Excellent Film, but Overemphasizes B. Singh's Importance
I thought the film was spectacular. I thought it did an excellent job of sticking close to the real facts involved while still providing a real human drama with brilliant dialogue.
That said, I think the movie's billing of Bhaghat Singh as a revolutionary sharing an equal stature to Gandhi, or even threatening Gandhi's popularity seems to be a bit overblown. The problem with the HSRA was that it didn't start with a broad base of popular support or used traditional methods of organizing to build a mass movement. It didn't infuse the masses with its ideology. I mean look at what organizing the HSRA involved itself in. First they gave some meals to the poor. The poor are likely to say thanks, that was tasty, but there wasn't a great effort to instill the values of the movement into the masses. Gandhi's movement was largely successful on this count as it played into religious morality, which the masses could relate to. Then the movement tried to draw attention by attempting to kill the officer responsible for Lala Lajpat Rai's death, but killing Saunders by mistake. Then there is the bomb throwing, the court case, and the prison fast, which by the end does draw support to the movement, but too late to see it lasting long beyond the deaths of Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru.
While Bhaghat Singh is a true hero and martyr who should be remembered by all Indians and freedom loving people, his actual influence on the indian freedom struggle is perhaps not as great as the movie would seem to make it. His vision and desire to address class issues as well as independence was far reaching.
On the note about Gandhi. I don't think you can hold any political figure up to sainthood. The underlying facts that give rise to the implication that Gandhi didn't do more to save the lives of Bhaghat Singh are verified in historical sources, but its unclear whether that is the only permissible interpretation that the facts allow. Even if Gandhi did do as he was accused of in the movie, I don't know that it should tarnish his reputation otherwise. He certainly never hailed himself up to be a saint. This was the label put on him by others. He claimed to be a man, possessing the same weaknesses as everyone else, so we shouldn't seek sainthood out of the man if in a moment of weakness he acted out of opportunism.