So much average

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Not knowing anything about the history of India, I wouldn't know if the story within a story, that is, the sequences being filmed by Sue McKinley (Alice Patten), are historically accurate or not, but the device was an interesting one and served to contrast the difference between the youth of today and those of the 1920's. There comes a disturbing political message as well with the corruption of Indian politicians who line their pockets at the expense of military pilots who die in plane crashes as a result of defective parts. There's an awful lot of stuff being juggled around in the story, and that perhaps is the film's downside, as it takes nearly three hours to tell it's tale, and I found any number of scenes to be superfluous. As in so many Hindi films I've seen, Aamir Khan has a central role, but he didn't seem to stand out as much as in other starring vehicles, like the characters he portrayed in "Lagaan" and "3 Idiots". Funny, but the actor playing Sukhi (Sharman Joshi) reminded me an awful lot of the American actor Ron Palillo who had the role of Horshack in the Seventies sit-com 'Welcome Back, Kotter', so much so that it was a little distracting. The other thing that was distracting, and maybe because I've conditioned myself to look for it, was the ubiquitous product placement that accompanies most modern films you'll see today. In other words, do you think Coca-Cola had enough representation in the picture?

It is a 2 hour and 43 min long movie which held me close towards it for the full run time by its mighty gravitational force.Actually it is a stirring voice against all injustice.In the beginning of the movie it shows some historical movement against the then English government.Then it introduces us with most of the characters who lives a enchanting lifestyle.Side by side the condition of present India is also reflected.The jocular group of lead characters feel some changes in them dealing with a serious thing in the middle of it .Then they get real life example of what they felt earlier.After that they burst out in revolution.They just lose control.Then their aim becomes to uphold their right beyond all odd.And,all these gravitas changes are depicted with enough fun & color.Love,friendship bloomed perfectly well through this movie.

This movie could have cut out a bunch of unnecessary scenes and been an excellent movie. There are quite a few'music video' like scenes in the first hour and a half of the movie. And they really suck. The characters are also obnoxiously annoying. I guess it's somewhat for a purpose of showing that they are young and still immature. But damn, I get it. I don't need to watch the same point reinforced over and over. Anyway this movie gets incredibly good for the last hour or so. It ties together the first part with the ending very nicely. Even though I hated the first part it was still worth watching.First hour and a half: 4/10 Last hour: 9/10

"One leg in the past, one leg in the future, this is why we're pissing on the present." So observes a character in Rang De Basanti. Of course, this is predicated on the assumption that it's men doing all the damage. In a Patriarchal country like the beautiful India, it's more than an implication. There's a cognitive dissonance, a man-made conflict of interests. It's a closed system with two interacting elements; the patriotic and the pecuniary.The film tells its story, one of mistakably dimming relevance, in a very calculated and inviting fashion. The fight for independence from the British, as a historical documentary being made on a zero(denied)-budget by an ambitious British post-adolescent woman, that needs re-enactments, which shall be done by the boisterously youthful protagonists. (They jump drunkenly off bridges where the original young revolutionaries jumped on moving trains.) This dissonance spills out of the narrative and into the film making craft itself; about 75% of the cuts in the film are truly cinematic, impressively invisible, and serve emotion and storytelling, the rest are so hip-hoppy you think Honey Singh is going to burst into the frame. The Dance Numbers are derivatively progressive.A subplot of external conflict, with a clique of militant dogmatists who are offended deeply (and paid heftily to take deep offence) by the 'Western-wannabeism' of the protagonists is inflated and paraded for us to notice, then buried for virtually the rest of the film.A key character crosses over from their side (a big key too, considering he's the one getting the money), gets a role in the documentary, and then only serves as a pair of fists and knees in a plot-hinging fight scene. After that, he's just a diffident extra in the documentary. Anyone paying attention to the story at this point will tell you he has more conflict, both internal and external, than all the other characters aggregated.That wouldn't leave running time for Aamir Khan's comic relief though, would it? But is this a story that needs relief, from what? The premise itself is a tricky compromise enough. I don't know whether it's the New Bollywood way of tickling the audience's ribs, but there's a whole lot of standing-up-and-stomping-around going on, it gets on your nerves, then bites down and gnaws on them.Still, the film is very dramatically effective, and there are enough 'realistic' performances from the core cast to sour-down and hair-up the cutesy syrupy moments. Consider, how the director sets up an in-joke about a television that reacts better to a well-timed slap than a turn of the knob. Without repeating the joke too many times, he hurtles the movie forward swiftly and smartly, and right before the intermission, supplies a Soap Opera proposal we don't want to see. The sly disconnect with which he uses the punchline of the T.V. joke to cut down silly romanticism with grim foreclosure is not only tragi-darkly-comic, it understates one of the movies running themes; "Put your life on the line for your country in this new world, you're not a revolutionary, you're Nuts." Safer to make movies and documentaries about stuff. Apropos, did Tropic Thunder steal its premise from this, strip away idealism and purpose?The message seems to be that, inherently oppressive, colonialism (ancestral to anti-nationalism in a way) is an indelible stain that only permeates wider and changes color with time. I heartily agree. However, wherever you stand on this contemplative time curve, you leave a puddle. Blood, tears, or likely, pxss.Overall, the film is an efficiently constructed, cleverly told and expertly presented crucial bit of overarching history, worth the demand of its running time.