VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Scotty Burke It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

bkoganbing I think that of all 20th century statesman Charles DeGaulle would have understood Jinnah best. DeGaulle during the darkest days of World War II said that in his mind and body rested the honor of France, that rump minority group of Free French fighters whom he led who would not submit to an occupying territory. DeGaulle saw himself correctly and he would have seen Jinnah in the same way, fighting for the honor of his Moslem people for their right to a separate nation and a separate destiny which we call Pakistan.It's now a time for Jinnah to receive his eternal destination after he died and Christopher Lee as Jinnah is with his heavenly host in the view of the afterlife Islam has. The film is a recollection of those last years with World War II, the British leaving India, and the partition that created India and Pakistan. Pakistan had an East and West part with the nation of India in between. That ultimately didn't work out and we now call East Pakistan the nation of Bangladesh. But that's a whole other film.With Richard Lintern playing a younger Jinnah and showing incidents of Jinnah's personal life, Lee is the older Jinnah and the principal actors in the creation of Pakistan by way of the partition are James Fox as Lord Louis Mountbatten, Maria Aitken as Lady Edwina Mountbatten and Robert Ashby as Jawaralal Nehru. Nehru, India's first prime minister and Lady Mountbatten were a most discreet item and it's this film's contention that Nehru did a lot of back channel negotiation with Lady Mountbatten. They were as discreet as Tracy and Hepburn in their day.Pakistan had a rough delivery at birth, but survived it. It was a violent birth and millions died during the fleeing of refugees from both new countries. It is this film's contention that Lord Mountbatten settled on untenable lines for the boundaries of the two countries and the possession of Kashmir is to this day a matter of contention.Jinnah due to the controversy of having a western actor in the lead had its own controversial birth. But Lee and Lintern create a fine joint portrayal of Pakistan's founder and Jinnah is a fine film both entertaining and educational.

Muhammad Arslan I am not a regular reviewer hence no earlier reviews from me on IMDb but this movie made me to log in and write. Only few lines i can say...Though, it covers only a very little part of Mr Muhammad Ali Jinnah... but clearly brings the character under the light for the world to see the greatness of the leader. I do believe that Jinnah is a leader who is not given the coverage that he deserved but this movie is a REMARKABLE EFFORT.... I don't blame the direction as this story really is too big to be covered in a given time of a movie... so i would give 10 out of 10 for the movie... At least it present the facts on a better scale.

jonathan-637 Filmed in Pakistan, this film suffers from the same censorship as "Gandhi" the director had to submit each reel as it was filmed for approval of the Indian Government.I presume "Jinnah" suffered the same fate as he is considered a hero in Pakistan. Gandhi did not want India to be divided along religious lines, Jinnah was pressured by various Muslim groups for a separate homeland.This film is biased in favour of Pakistan and grim scenes of massacres are highlighted as the work of Hindus and Sikhs no mention of the destruction of Lahore's tolerant society by the Muslim League.As Mountbatten said " If I had known Jinnah was dying of tuberculosis I would have delayed Independence for a further six months and left an undivided India".Jinnah was no Muslim separatist in fact the entire opposite, this is not brought out in this film.He comes across as a visionary leader of a new nation, not as an urban sophisticated lawyer from London who had no interest in religion.All in all a very disappointing film which was never on general release.

owais2010 There are two things to such a movie. First is weather you agree with the history as depicted in the movie and the second is quality of the movie in artistic sense. In this regards I think it depicts the history with a pretty neutral point of view, many Indians and indeed many westerners have presented history in such a manner that even a neutral account seems to take a lot of gloss away from Congress leaders like Nehru and hence such remarks appear anti Nehru and anti Mountbatten.As far as the artistic value of the movie, although its a nice effort, I believe its not perfect although for Christopher Lee it was a job well done. For one thing, a person not knowing much about Indo-Pak independence would be left with many questions. I only hope that this film is re-done sometime in the future when Hollywood is a bit more favorable towards Muslim leaders and makes decent budget movies on leaders and issues relating to South Asia (not just Gandhi) and Middle East.