What is sad about this movie...


This movie is a good movie. It has its own strengths. But I cannot feel upset when it comes to certain facts. They showed Mangal as being a man to have made his revolt on his own accord. catalouged history says that Mangal Pandey was under the affect of bhang and of opium when he stood up to fight. Also, as hostory catalouged tells us, he admitted to taking drugs and apologised for his behaviour. his fellow sepoys were disbanded. before these events, amny of his fellow sepoys were sentenced to prison for refusing to use the catridges. Where did all these details disppear to??????
Jwala???? Why was she in the movie??... she had no purpose..... was it really essential for Gordon to have a love interest???...... You'll say it was to show his humanity. We understand he was a great guy. Jwala hadnt needed been there. The movie says that William Gordon ultimatly fougth o the side of the Indians. i cannot dispute that. It may be true. Heera was a load of crap. Rani looked great, dont get me wrong. But why a love angle in a movie which was ment to be a histrical one and a patriotic one?? Though I have great personal respect for Mangal Pandey, it remains that we know the truth and the truth be written and showna nd not some directors take on it.


The WORST thing however was that the public unknown to the truth will now see Pandey as shown in this movie.
This movie is a first rate piece of art. As a story i cannot support it.
I am not a critic. just a guy who wants to say that tell us the proper truth, even if it sucks.
Overall........ 8/10

reply


You know at the start of the movie they do say that the film is fiction, so why should people believe mangal pandey was like the character potrayed in the film.

Nobody Dies a Virgin, Life screws Everyone

reply

I strongly disagree with your comments on Heera in this film. I do agree with the fact that a love angle should not be involved in a film of this subject, but i was suprised at how well this one was played out. If you havent noticed, Rani Muhkerghee is the top actress right now in Bollywood. It would have been very easy for the producers to say have more of Rani in the film. However she is not and i strongly agree with the choice of the director to have her in the film but not give her more time then she needs. What i think the director was trying to do was keep the general focus of the Mangal Pandey character on the "people" that he is surrounded by. If you eliminate the songs, Heera is not in the film as much as the other charcters that Mangal encounters. Mangal has become so caught up in his people and culture, that even though he does love Heera, he can not give everything up for her. He's fighting for something more now then just himself, and that's his people. This is what i got from the film, and i'm almost positive that this is what the director was trying to get at. Maybe many people dont look at it this way because they're mentallity is that Rani "deserves" a bigger part in a film of this epic scale. For the record, i heard that she was supposed to play the part of "Jwala," which at the time of the casting was a much bigger part, but she had turned it down because she had completly fallen in love with the character of Heera. So have i. I loved the way she "SPOILER" transformed from being a slave, to erotic dancer, to lover, and then finaly to warrior. Her role was small, but she played it effectively.

reply

You also have to take into account that catalogued history is catalogued by the British. So, of course they would want to say that he was high on drugs and apologized. They don't want to stir up any sentiments and make anyone look like a hero. They are the British. And ALL movies have fictional accounts. It's a movie...you watch it, you enjoy it. You also have to read real history books and when you do, you still have to marvel at the fact that such a great rebellion occurred at the time. A rebellion against the most powerful empire.

reply

[deleted]