उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

"The object of this massive tribute died as he had always lived, without wealth, without property, without official title or office. Mahatma Gandhi was not the commander of armies, nor the ruler of vast lands. He could not boast any scientific achievement or artistic gift. Yet men, governments, dignitaries from all over the world, have joined hands today to pay homage to the little brown man in the loin cloth, who led his country to freedom."

This quote is from the funeral scene in the 1982 film "Gandhi". Richard Attenborough directed this massive epic about the man that freed India. The film opens with Gandhi's assassination. The next scene, his funeral, is one of the greatest scenes in cinematic history. Attenborough managed to recreate Gandhi's funeral on January 31st, 1981, the 33rd anniversary of the actual funeral. It is estimated that nearly 400,000 people were on hand to be a part of the filming the recreation. This film was made before CGI (computer generated images), so the funeral scene is probably the last live action crowd of that magnitude that will ever be filmed.

Mahatma Gandhi's message of non-violent resistance is delivered in an interesting and enthralling body of art. This film has made and will make millions of people aware of the little brown man that took on the British Empire and won. "Gandhi" serves both as entertainment and an important historical record of one of the most important figures in history.

Ben Kingsley played Gandhi. He was the perfect for the role. He resembled the real Gandhi. He was young enough to portray Gandhi as a young man. He is a British actor that nailed the British influenced Indian accent. He is a wonderful actor that was patient and humble with such an important part. And he was a relatively unknown actor at the time, so the "big-time actor" persona did not get in the way of viewing the film. He did win both the Academy Award and Golden Globe for best actor, for this role, which I agree he deserved. He became Gandhi.

The cinematography was outstanding. Attenborough filmed "Gandhi" on location in India. The scenes of India are spectacular, and India is very much another character in the film. This film is as much about India itself as it is about Gandhi. Attenborough shows the audience the people of India from its countryside to the vast city of Calcutta. It is suggested by Kingsley, on the DVD, that Attenborough had a difficult time with the elite class in India at the time of filming. They were against the making of such a film by an Englishman. Undeterred by their negative thinking, he persevered to enlist thousands of Indians to help make this film. Every crowd scene, he used real Indians from the area. Attenborough also won both the Academy Award and Golden Globe for best direction.

This movie is a must see for everyone. It should be required viewing in high schools, as part of History class. The fight against prejudice will forever be relevant. It is also a beautiful work of art. This movie is not tainted by the embellishment of Hollywood (see "Pearl Harbor" for that). Of course, it would have been hard to screw up a movie about such a great man. 10/10

Here indeed is one of the great films of the 20th Century about one of the greatest men of the 20th Century. Ben Kingsley's interpretation of the Mahatma must go down in history as one of the most perfect cinema rôles ever carried out. Throughout the long film you forget you are watching an actor playing the part of a great man in history: you are watching the real Gandhi. A gigantic performance indeed. Richard Attenborough's patient and perfect directing added all the superlatives possible to make a crowning achievement, transporting biographic films into another dimension.

It is all there: from the most intimate and poignant portrait to the incredible crowd scenes, beautifully captured in the most painstaking photography. You do not just watch the scenes unfold – you live them, you feel them, so captivating they are; and Ravi Shankar's music tugs at you, spellbinds you, forces you into sympathy, admiration and so many other feelings.

Enthralling: how such a cinematographic work of art can reach such proportions is truly amazing; this film is nothing less than a miracle. During 1971 I travelled a good bit around India; I constantly had to apologise to energetic Indians who approached me on the subject of the British Raj. I had not even been born. But as a young and unappointed ambassador, I felt it my duty to bow my head in that country which is a microcosm of the whole planet. Thanks to this film, `Gandhi', Attenborough and Kingsley have said just about all there was to say.

< For men may come and men may go, but Gandhi goes on forever >

As an Indian watching this film, in 2020 no less, you need to take this movie with a grain of salt. History was indeed made by one man in this film, however it has entirely omitted the sacrifices by others almost equally important.

Richard Attenborough, a legend himself, has taken on a gargantuan task by helming such a powerful and historic project. While critics and historians can argue night and day, as a movie goer, this is movie shows the humble beginnings of even humbler old man who shaped a nation.

Ben Kingsley bears such a remarkable resemblance to the real Ghandi himself, you often forget this is a film and not a documentary of the real man. His performance is strongly commended and near flawless.

A must watch for movie buffs and historians everywhere.

As soon as I finished watching Gandhi, I thought to myself "This movie had to have won Best Picture." I think it's one of the best epics of all time. It masterfully tells one of the most important stories of the 20th century, that of India's struggle to free itself, spearheaded by one of the most extraordinary men of all time, Mahatma Gandhi. I would be hard pressed to name anything lacking about it. Direction, cinematography, costumes, they're all great. And Ben Kingsley! Without a doubt his portrayal of Gandhi is one of the best performances of his career, if not THE best. Playing the pacifist Indian lawyer-turned-leader couldn't have been an easy task, and I don't think anyone could have pulled it off as well as he did. This movie deserves all the praise anyone gives it and more. Excellent.

Thinking back, I suppose I have now seen many (sometimes good) films that follow the same recipe: One man makes a difference.

But this film is an exception in so many ways:

1) It was made in 1982, so it came before many of them.

2) It has amazingly well-displayed historical significance.

3) Great performances in a near-flawless, frank scrpit.

This film does not bother the viewer with an opening montage of scenes of the main character at various ages ("Dragon", I'm looking at you). This is an amazing film that anyone of any religion, race, or nationality can and should appreciate. With its subtle relevance to today's situations in that part of the world, this is a history buff must-see.

Watch this film and see great performances (an obvious oscar went to Ben Kingsly), excellent cinematography, and a wonderful inspiring story, whose essence soars well above the corny, do-gooder mentality of other pitiful efforts of "bio-pics".

10/10

This is one that absolutely must go on everyone's "must see" list. One of the truly greatest movies ever made. For those who found it "boring" or "too long," you folks need to just stick to stuff like "Star Wars," "Terminator," "Spiderman," or perhaps reality TV would be more your cup of tea.

For those who like to actually see real human history come to life on the screen, "Gandhi" is a true masterpiece for all times. A excellent summary of one of the greatest and most interesting lives of the 20th. century!

I find it odd that aside from a fine performance in "Shindler's List," that Ben Kingsley has really been a major disappointment as an actor following his role as "Gandhi." Perhaps like George C. Scott in "Patton," he was destined to play just one truly great role as an actor. And this was it!

For those who keep mentioning that Kingsley is "English," well, yes he is, but he is also "Anglo-Indian." His father is from India. In fact his father was born in the same small sea-coast town as Mahatma Gandhi! While filming the movie in the small towns of rural India, there were those older people who actually remembered seeing the original Gandhi who collapsed in shock when they saw Kingsley in his makeup. Hundreds became convinced that he actually was the Mahatma, returned! Also interesting is that Kingsley was born just after the asassination of Gandhi. I mean that's just a tad spooky, no....?

... and long may it continue to do so. Remains an incredible piece of storytelling and film making about one of few individuals the world has delivered, that can truly be referred to as a great leader - and not just of his people but of the peace loving populations of the world. Ben Kingsley perfectly embodies Gandhi to the point that you can almost believe he is performing in his own biopic. Let's also not forget, alongside a great telling of an inspirational journey, we get a history lesson of the impact of empire. It should encourage you to dig a bit deeper to uncover some rather alarming truths that the imperialists would rather you didn't appraise yourself of, undertaken by the usual white middle aged and older men who thought they were created better than the rest of the worlds demographics they sought to control.

Mohandas Gandhi was a great man, I certainly won't deny that. But as I watched "Gandhi", I noticed two serious problems. First, the film so idolizes the man that Gandhi's faults are overlooked, his critics are villainized (especially Muhammad Jinnah) and the film portrays him as almost god-like. As a former world history teacher, this chafed me...as no one is that perfect. Second, the film is very slow paced and I think you get a better and quicker look at the man if you read up about him on Wikipedia or some other online source.

Now I am NOT saying it's a terrible film (and I noticed several people gave the movie a 1)...its cinematography is amazing as is the scope and look of the film. Plus, the movie used some incredibly supporting actors to give the film color. Clearly they were trying very hard to make the movie look good.

From my point of view Gandhi is obviously not an attention-seeking film, but a poignant memorial to a great man. Because it is painted on a broad and beautiful canvas, the film is certainly visually stunning and stands out immediately from the huge mass. Especially the fact that the script was written around the words of Gandhi and the situations he became involved in from the beginnings in South Africa to the torture and massacre in India, makes the film special and unique. But the subsidiary characters are very poorly fleshed out. We see, for example, Gandhi's young sons near the start of the movie and yet we never meet them again, which seems kind of odd, because his wife plays a fairly major role in the film. Altogether this is an informative and enjoyable movie – watchings it is certainly an education – but it's not without its flaws, which while none of them are fatal, still leave one wondering how much better it could have been if the care and attention spent to Gandhi had been spread out over the whole production.

First to understand Gandhi's principles you must read his autobiography. He has admitted in his book that he was having sex while his father was dying. He admitted this when he was known as Mahatma (a great soul). Who can dare to admit such a thing. He vowed that he will never lie in his life. Is it possible for you and me not to lie in life? He took vow about his cloths and wore same cloths (he was half naked in those cloths) while he was in London in winter!!! Just imagine a freedom fight against Britain without any kind of weapon or violence!!! And he was successful. He gave freedom to India without any army. In fact his principles should be followed in today's world. I must say this movie was not enough to describe his principle. He was more than movie GANDHI. No body can capture his principles in a movie. For me he is like GOD because of his principles.

GANDHI: " My life is my message". " I have nothing new to teach this world, truth and non- violence are as old as hills".

I fully endorse the opinion which the jury at the academy awards shared regarding the quality of this movie. To be fair the scale at which the movie has been produced is massive and grand. The script is beautifully written ,primarily because of the fact that Gandhiji's life and contribution to human emancipation has been dealt with in judicious detail. The movie also shines in departments such as cinematography, screenplay . The inquisitive reader may then quite naturally ask me- Why have you given the movie a miserly 7 points in your rating?. This question deserves the following answer- Firstly, the etiquette of the movie is quite western. This is something which is hard to digest, for the protagonist and the storyline both are Indian. Ben Kingssley's ethnicity is the only thing which is Indian in the movie. His manners and demeanour are purely western. The style of speech and dialogue delivery is alien to the Indian mentality.

Let us all thus allow ourselves to independently judge the movie disregarding the Oscars it won.

What we get is a brilliant script performed brilliantly but in a manner so completely western that the movie should have named "Gandhi in Perspective".

I was about to give the movie 9 but my eyes caught sight of the movie's name at quite an inopportune moment. 7 for it's brilliance, the 3 it didn't get for it's incredible deviation from Indian sensibilities.

Very, VERY few films have had the distinct ability to move and inspire me to the point where the effect is almost life-altering. "Gandhi" - the unbelievable, first-rate biopic on the historical figure - is truly one of those films, no question whatsoever. An unsurprising sweep for the 1983 Academy Awards, this is without a doubt one of the last real "epic" motion pictures ever.

Chronicling the rich, unforgettable life of a one Mohandas K. "Mahatma" Gandhi - played to shocking perfection by the wonderful Sir Ben Kingsley - this is a film that I can say really, deeply affected me with its power, its scale, and of course, its timeless message of love and non-violence. As a matter of fact, ever since I first saw the film, and became much more aware of the back story, I can also say that Gandhi is now one of my biggest role models in life. I cannot fully express how much this great man's way of thinking - his words, his struggles, his accomplishments - has affected my own, for I am now a practicing pacifist. I am a firm believer in the value of non-violent protest, and have tried my best to apply that philosophy to most situations in my life. It has worked wonders for me, and has really changed how I view the world in terms of human nature and so forth. Like I said, VERY few films can do something like that to me.

I am all for ambitious and stately films, which is why I watched Gandhi. And I like Richard Attenborough, I think not only was he a talented actor and director but his films are very interesting. Gandhi is certainly one of his more interesting films, along with the underrated Cry Freedom.

Gandhi is just a wonderful film, and do I think it's one of Attenborough's best? Along with Cry Freedom and Shadowlands, yes it is. This film is for me his most ambitious and his most stately, and it is very compelling. True, it is long and perhaps leisurely in pace, but it is well worth the watch for several reasons.

Visually it is superb to look at. It was almost like watching a David Lean film, it has the beautiful scenery, the stunning cinematography and the sweeping colours that a Lean film does. I also loved George Fenton's score, it was very epic and moving. Is it his best? Perhaps not, but it is one of his better scores. Attenborough's direction is superb, and the script is thought-provoking. The story, starting with Gandhi's assassination and told mostly in flashback, is interesting and compelling, while the acting also helps drives the film. Words cannot describe how good Ben Kingsley's performance was, composed yet inspirational, sometimes I felt as thought I was actually seeing Gandhi rather than Kingsley. In fact, this is probably the Richard Attenborough-directed film that feels the most authentic in terms of characters and story. Kingsley also gets superb support from Candice Bergen, Edward Fox, John Gielgud and Roshan Seth. Best scene? Lots to pick, but Gandhi's funeral was brilliantly done and one of the most emotional scenes in film and had massive scope to it.

Overall, brilliant and one of Attenborough's best. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Films do not come any better than this. The impact of this singular life is still being felt in the world. This man of peace who toppled a mighty empire and caused it to leave his country. Many study his teachings, most importantly the Reverend Martin Luther King for the civil rights movement in America, not enough follow them, especially in Gandhi's own corner of the world. His monument is now a growing and prosperous India that is slowly eradicating poverty form its borders. Gandhi would approve of that, he was not just for independence for the sake of independence, he was deeply interested in the kind of society that would result after the British left India. India's growing prosperity would please him, the religious and ethnic struggles still prevalent in that part of the world would not.

The problem in discussing a film like Gandhi is that discussions will overlap into the life of the subject as opposed to the quality of the film. Richard Attenborough having lived a lot of his life during the time when these events took place remembered them well. He's got an eye for the sweep and grandeur of the story, but the life of Gandhi here is never overwhelmed by the spectacle of the film. And Ben Kingsley's Gandhi dominates the film, no wonder he received his Oscar for Best Actor. Ironically enough one of his competitors was Paul Newman who got a nomination for The Verdict which I consider his best performance and my personal favorite of his films. For me to say Kingsley deserved it over him is quite an admission.

Gandhi was a devout Hindhu, but he was a man of vision who saw some of the injustices of fundamentalist and exclusionary religious beliefs. Born in the Brahmin caste, he fought against the caste system where social status was stratified by religion in ancient times and people could not rise from it. He was a believer in a land of opportunity, careers that were open to talent. He also was against male domination and treated women as equals. Note that scene where after he's arrested the British soldier offers to take Mrs. Gandhi to shelter, but says she will make the same seditious speech her husband intended to make and they might as well arrest her too.

Of the many varied roles in the film by British and Indian players and a couple of Americans as well, the one that really stands out was Edward Fox as General Dyer. Some of the violence during our civil rights struggles in the American south was nothing compared to the Amritsar massacre when as the British commander he opened fire on a peaceful rally and slaughtered hundreds of men, women, and children. We put Nazis to death for atrocities committed in World War II, yet little happened to Dyer except he was put on the shelf and buried like an embarrassment which he certainly was. Fox in that small role captured the haughty military mind and cold blooded ruthlessness that one has to be born with.

The ironic thing is that after India did send troops to fight in various theaters in World War I the Indians, Moslems, Hindus, et al, expected independence. They thought it would be peaceful, but Amritsar made revolutionaries of a lot of people. And the sentiment in the British population was for independence. But some politicians like Winston Churchill and press barons like Lord Beaverbrooke whipped up a lot of fear in the Tory ranks for granting independence. It was a stupid and incredibly shortsighted opinion that we still feel the effects of today.

Gandhi won several Oscars besides Kingsley's including Best Picture for 1982 and Best Director for Richard Attenborough. The best review I can give Gandhi is that the film is great and worthy of the great man in portrays.

Gandhi is an epic historical drama that delivers a deeply moving portrayal of one of the most influential figures in history. The film is beautifully crafted, with stunning cinematography and a grand scope that captures the essence of Mahatma Gandhi's journey.

Ben Kingsley's performance is nothing short of phenomenal-he fully embodies Gandhi's wisdom, resilience, and humanity, making the character feel truly alive. The film's pacing can be slow at times, but it effectively immerses the audience in the historical and political complexities of the time. The message of nonviolence and perseverance remains as relevant today as ever.

While it may feel long, the film's emotional weight and historical significance make it a must-watch. A powerful and inspiring experience.

Ben Kingsley is an outstanding actor, and portraying Gandhi is his most outstanding work. He shows the young man shocked to see what is happening to his fellow Indians who go to Africa, the idealist trying to form the Ashram in his home country, the leader standing up to the English, and the aging man distraught over the conflict between the religious groups in India.

But this movie is worth seeing for other reasons as well. The rest of the cast turn in A+ performances. The film is extensive enough to show most of the key moments in Gandhi's life. The epic scale of certain scenes are all the more impressive considering that today's modern computer technology was not used to depict the large crowds.

The sequence leading up to and including the Great Salt March is one of the most moving scenes in film.

10/10

Attenborough's `Gandhi' is a solid biopic about the slain human rights leader, and Kingsley's acting job is unbelievably good. There were times when I would be watching the film and would completely forget that this was an actor portraying the man, based on the few times I had seen film or photographs of the real man. The cinematography is exquisite on this film, and reminiscent of David Lean's work, and the music is excellent – so much so that after sitting through over three hours of film I kept the credits rolling to hear the score.

However, even allowing for the sheer amount of information that had to be put into one single film, I feel that there were some important things that were glossed over, and other scenes that certainly could have been better edited. Understandably, we first glimpse Gandhi as an attorney traveling to South Africa, where he first experiences the inequality that he chooses to spend the rest of his life fighting, but soon after, when he arrives in India, he is suddenly in the current dress of the poor. Until then, he had certainly sacrificed, but he had gone from insisting that he `always travels first class' to this manner of self-sacrifice after he is released from prison without any background. Perhaps surprise was Attenborough's intent, because that was my reaction. On the other hand, there was a lot of time spent on moments that could have been pared down a bit in order to produce a more even pace – for example, some of the many meetings amongst Gandhi's `co-leaders'. It was moments like these that made the film less compelling than I expected it to be – I am normally glued to my chair during just about any film, but I had no problem getting up for a moment or two because I suspected I wouldn't miss anything, which turned out to be a true assumption.

These criticisms are fairly minor in the grand scope of the film – I knew nothing of this period of history and I felt like I learned some incredible facts and was able to of course correlate these with other historical events. This was obviously a completely selfless man who died in an ironic manner after the sacrifices he and his family made in order to preach the virtues of non-violent protest. While I admit that I was a little under whelmed because I perhaps had grand preconceptions, Gandhi is definitely a solid and important film.

--Shelly

Next to Patton I think this is one of the greatest movies based on a real historical person. The movie is about a lawyer turned great leader. His name is Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi (Ben Kingsley). He is a man who just wants India to break away from British rule. Unfortunately he has got quite a number of obstacles to climb over before getting the freedom of India. This movie was just fantastic. The cinematography just made me go "WOW". I can see why it won a lot of academy awards. I recommend this film to everyone living or dead.

10/10

Richard Attenborough's Gandhi is the perfect film to show someone if they want to see the true art of character actor and witness an actor lose himself in a role for over three hours. Ben Kingsley commands the screen as Mahatma Gandhi, almost never leaving the frame, and with that, creates an immersing film on the basis of a figure alone, who transitions epic and larger-than-life boundaries to become a man on a human level. The opening title card of the film states that it's impossible for a single film to show and develop all of one man's accomplishments on screen, as well as giving each time period and year their allotted weight and detail. However, this particular film's prime goal is to be spiritually accurate and faithful to the life of Gandhi by showing his active pluralism, reading and following Hindu, Christian, Muslim, and Jewish principles and being a loyal man of God through various different religions.

On that level, Gandhi succeeds overwhelmingly; at over three hours, the spiritual effects of the film are never desecrated, nor limited in their size or impact. Writer John Briley and Attenborough provide keen attention to detail in various spiritual aspects of the film, not only showing Gandhi as a loyal follower, but delicately handling each religion with its own respect and grace. On a human level, Gandhi succeeds for the most part because having the man in the frame for most of the film, through his journey of courageous, non-violent resistance and self-doubt, provide for a focus that is deeply rooted in realism and human emotions. Gandhi, however, doesn't overcome the hump of basically doing exactly what its title card said was impossible from the get-go; the film, at one-hundred and eighty-seven minutes long, tries to pack in far too much and, in turn, becomes a grating sit well into its two hours. We see important historical events that are either not fully developed or shortchanged so that the film can be inclusive to nearly every major event in Gandhi's life, and it is with the film's persistency to check off a laundry list of events that it obscures opportunities to further humanize its central figure.

The film follows Kingsley's Gandhi as a man who was motivated following being thrown from a train in South Africa for being in the traditionally all-white first class section to liberate the Indian people of the region. Gandhi preaches the gospel of non-violent resistance, which doesn't condone acts of brutality against oppressors, however, doesn't accept passivity either. Gandhi believes in resistance that shows that he and his brothers and sisters are fed up with harsh treatment, and rises above such acts of brutality by showing who really is the strongest.

Following Indian liberation in South Africa, Gandhi takes on a task that initially seems insurmountable; liberate the Indians of the oppressive British Empire, a challenge he accepts following his return home to India where he is recognized as a hero and a powerful figure. It is here when Gandhi decides to partake in a hunger strike, an action which is, essentially, being violent to oneself rather than a specific group of people. It is during is fight for India's independence that we, and Gandhi, for that matter, see just what he's made of and all he is capable of as a human being.

An event of Gandhi's life that would've been fit for a film itself would've been the hunger strike, which crippled Gandhi and made him a skinnier soul than he already was. Such an event, like Nelson Mandela's prison sentence of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Selma protest, are events that would've made for fine, epic films benefiting from a concentration in a specific event. Gandhi's is a film that occupies a grand amount of space and a large amount of time, even boasting an intermission, and with all this time and ground to cover, inevitably, even if you don't know the entire story, you know that certain situations were truncated or lack the kind of development needed to make them more meaningful. While Attenborough slows the film down to assert Gandhi's religious devotion and his human qualities, he nonetheless makes the classic mistake of epics and biopics in that he tries to cover too much ground that even the liberal runtime of three hours and eleven minutes cannot do effectively.

Starring: Ben Kinglsey, Rohini Hattangadi, and Roshan Seth. Directed by: Richard Attenborough.

This is one-half of a great movie. I say this because the film's second half is marred by the unfortunate appearance of tacked-on characters who seem to serve no other purpose than to give face time to a few actors and actresses, all of whom I hope paid for the privilege of being in this movie.

Especially grating are the appearances of Geraldine James as Gandhi's adopted daughter Meerabaham and Candice Bergen as a photographer (in the film's last 40 minutes no less.) James's only function in the film is to speak softly and worshipfully and to gaze at Kingsley's character for several seconds at a time. Why on earth her inclusion in this film was seen as necessary totally escapes me. She has nothing of substance to say and just takes up space. Bergen's photographer is even worse- her appearance so late in the film simply makes no sense unless Bergen slipped some money under the table to the producer. She actually subtracts from the film by playing Candice Bergen rather than any character the viewer could possibly care about.

I wont include Martin Sheen in this group, because he does appear early in the film, then vanishes for roughly two hours before reappearing near the film's end. However, I found it striking that the makeup crew was apparently not informed that some thirty years were supposed to have passed between meetings of Sheen's character and Kingsley's. Sheen's character really ought to be pushing seventy by the time he reappears, but he doesn't look a day past fifty.