Fresh and Exciting

The acting in this movie is really good.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

An Aamir Khan film is special.A slice of history that explores the mutiny of 1857, Mangal Pandey balances form and content beautifully. Lavishly mounted and recreating the era with precision, Mangal Pandey suits the term 'landmark cinema' and has all it takes to help Bollywood take a giant step into world cinema with pride.Recreating history is difficult and making you glued to your seats for the next 3 hours could be taxing if the content doesn't live up to your expectations. But Mangal Pandey talks about the martyr, his heroism, his contribution to India's freedom movement so effectively and immaculately that you can't help but salute the great freedom fighter. Ketan Mehta's execution of the subject leaves you tongue-tied, the visuals appear true to life, the performances which is so essential in a film of this genre are absolutely spellbinding, the sequence of events that led to the mutiny are carefully explained. Result: The viewer cannot help but get transported to an era when British ruled India.To sum up, Mangal Pandey is a brave attempt on the part of its makers to bring to life an important chapter from history. And make you realize that the freedom we enjoy today is only because of our predecessors, who gave their blood for the nation. The film succeeds in arousing patriotic feelings without a shred of doubt!The songs seem forced in the narrative. Ideally, the film could've done with two songs, 'Mangal Mangal' and 'Teri Adaon Pe Main Vaari Vaari'. The Holi track as also the romantic song filmed on Aamir and Rani, Toby and Amisha can easily be deleted since they only act as barricades in the otherwise smooth narrative.Another drawback is that certain characters remain underdeveloped. The women don't have much to do in the film. Even the track of the maid Mona Ambegaonkar, who feeds the British woman's infant, appears incomplete.Since the film deals with history and British rulers specifically, the usage of English language is imperative, but Om Puri's voice-over in those scenes makes it easier for the average Indian moviegoer to decipher and fathom what's being spoken on screen.Toby Stephens is simply amazing. For an English actor to deliver lines in Hindi and match it with appropriate expressions is no ordinary task. The actor compliments Aamir at every step and delivers a knockout performance that would only draw applause from Indian moviegoers.Both Rani and Amisha don't get ample footage. Rani is wonderful in a small role, but Amisha is relegated to the backseat completely. Kiron Kher is effective in a neat cameo. The film has a number of actors, but those who make their presence felt are Mukesh Tiwari, Sohrab Ardeshir and Amin Hajee.Mangal Pandey would look incomplete without Aamir's awe-inspiring portrayal of the great hero. Not once do you realize that the role is being 'enacted'. It's Aamir's splendid performance that makes the film a memorable affair, besides Mehta's storytelling of course. It goes without saying that his performance in Mangal Pandey should rank prominently in his enviable repertoire.

I started watching this film on television, having no idea what it was about. In common with almost all Indian films it contains several song and dance sequences that have little to do with advancing the plot. The scenery is quite pretty and some of the buildings used as locations are beautiful (although a little out-of-period in look). It starts with a flash-forward to near the ending of the story, and we see preparations made to execute a prisoner. He is a handsome muscular dignified magnificent specimen, so he has "hero" written all over him.It then became clear what the film was about: the 1857 Indian Mutiny. The simple fact is that most people seeing this will not know the details of what actually happened and will accept much of what is shown as history. Of course they will know that specifics of dialogue and so forth are invented, but the emotional impact of the message of the story has power, and so there is a responsibility on the film makers to use this power wisely and fairly.The film then commits several terrible acts of inaccuracy. I will concentrate on one: a rumour is spread that pig and cow grease are used on the cartridges issued to troops, and this displeases the Hindus (cows) and Muslims (pigs). It is historically true that the RUMOUR of this existed and contributed to the starting of the Mutiny, but the film then goes on to tell the audience that the rumour was true. In historical reality it really was just a rumour. The cartridges were waxed. Hollywood and Bollywood seem very comfortable with portraying the British as incompetent and evil and here we see this lazy scripting at work again. The East India Company did make a big mistake in not taking the rumour seriously, but it was not so stupid or so evil as to actually use pig or cow grease on the cartridges.H/Bollywood might be forgiven for a certain amount of artistic convention with characters etc. (in this film, the lead characters in the story also happen to be best friends, having saved each other's lives in the past etc.), but it really should not take liberties to the point when the story is just a lie, nor should it, as here, make political points at the end of the film, dressed up as history. The film ends with a statement that Mangal Pandey as portrayed was a real man (the real man was very ordinary and claimed in court to have been under the influence of drugs when he did what he did), and that the Mutiny was really the first war of Indian independence, throwing off the yolk of subjugation and exchanging this for happy freedom. Historians will differ in their interpretations and emphases of the past, but it must be pointed out that the East India Company ruled India as a far more prosperous, advanced, just, and peaceful place that it had found it. Also, the instant that India gained its dependence, it was rent into parts, with Pakistan and what later became Bangladesh splitting away, and a tremendously bloody civil war flared up in which vastly more Indians died than did at the hands of the British, and more people were displaced than at any other time in history.I am sick of one lot of rulers replacing another lot's being shown as "freedom" in films. "Braveheart" did the same - I am unconvinced that the Scots fighting for the "freedom" to be subjugated by a slightly different set of feudal lords really did themselves much good.There are so many interesting themes in human interaction and history to be explored. It is a shame that films like this always tell the same few tales over and over, and reduce everything to a few stereotypes. The Indian Mutiny would make a good setting for a film exploring the nature of good rule, the power of rumour, the importance of religious tolerance, the randomness of historical events, but instead we get the standard farm-boy becomes hero, kills black knight, rescues maiden, fights the Evil Empire story. This works in Star Wars largely because Star Wars is so self-consciously legend. In the setting of historical events that still today have political implications, it is pernicious.The film looks good, has reasonably decent performances in it, and a few scenes with lots of costumed extras, but it is far too long, too familiar and low-brow. The heroic British officer in the court room scene is made to rant and yell for the sake of drama. How much more powerful and fair the scene would have been if he had spoken calmly. History records that after the mutiny, the trials held were very fair and threw out most charges of rape that were reported against white British. There was no savage retribution - quite the reverse. That is another interesting story here ignored.

If this was how the Indian 1857 mutiny or revolution took place, the Indians would collectively kill themselves. Despite a few good moments, some good lines of dialog and splendid performance by er...Toby Stephens, this movie sucks and will disappoint every viewer who patiently waited for it due to its important historic theme. Aaamir Khan (Mangal Pandey) does less fighting and spends more time being drunk and visiting prostitutes. With loads of irrelevant crap filling up the time period, the actual instigation of this historic event is limited to one stupid scene where out of the blue, pork and beef is discovered to be in use while preparing the new cartridges. The Parsis, a very important community of India, are also shown in bad light. This movie is a disgrace. No wonder it flopped so badly. Questions also arrive when you look at how Aamir khan plays a terrorist apologist in Fanaa.

I was in India travelling with 2 friends and we were wandering Bangalore and decided to try this film out. I had no idea what to expect.... bu I loved the film, it was warm and very funny, but there were also many tears, Amir Khan is amazing and I fell totally in love with the strength of his character. Rani really is a beauty. It was mainly in Hindi but we got by with a little help from guys who spoke English. Cinema in India is a must do experience! This film address' many issues which are still going on in India-maybe not so much in the Cities but definitely in the rural areas!The Songs and Dancing adds to the beauty of this truly magnificent film!