ThiefHott Too much of everything

Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

halejr I recently discovered this mini-series and greatly enjoyed it. It's too bad the DVD collection doesn't appear to have any additional features such as interviews with the director or producer. The series must have cost a fortune to make. All the costumes, the wide lapels on the mens' suits, the sets, the crowds of people, the marching horses, the elephants, the palaces. It's certainly a big budget series. Of course you can pull this off when the British government is helping to foot the bill. And let's face it, this is the BBC at its best. Mountbatten comes across as a decent man. Everyone does in fact, except Jinnah. He's the villain in the piece, and in my opinion the historical record supports this view of him. Mountbatten was faced with the problem of how to get the British out of India while trying to salvage the image of the empire. A review of Wikipedia shows that Hindu-Moslem violence predated the Raj and still continues to this day, so it's somewhat unfair to blame the violence following partition as Mountbatten's fault. Mountbatten's problem in India was a lot like the U.S. in Vietnam. He hoped to create a decent interval between the British exit and whatever happened next. In this regard he failed by trying to move too fast. For example India and Pakistan both declared independence before anyone knew where the exact borders were. A slower approach might have resulted in fewer deaths, but not that many fewer. Both before and after this series was made in the mid 1980s Hindus and Moslems have continued to kill each other in the subcontinent. So a more careful approach to partition would have merely mitigated the violence, not prevented it. Like I said, the BBC helped fund this series in part to burnish Britain's image. Edwina Mountbatten's promiscuity is greatly toned down in the series. Her affair with Nehru is merely hinted at. (They make a lot of eyes at each other.) Given that Nehru spent six years in British jails prior to independence, nailing the Viceroy's wife must have been sweet revenge indeed. What's also fascinating about this series is how it still resonates. References to Abbottabad, where bin Laden was killed, or a scene showing a woman getting raped are right out of today's headlines. Unfortunately some things never change.

hackne This dramatization is a solidly acted depiction of the last days of the British Empire in India and Mountbatten's role in the transition from colony to independent nation. Mountbatten has many biographies out there, some less flattering than others. This depiction of him falls more or less in the middle, showing his strengths and his weaknesses. Also the show does not shy away from showing his wife, Edwina, and her relationship with Nehru (it should be noted her wild ways long before she arrived in India made her not welcome at Buckingham Palace). Much of the actual history is greatly abridged (such as the partition) so as to not delve into the complexities of the India/Pakistan split. And some things are fictionalized for dramatic purposes.Nehru's politics is not given much examination in this depiction (he was a socialist). Gandhi's role is historically accurate (unlike the movie that bears his name, he was not an active participant in the partition) as are other things. This is a good start to understand this important moment in history. Mountbatten is still a controversial figure both in England and India over what happened as the last viceroy.

qazifaisal_a Lord Mountbatten:The Last Viceroy is no doubt a very good film by any standards. Seeing that it follows the career of Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma,later selected as the last viceroy of British India, it has a number of both strengths and flaws as far as the storyline & picturisation is concerned.STRENGTHS:1) It portrays the character of Lord Louis from the political side, as far as all the world knows him. 2) Mentions the Nehru - Edwina affair as part of the complications surrounding the partition. 3) Shows the stubburnness of character which Mountbatten possessed.WEAKNESSES:1) If it is a film following the life of Lord Mountbatten, why does the story end after the partition. Surely there is much more to Lord Moundbatten's life than just the India-Pakistan partition e.g., his death, his campaign as Supreme Naval Commander of S.E.Asia, how he handled the post of 1st Governor General of India. 2) The cast is superb, yet I fail to understand why Vladek Sheybal (a french guy) was given the role of Jinnah, and why not Alique Padamsee (the guy who played Jinnah in 'Gandhi'. Sheybal has neither the height nor the resemblance of Jinnah. 3) Mountbatten was much more arrogant and hard hearted towards Jinnah and the concept of Pakistan, than this film portrays.Overall, the story is otherwise well written. But if the script had been written on the basis of Philip Zeigler's biography of Mountbatten, then it would have been much better.On the whole, its well worth keeping in your collection because as time is passing, there are very few movies depicting the glorious and colourful spleandour of the British Empire.