User Reviews

This is a lovely film.

This is a quintessentially British film. Another piece in our seemingly unending historic jigsaw puzzle. Trying to chronicle our imperial past, without the constant need for self-flagellation.

The film is set in the Viceroy's House in 1947, during the partition of India. This was obviously shortly after the end of the second world war. When millions of Indians had stood with the British on the battlefields of Europe, in our fight against the Germans. It was now our turn to return the favour, and give India, back to the Indians. It also didn't help that we didn't have the resources to hold on to India anymore, and everyone involved knew it. This meant that the factions within India were no longer scared to make demands.

This is a strong and important story, one, which is rarely told, or taught here in the UK, and it really should be. We need to understand our mistakes, so we're less likely to repeat them again in the future. We also need to understand what we did right, and learn from those decisions as well.

There are a number of good, solid performances here. Hugh Bonneville plays Lord Mountbatten without fault. He comes across as charming, and typical of the fighting aristocracy of the time. He cared about his legacy. He cared about doing what was right. Most importantly, he cared about India, her people, and its long-term future.

Michael Gambon plays General Ismay, an archetypal, political pragmatist. He doesn't care about India. He isn't really interested in her people. He only cares about Britain, and its future.

We also have an ongoing love story between Jeet Kumar, played by Manish Dayal, who's a former policeman and a Hindu, and Aalia Noor, played by Huma Qureshi, who works at the Viceroy's House and is a Muslim.

The love story is used to help the viewer understand the deeply entrenched division between the religions at the time (although let's be honest they haven't improved much since). The film doesn't really mention the Indian cast system, but in real life that didn't help the situation either. It also gives a story, set at the highest levels of government, a more human feel.

A special mention needs to go to Gillian Anderson. Her performance as Lady Mountbatten is wonderful. Many will be shocked that Anderson actually has an English accent, but she has spent a large amount of her life this side of the pond. However, her accent here was a real surprise. The received pronunciation was perfect. It was as if she were the Queens little sister. Her character adds heart, she adds a moral core, to both Lord Mountbatten, and in my eyes, to the film in general. I was impressed to say the least how beautifully she slipped into the role.

I would also like to mention the fact that Gillian Anderson appears to be getting better looking with each passing year. It's as though she stole Dorian Gray's picture, and had it repainted with her own portrait. If she carries on this way, by the time she's 80 her beauty will be so unbelievable, it may very well start a new religion.

Not only is she becoming more beautiful, but her acting ability seems to improving with everything performance. It's getting to the point where I will watch anything she's in, just to see her. I'm just hoping someone gives her the roles she deserves to show that she can be this generations Meryl Streep, or Katherine Hepburn. I genuinely think she is capable of hitting those heights.

All in all, this is a well-cast, well-acted, well-written film with beautiful production values. Visually it's stunning. The buildings used, the props, the costumes, everything looks wonderful. There are some cleaver uses of photo-video cuts. It also uses historical footage nicely.

This has to be Gurinder Chadha's biggest film since Bend it like Beckham, and if this is the level that she's working at now, then I'm really looking forward to her next project.

If you're a fan of historical drama, or just good old fashioned colonial history, then give this film a chance. It may open your eyes to some history to weren't taught at school, and you'll also be able to enjoy a rather charming film.

This is a slightly 'potted' version of the events of 1947 when Lord Louis Mountbatten was sent to Delhi to preside over India's transition from unruly colony to full Independence. Mountbatten and Nehru wanted a single nation of two faiths, but Whitehall - for reasons which the movie attempts to explain, briefly and simplistically - preferred the option of Partition, creating the new Muslim nation of Pakistan, with a down-sized India populated mostly by Hindus. As we know from our schooldays - and other (better) movies like Richard Attenborough's GANDHI - millions of citizens died in clashes and massacres as Muslims migrated to Pakistan and Hindus to India. This new movie chooses to show the carnage of Partition via newsreels rather than reenactments.

Gillian Anderson gives a vivid portrayal of Lady Edwina Mountbatten, terribly 'posh' but genuinely concerned for the displaced natives during the violent transition. Hugh Bonneville, still trapped in his Downtown Abbey character, is rather wooden as Lord 'Dickie' (who was probably a bit wooden too). There is no hint of the much-gossiped- about affair between Lady M and Mr Nehru and likewise no hint that his lordship may have been an acquaintance (if not quite a Friend) of Dorothy. We see enough of Nehru and Jinnah to understand what was at stake in 1947 but for some reason Gandhi is largely written out of this screenplay.

To give the movie a bit more box-office appeal there is a Mills & Boon romance between two of the staff in the Viceroy's House, a beautiful Muslim secretary and a Hindu valet (also rather lovely). This soap-opera element brings unavoidable echoes of the (enormously superior) Jewel in the Crown and a dash of Upstairs, Downstairs which was one of the many addictive pleasures of Downton.

There's not a lot that's wrong with Viceroy's House and much to enjoy: the costumes, the spectacle, the splendour that is colonial Delhi. The movie does offer a 'History-lite' version of the birth of a nation. I remind myself that this is exactly what GONE WITH THE WIND did with the American Civil War - but (forgive me, please) I've never been a great admirer of GWTW.

The film is beautifully acted and a good sub-plot revolving around staff in the viceroy's house.

However, the central conceit of the movie is complete rubbish (plot spoiler averted)...The film, unwittingly or deliberately, robs the Indians and Pakistanis of any agency in their own fate when, in fact, I-Congress and Jinnah made nearly all the running on what happened at partition. The potential for terrible violence between the two main religious communities was always present in India and not a cunning ruse by the imperial government or the Mughals before them. Less painful to blame third parties...

Anyway, the history aside this is a very well put together movie. It would have got 9 stars if it had not played so fast and loose with the truth, which matters if we are to deal with the hurts of the world.

The partition of India is a fascinating piece of post-war history, and one that can be told from all manner of viewpoints. So you'd expect any historical retelling of the events to have some real drama and tension. Viceroy's House doesn't quite manage that, generally settling for a more visually lush depiction of the history that only gets into the heavier side of the true events very late on. It's still a historically interesting watch, and with good performances and directing, a pleasant one too, but not quite the fiery historical drama that it could have been.

Let's start on the plus side, however, with the visuals. If there's one thing that this film does really well, it's capture the vibrant real-life locations of both the Viceroy of India's residence and the streets of India. Filmed entirely on location, the grandeur of the main stage is fantastic to look at, whilst the costume design that ranges from Viceroy Mountbatten's decorated military attire to the colourful uniforms and dress of the Indian people is central to the film's more pleasant atmosphere.

Another thing that helps to make this a pleasant watch is the performances. The screenplay doesn't really bring any depth of character to any of the main players, and I can't really say any of the lead actors did much to bring that about either, however the likes of Hugh Bonneville and Gillian Anderson as Lord and Lady Mountbatten, as well as Manish Dayal and Huma Qureshi in supporting roles, give this a very confident and classy atmosphere that stands up well on screen.

However, that's where the positives start to end. Although I can say that the film does a good job at telling the facts of the end of British rule in India, and is interesting for anyone who wants an education into the time period, it doesn't really manage to do it with any sort of vigour or passion.

Throughout, this feels like a collection of good actors reading out the final chapter of a school history textbook about British India in the real locations. It's interesting to see, but it's by no means a cinematic masterclass.

That's where the directing and writing should have come in to make something more memorable out of the history. Unfortunately, the screenplay offers very little in the way of emotional or dramatic character depth, which means that the conflicts that arise don't have any sort of power, and the directing is more focused on the visual aspect of the film, rather than giving it a solid pace and riveting atmosphere.

And that remains the case for almost the entire movie, save for the very final act. If there's one part of Viceroy's House that does the gravity of the history justice, it's right at the end, and features the only few minutes of the film that are both informative and emotionally engaging.

On the whole, I had a nice enough time with Viceroy's House. It's not as dramatic nor passionate a retelling of India's independence as it definitely should be, and with average writing and directing, there's not much to really grab onto. However, with some delightfully vibrant visuals from start to finish, as well as some good central performances, this is a pleasant watch.

Honestly looking at the trailer, I was expecting a story that was made for TV but attempted to be bold enough to grace the big screen. I couldn't be anymore wrong. The last viceroy of India is tasked with leading the country before its eventual independence which soon turns into a communal massacre. The Partition of India back in 1947 is an important moment of modern history where this drama serves as a reminder of the monumental loss during the nationwide migration. Over one million souls lost their lives during the violent conflict between Muslims and Hindus, with many families being torn apart through abrupt segregation. Given that the director was the granddaughter of a survivor, there is a personal touch to the melodrama that unfolds. From simple quibbling of deciding which food items, people and furniture remain in India or are sent to Pakistan to the more serious issues of rationing supplies to refugee camps. Chadha deftly embeds the culture of India to the heartbreaking partitioning process, allowing the balance for historical importance and a fictitious romance to coincide together. The latter sub-plot, resembling a 'Romeo & Juliet' scenario, seemed to be the primary focus of the first act which unfortunately detracted from the main and far superior plot of India's independence. However the story gets back on track during the second half which quickly grabs your attention back. Bonneville and Anderson gave satisfactory performances, although occasionally lacked emotional conviction. Also the melodrama became too excessive at times, trying too hard to make you tear up. Credit where credit is due though, I did shed a tear towards the end which was certainly the most poignant act of the entire film. I do love a good "running through the crowd" scene. A slightly uneven start irons itself out towards the end to produce a sumptuous and important historical drama that will leave you reaching for the tissues by its conclusion. Atleast I know what a viceroy is now...

"Our time frame for leaving won't work!" Lady Mountbatten (Gillian Anderson)

Some would say the final partition of India creating Pakistan never worked, albeit a solution to the violence between Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs was needed with the pending quitting of Britain from rule in 1947. The historical and humane Viceroy's House takes us nimbly yet sometimes brutally through the Solomon-like assignment of Lord Mountbatten (Hugh Bonneville) to bring peace and partition.

Although this fascinating film could be accused of being more Masterpiece Theater than history, it brings home in the best period-piece fashion the almost insoluble task of stopping the fighting among factions and fairly apportioning the sub-continent. Mahatma Gandhi's (Neeraj Kabi) opposition, as he favored a unified continent, was the counterbalance to the raw pain of partition but unrealistic given the prevailing hostilities. The film does not oppressively dwell on the philosophy or the brutality: They are just there as if they always were.

Helping the transition is A. R. Rahman's musical score appropriately classical and grave at times and then lightly Indian as the time draws near. Viceroy's House has a workman-like period piece feel to it. It also has a soap-opera like romance between Muslim Aalia (Huma Qureshi) and Hindu Jeet (Manish Dayal), an attempt to provide a figurative representation of the cultural clashes borne of tradition and the impending upending with Britain's leaving.

The spiritual presence of Churchill, who ended up being the actual architect of the partition, left an independent Mountbatten to come to Churchill's solution without even knowing about it. The various bloody factions are well-perceived as unavoidable given the massive population and the complex challenges of partition.

The oil and coastal-protecting motives are there in muted acknowledgment of the inevitable political background of the largest mass movement of human beings in history. Here is a history worth knowing if only to clarify the prevailing hostility between India and Pakistan and the allure Pakistan has for trouble-prone world powers.

If for nothing else, enjoy the period costumes and settings. Downton Abbey would approve.

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/

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!!

Saw this in English in a French cinema with the French title displayed as "Le Dernier Viceroi de l'Inde" = The Last Viceroy of India, instead of a literal translation i.e. "La Maison du Viceroi". In fact, I didn't know what the original title was until seeing it on IMDb. The French title subtly shifts the focus of the movie towards Mountbatten, rather than the 'house' itself.

It's clearly a very 'British' film with superb cast - Bonneville acts Mountbatten well but I felt he was physically/visually wrong; in contrast Anderson gives an excellent performance as his wife, Edwina, and Michael Gambon excels as a slimy, devious, political toad. The love story plot is a bit Bollywood soapy and predictably weepy - those of a sentimental nature should take a hankie. The political aspect is well-portrayed, but the main political characters appear stereotypes.

However in my view it goes way too soft on the terrible, frequently fatal, destructive consequences of the Partition on the forced migration of 14 million people and the deplorable decision to rush it through within a matter of weeks. Although there's a fair amount of original footage included to remind us of this human tragedy, it doesn't go far enough to make us squirm or feel too guilty. Perhaps that's a detachment the director intended. Has British guilt and fixation with its cruel past and how it ruled its empire now become a cliché? Is the criticism that we're looking at it through our 21st century politically-correct rose-tinted spectacles justified?

Other than that, a good enough film for those of us not too sceptical to still enjoy a political drama based around dubious events of Britain's chequered past.

This is a story of the final days of British rule in India. The movie is pleasant with nice cinematography, but for me it is a 5 out of 10. It's not as though it doesn't try to tell the story, but falls so far short. Think of this movie when you see reviews of movies that try to tell a story in less than 2 hours that need at least 8 hours to tell. Like doing a 1 and a half hour telling of Gone With The Wind (it was cut down from over 7 hours of film footage) or a 1 and a half hour telling of the history of WWII. To make it worse they try to throw an unnecessary love story in there.

At the end of the movie as the credits roll, there is a reference, to the fact that the movie is based on Freedom at Midnight, the classic book by Collins and LaPierre. If you can find this book, it is one of the best non fiction books I have ever read and in detail tells the story of Mountbattan and his wife and daughter's love for India and their people and what they went through with their impossible task. He was one of the most incredible men in the 20th century and you should also read about his entire life.

I am a bit of a fan of Gurinder Chadha's work Bhaji on the Beach, What's Cooking Paris Je t'aime and Bend it being my favourites)and was aware that she intended to make this film many years ago and as I also have an interest in the history of India as plundered by the UK I have been keenly awaiting its release.

I had heard some ropy reviews, particularly from BBC radio 3. also a suggestion of being over reaching and 'Downtonesque' from the film 2017 cast. Thankfully this didn't put me off.

Just back from seeing this film.

I am not disappointed, in fact my expectations were far exceeded. one of the features of her films is always love. She has the ability to convey the emotion of utterly horrible things without doing the cliché showing and perpetuating violence.

The highlights for me. the portrayal of the involvement and point of view of his wife, unexpectedly well played by Gillian Anderson ( not that I don't like her, I just couldn't imagine her in this role. The portrayal of the viewpoint shared by the staff - which is of course the point of view of the Indians so roughly treated by the raj and how she puts us in their position so we really see it from their eyes, I felt like I was peeping through doors with them. The history was told clearly and unflinchingly without the violence being centre stage - that's been done and done again. Gurinder showed us the effect on people. All this was made almost palatable and certainly accessible by the device of the young lovers, cruelly torn apart by the partition.

Why 9 points and not ten? well despite illustrating that there was skulduggery afoot amongst the government I do think Dicky was painted a little too upright, straightforward and honest and I just don't believe that. However, I do not profess to know the history so well and may be wrong.

India, 1947. Churchill's government has sent Lord Grantham - - sorry -- Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, "The Monuments Men") as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?

Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah's victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).

So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: "Worthy but dull" was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.

This shouldn't have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha ("Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson ("The X Files") as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon ("Harry Potter") as General Ismay (Mountbatten's chief of staff); Simon Callow ("Four Weddings and a Funeral") as Radcliffe (the drawer of 'the new map'); and Om Puri ("The Hundred Foot Journey") as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten's daughter is Lily Travers ("Kingsman: The Secret Service"): Virginia McKenna's granddaughter.

But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville's Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson's (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I'm sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten's man-servant. And no, that isn't a euphemism.... I'm talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!

As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for "East is East") has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.

Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges ("Bend it like Beckham"), Moira Buffini ("Tamara Drewe") and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the "Lion"-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.

After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a 'real-life photograph' segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!

Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough's "Gandhi". For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that's just my view..... if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said "Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress".

(For the graphical version of this review, or to comment on it, please visit bob-the-movie-man.com.)

Maybe, I am not fair. But , more than a decent film , it represents for me, nothing more or less. It is a good introduction to one of the most siignificant events after the end of WWII. It is a good example of beautiful performances and inspired script. But the mixture between political problems and the love story of a Hindi young man and his Muslim girlfriend it seems, for me, a mistake, used for give more force to dramatic side. It is a touching film and that is the result of the final confession of director but , the high desire to impress is, in few scenes, too much. Sure, it is a film for see. A moral lesson about a century more than about a country. But, something is missing and something is too more. Conclusion - a decent film about dramatic events.

An entertaining and well-acted movie covering (a version of) the events around partition. The problem with these historical movies is 1) they are skewed to the narrative of the production team and 2) they do not capture the scale & complexity of the geopolitical realities prevailing at the time. Nonetheless, the atmosphere of chaos as the sub-continent is divided is well portrayed and underpinned by some stunning archive clips.

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.

"Viceroy's House" is nothing less than fascinating. It was a stroke of genius to set the story around the upstairs and downstairs life in the palace of the last Viceroy during the time India gained independence from Britain, occasioning the largest migration in human history.

The film allows for the historical canvas to be set alongside the more intimate story of how it impacted the lives of ordinary Indians.

In 1947 Lord Louis Mountbatten (Hugh Bonneville) received what seemed like the hospital pass of all time when he was appointed to overseer the transition of power from the British Raj to an independent Indian government.

Mountbatten is portrayed as well-intentioned, although somewhat naive, but is shown to have the support of a warm, capable woman, his wife Edwina (Gillian Anderson). While he deals with the leading players: Nehru, Jinna and Ghandi, the mainly Indian staff is buffeted by the decisions that affect hundreds of millions of Indians.

Two members of the household staff, Jeet (Manash Dayal), a Hindu, and the woman he loves, Aalia (Humar Qureshi), a Muslim, represent the divide that becomes the stumbling block to negotiations. Eventually the country is partitioned into Pakistan and India and Jeet and Aalia are separated.

"Viceroy's House" is well made; the scenes above and below stairs have the ring of authenticity, but it's a film that needed some jaw dropping spectacle; documentary footage is used, but there is nothing to compare to that stunning funeral scene in Richard Attenborough's "Ghandi".

Some of the greatest films of all time have intimate love stories played out against the backdrop of awesome historical events; "Gone with the Wind" and "Doctor Zhivago" come to mind; both had powerful endings.

However, in this case, the filmmakers opted for an ending that tended to undermine the terrific build up in the rest of the film. A happy ending? The filmmakers blinked. They just couldn't let Aalia disappear in that train massacre like Lara disappeared into the labour camp at the end of "Zhivago", something that would have reflected the real fate of millions.

Sam Goldwyn once said that it is the last 5 minutes of a film that makes it memorable. "Viceroy's House", has a brilliant premise and some strong scenes, but just fails at the end to leave the audience sitting stunned in their seats after the curtains have closed.

I am gobsmacked that this film has had any positive reviews.

To address such a weighty subject with such a clunky, facile and condescending script is a terrible waste. I honestly think some of the (great) actors looked at embarrassed at some of the lines they had to deliver.

At one point, Lord Mountbatten, having accepted the role of becoming Viceroy, packed his bags, flown out to India and been installed into his residence is told by his new colleagues that there is (I am paraphrasing only slightly) "unrest between the Hindus and the Muslims and maybe we should consider partition". If Hugh Bonneville had turned round and said "Well, Durr!" I would have whooped with joy.

And don't get me started on the crassest denouement imaginable to the sub-plot..

Over the closing credits of this film, we learnt that director Gurinder Chadha's grandparents took part in their own epic, tragic story during the partition of India. But her film is a strangely middlebrow one, sympathetic to ordinary Indians (and ending with an inter-faith love story) but also generous to the British royal family, while the politicians and bureaucrats get it in the neck. I don't know enough detail to verify the history, but I'd be very surprised if any expert considered this filn kinder to Jinnah (the founder of Pakistan and also the bogeyman of Richard Attenborough's 'Gandhi') than it is to Lord Mountbatten. Centred, as it says in its title, on the Viceroy's house, it never quite manages to capture the scale of what was happening across the country. I've seen plenty of worse films, but it's an oddly mild account of the British withdrawal.

This movie has so much of historical inaccuracies. It's so inaccurate that the movie gives a awful feel when it's done.

But, there are few things that definitely needs accolades - especially the Cinematography.

Undoubtedly, the director is biased towards the British monarch, and showcasing as if Mountbatten is innocent - which he is not and is well known for his cunningness.And, the movie also projects Churchill as the sole reason behind the Indian partition - which is pathetically false.

For anyone who loves to watch a historical movie that revisits history, stay away from this movie.