of course "Ghandi". Alas, it didn't turn out that well. The acting is OK, no more, no less. Gillian 'X Files" Anderson is the best of the large cast as the inclusive Mrs. Mountbatten, but even she has to bring "memorable" lines like "We are bringing the future, let's not make a mess of it!", yes, really! More disturbing, the movie makes a specific allegation (no worries, I won't spoil it) about the underlying reason for the partition, which allegation has never been proved or substantiated and as far as I know is an outright fantasy. But worst of all is the cheesy romance/love story between Jeet and Alia, which never was engaging or believable as it played out here, even though in real life there were of course many such "inter-religious" instances. On the plus side, the photography is pure eye-candy, and the original score, courtesy of Indian composer A. R. Rahman, is outstanding."Viceroy's House" premiered at this year's Berlin Film Festival, and it finally opened last weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati pretty much out of the blue and without any hype. The Tuesday early evening screening where I saw this at turned out to be a private screening: I was literally the only person in the theater. Given the flaws of this movie, I cannot see this playing long in the theater. If you are interested in "Viceroy's House" due to being a historical drama, keep your expectations low. I encourage you to check it out, be it in the theater, on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.

pacolopezpersonal-22057 Once again we can see the brightness of the British Empire, the Pomp and Circumstance. Essentially anglophile where the simple and human behavior of the upper social classes towards people (supposedly) of inferior class or of different culture or religion is a trait something difficult to find and therefore very appreciated when it is produced. The movies shows the last moments of the transfer of sovereignty to India, the process of the creation of Pakistan as a nation and the collateral victims of political intrigue represented here by the viceroy and his wife (officially designated to carry out the whole task) and that despite the efforts of both of them they turn out to be simply marionettes of the British government. To alleviate the great political content of the plot, we also have an insubstantial love story between a couple of lovers of different religion that possibly was not needed; and finally the conclusion that whatever happens in History England always wins.

Quietb-1 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.