GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Wordiezett So much average

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Jenn Brown Viceroy's House sketches through the convoluted history of India's Independence, and the partition between India and Pakistan, but does it in a beautiful, touching way. It's a very complicated story, and Chadha uses key people to coax out the human factor from a single, physical location. Don't let the simple approach fool you; it teases out the much bigger stories by focusing on the personal. And it is personal. Do watch through the end, because Chadha proves how personal it is with a coda that ties the story to actual people. Hopefully, you'll walk away with wanting to learn more about this particular part of history. Or you will walk away feeling a part of your own history has been shared that is often overlooked in western cinema.

Ian (Flash Review)The movie opens up as if you are opening a text book as high doses of information are evenly parsed out. Only later does the text begin to fly off the page as the drama ratchets up. This tells the history, from the British perspective, of the state of India during the end of British rule over their land. A political debate revolves around if India will remain united or will it be "partitioned" or split up with Pakistan as its own country and the film focuses on the Viceroy's role in the process. (Viceroy = the British representative ruler over the Indian nation.) Everyone knows Pakistan is a country so the interesting part is seeing the tension and the high risk ramifications of various decisions. Such as a massive expanse of people and families being relocated as well as the cultural reshaping and restructuring with regard to Muslim and Indian cultures. The movie was nicely shot, well-acted, informative and the British do not appear to be truly hated by the Indian people. It was an easy watch with in-depth look into this slice of history. Yet didn't have the raw drama and for a full emotional involvement.

TxMike 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.

Red-125 Viceroy's House (2017) was directed by Gurinder Chadha. It tells the story of Lord Louis Mountbatten, who was the final Viceroy of India. He was sent to India in order to oversee an orderly transition of power from English rule to Indian rule. Everyone knew that this transition would be difficult. Even Lord Mounbatten didn't know just how difficult it would be.Hugh Bonneville plays Lord Mountbatten, and Gillian Anderson portrays his wife, Lady Edwina Mountbatten. Both of them are excellent actors. Their relationship, as history is being made all around them, could have carried the film. However director Chadha opts to "personalize" the movie by giving us a pair of star-crossed lovers. Manish Dayal plays a young Hindu man, Jeet Kumar. Huma Qureshi portrays a young Muslim woman, Aalia Noor.Both Daval and Qureshi are fine actors and attractive people. However, whenever they are on the screen, we are supposed to forget the suffering of millions of people that is taking place as partition begins. We have to feel the pang of their doomed romance. It just didn't work for me.What did work was the regal splendor of the Viceroy's House, and the very powerful interior and exterior scenes. Insofar as we are allowed to watch Bonneville and Anderson during this very trying time, the film is a success. It could have been a truly great film, like "Gandhi." What we get is an excellent film, but not a great one.We saw this movie at the wonderful Little Theatre in Rochester, New York. It will work better on the large screen than the small screen, but it's worth seeing either way. As I write this review, Viceroy's House has a dismal 6.9 IMDb rating. It's much better than that.