Viceroy's House (2017)

Viceroy's House is the story of the end of British rule in India, and what ended up being the partition of India into India and Pakistan. The film opens with the arrival of Lord Moutnbatten (Bonneville) and his wife (Anderson) to India, and concludes just after India and Pakistan claim independence/nationhood. The bits that follow the drama of the handover of power are very well done. Bonneville and Anderson due a worthy job of making you feel that they care for what is going on and keep you invested. Scenes with the Indians working in the house show the tensions growing as the decision whether to keep India whole or divide it comes to be made. It's certainly a part of history not often touched upon, and I learned some stuff from it.However, there's a second main thread to the movie which hampers the much stronger historical side. That would be the love interest between the Hindu Jeet and Muslim Aalia. By the end of the movie these scenes felt rather forced, and I couldn't help but want the movie to go back to the far more interesting historical aspects.It's definitely a movie worth seeing, but there may be some eye-rolling involved.

My wife and I watched this at home on DVD from our public library. Historically the country of India was under British rule for about 300 years when, in 1947, it was decided to give India their independence. So the final Viceroy was sent to India, Hugh Bonneville as Lord Louis Mountbatten, eventually executing what became known as the "Mountbatten Plan". The difficulty was the three primary religious groups there, Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs. It didn't appear that they could get along well enough to develop a government for all the people of India.As history records the solution was to carve out a portion of the country and designate it Pakistan, primarily for the Muslims. This resulted in perhaps the largest mass migration in history, people going in different directions to relocate to their new homeland.This movie is very well made and dramatizes the process and the difficulties, plus there is a forbidden love story. Also American actress Gillian Anderson is very effective as Lady Edwina Mountbatten.

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.

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.