I am amazed at the negative comments about this film, especially from India. I'll address those criticisms later after providing a summary of the film.

Set in 1857, the film tells the story of Mangal Pandey, a sepoy (private) in the 34th Native Infantry regiment of the Bengal Army (the army of the Presidency of Bengal, governed by the British East India Company and recruited largely from upper caste UP and Bihar stock). Mangal is depicted as an ordinary soldier who is offended by the introduction of the new Enfield rifle cartridges which were greased with pig and cow fat (the former anathema to Muslims and the latter sacred to Hindus). The movie shows him changing from a loyal Company sepoy who saved a British officer's life, to one who ends up questioning the logic of British rule. Other themes include his friendship with the same British officer, the officer's rescue and subsequent romantic relationship with a sati - a widow expected to burn herself on her husband's funeral pyre,and a prostitute who exclusively services the English brothels but falls for Pandey. The movie brings opium cultivation, corruption within the Company, the growing distance between English and Indians, as well as backward, traditional Indian attitudes into sharp focus.

All in all, the film is highly entertaining, a good story - well told, with powerful performances by the main characters. Aamir Khan is in his element, living the character of Pandey and conveying a fantastic portrayal of the soldier who realizes, bit by bit, that his loyalty to a foreign army makes him as "untouchable" as the low-caste man or prostitutes he scorns. Toby Stephens performance as the outsider in British India (Scottish, poor schooling, too fraternal with the natives) was brilliant and his chemistry with Khan was the high mark of the film's dramatic impact. The music by AR Rahman is louder than usual and some of the beats are frankly out of sync with the times ( the lesbianish gypsy dance number was a bit much!!).

The strength of the film was in conveying a sense of the time period - costumes,hair-styles, sets, manners ( the English officer's "Koi Hai"), were exactly what one could expect. The historical background was fairly accurate (sati was outlawed, opium cultivation was forced, the Company was beset by corruption, the English did have European only brothels) though the exact interpretation of events may have not been supported by history.

Which brings me to the criticism of the film. these seem to be of two variants - one, the film was not entertaining enough, and two, the anguished howl of the historians who decry its historical illegitimacy in the hope that no one may turn nationalist by seeing this film.

I will dismiss the first criticism, since that may be a matter of taste - certainly, desi (Indian) audiences raised on simpler story lines and poorer production values (see Asoka and n number of Indian period dramas) may find The Rising a bit heavy to digest.

Historically, the film may be inaccurate in the sense that Mangal Pandey may not have been the nationalist as portrayed, the relationships with the English officer and the prostitute are probably fictitious. But are they impossible? NO. The film has a paragraph disclaimer about inaccuracy at the beginning but this does not satisfy the history lobby. Why is it not possible that the official version about Pandey - that he was under the influence of bhang ( a hallucinogen) when he shot and killed an officer and then tried to shoot himself - is dressed up to cover the Company's stupidity in introducing the greased cartridges? Its not as if such "doctoring" of history has not taken place - witness the designations of "Mutiny" on the British side and "First War of Indian Independence" on the Indian side - when it was something in between? Secondly, why is The Rising being targeted when virtually every Indian film plays merry with historical events and characters? Akbar and Salim did not go to war over a dancing girl (Mughal-e-Azam), Shah Jahan was not the devoted son depictd in Taj Mahal but an ambitious usurper, one hopes that Ashoka was not the ghastly caricature depicted in Shahrukh Khan's film, and certainly India was not administered by ARMY officers as shown in Lagaan b ut by a civil ICS administration.

Similarly, Hollywood glosses over the fact that getting the German Enigma machines in WW2 was a purely British affair (U-571 shows us otherwise), and of course America won the war (no mention of UK/Common wealth forces, or more importantly - Soviet forces).

What I am saying is that films always distort history a bit - and so long as they are not conveying a completely different story - that should not matter. A purist on the matter of history myself, I am surprised by the vehemence of the historical community's attack on the film. My guess is that they do not want a false sense of nationalism to emerge on the basis of the Mangal Pandey story. They are a hundred and fifty years late in stopping the myth from taking hold.

In the end The Rising is a great film, a great story, well shot, with a few excusable omissions.

Kudos to Aamir Khan for the dedication he put into the production of The Rising, an unfairly over-hyped film, that sets out to deliver the story of Mangal Pandey.

The fact that Aamir took 4 years to make this film complete with growing his locks and that awesome moustache along with tons of research is an anomaly in the Bollywood film industry. Films are churned out 3/day at the last estimate, but Aamir being the professional he is, waited years to make this movie after the unprecedented success of his Oscar nominated Lagaan.

Without a doubt Aamir carries the film on his shoulders. There were many naysayers about the fact that Aamir may have been a bit lacking in the height department for the role of a freedom fighter, but when you see his towering performance on screen, his small frame is all but forgotten.

The man is Indian Cinmas answer to Edward Norton from Hollywood. A great actor for his generation who is going to continue to bring Indian cinema (not bollywood masala flicks) to the international audience....i think it's his calling. Amitabh Bachchan seems to have chickened out of this task of elevating Indian cinema to an art rather than a mockery that it usually is.

Without a doubt another actor who comes close to stealing the film away from Aamir is British actor Toby Stephens... i was under the impression that his role would be quite small. Instead he has a fully fledged three dimensional character who is in the entire movie. And on top of that, he acts the entire movie in Hindi. A best supporting actor nod is in order.

This film could theoretically get an Oscar nod (unfortunately a win maybe a hard sell). The songs are probably distracting for a Western audience, but they'll have to live with them.

The film does fall short of being an all time classic. But i think we may have to wait for the initial hype to settle down, because the movie is without a doubt the best one of 2005.

The film is slow to start, with the first half being an introduction of all the characters. But pre-interval, the story and Aamir Khan rev into the 6th gear, getting ready for the inevitable Rising post interval.

Get this. I think the movie could have been a bit longer. A little more development was needed with some of the glossed over aspects of British rule.

But, all in all, a magnificent effort from all involved, especially Aamir Khan and Toby Stephens.

8/10