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....?

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

Everyone, even his enemies, were impressed by his willingness to suffer, even die, at the hands of those in power, rather than back down from a just cause. He won the victory by insisting that his followers use civil disobedience and eschew all violence, thereby depriving the authorities of a justification for violent suppression. Gandhi explained it: "When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been murderers and tyrants, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it, always."He returned to India after the victory to become that country's spiritual leader. He led the struggle for independence from Britain, still insisting on non-violent means. The goal of independence was achieved but the Hindus and Muslims did not unite as they had in South Africa. Instead, they caused India to be split into India, Pakistan and East Pakistan, which later separated from Pakistan as Bangladesh. Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu fanatic.Two decades later, his methods were used by Martin Luther King in the fight against segregation in the United States of America. Gandhi and King were both willing to die for a cause and they both did but even now, in the next century, there is still some hatred between Hindus and Muslims in Kashmir state and between blacks and whites in America. Where is the next Gandhi? Where is the next Martin Luther King? Such men are still needed all over the world.

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 >

Africans as much. Also, he apparently believed that Hinduism would rise above all other religions.As for the movie itself, "Gandhi" maybe is a little overblown and adores it's subject more than necessary, but it's hard not to. Kingsley is perfect in his role, and Candice Bergen, Martin Sheen, Edward Fox, and the other cast members also do great jobs. A great epic in every sense.One more thing. In "Weird Al" Yankovic's movie "UHF", he featured a commercial for "Gandhi II" no more Mr. Passive Resistance . Also, Robin Williams once jokingly suggested Gandhi Jeans sizes 1 and below .

country's independence from Britain through the use of nonviolent means. One of his major obstacles was the uniting of Hindu and Moslem Indians in this cause. He achieved his goal of independence but through the formation of two separate countries, India and Pakistan, with a further division of Pakistan later forming Bangladesh. In depicting Gandhi's life, the film paints a vivid portrait of racial discrimination, both in South Africa and in his native India. Gandhi is an important historical figure as other great leaders, such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela, have employed his peaceful approach to causes of civil rights and racial equality in their own countries.This was a simple & humble man without wealth, property, official title, or political position. Yet Gandhi is seen as India's greatest leader, a man who insisted that his followers achieve their goals through civil disobedience rather than violence. The film captures with equal brilliance his simple tasks, such as spinning cotton or scooping salt, and his dramatic methods, especially his fast unto death. Gandhi's commitment to his goals and his determined but peaceful pursuit of them are well portrayed, as he shows himself willing to suffer and possibly even die to achieve his ends. Ben Kingsley, a British actor of paternal Indian origin himself, is masterful in his portrayal of the great Hindu leader, both during his years as a young lawyer in South Africa and later as the simple and modest man wearing wire rimmed glasses, a loin cloth, and shawl. He perfectly captures Gandhi's humility, intensity, dignity, and inner strength. Although Kingsley had a significant role in Schindler's List, for me he will always be Gandhi in the role he was born to play.The wonderful star studded supporting cast includes John Gieguld as the Indian Viceroy Lord Irwin who ignores Gandhi, John Mills as the earlier Viceroy, Edward Fox as the cruel English General Dyer who ruthlessly fires on a crowd, Trevor Howard as the considerate and respectful Judge Broomfield, and Ian Charleston as a local Christian clergyman. Journalistic roles are portrayed by Candice Bergen as a photographer for Life magazine, and Marin Sheen a New York Times reporter.The movie was filmed on location in India and has stunning cinematography throughout. The scenes of India both countryside and crowded Calcutta plus the dramatic funeral crowd depiction which features half a million extras, lend this film the impression of a sweeping epic. David Lean's only worthy rival is Richard Attenborough, who directed this picture. It fully deserved its numerous Oscars which include Best Picture, Actor, Director, Cinematography, and Costuming. This is an incredible movie which gives viewers of all nations and faiths an appreciation for the life and work of India's beloved Hindu leader. However, I have some definite qualms about this epic. As is often the case with Hollywood, Christianity is not cast here in a particularly stellar light, Christians are generally depicted as bigots, and the clergyman is not personally very inspiring. Rev. Andrews seems to have a weak theology himself and is portrayed as rather pathetic compared with the wise & great Hindu leader. I have little knowledge of the movie's historical accuracy in its depiction of Gandhi. While one certainly should not cast aspersions upon the deceased, this picture appears to totally overlook any flaws Gandhi may have had. I am quite leery of putting people on pedestals and frankly, the Indian leader is elevated to a state approaching deity in this film. Certainly Gandhi made an enormous contribution to India's history and became an admirable model of peaceful resistance to injustice, but it is Christ who set the example of a life lived perfectly. He is another who lived humbly without wealth, property, title, or position and is the one on whom we should genuinely model our lives in every respect. Gandhi is unquestionably a stunning film, but I bear all this in mind.

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

to shine. There's also a brief early appearance from Daniel Day-Lewis as the chap who hassles Gandhi for walking on the pavement in the company of the white reverend.A lengthy film and one which, of necessity, focuses on the politics of the time and the liberation of a state under the thumb of imperialist rule; but 'Gandhi' doesn't shy away from showing its subject as a human being and a man of integrity.

for Braveheart. Why couldn't they find the perfect Indian to play Ghandi, perhaps the most influential Hindu in history? There are thousands of Indian actors the cast directors could have picked from and most Indians, due to years of colonization, speak English better then most Americans. Don't get me wrong, Sir Ben Kingsley is a fine actor and deserved the awards he received for the role. I am simply speculating when I wonder why they picked a British man whose ancestors probably helped invade and exploit India instead of an authentic Indian. That's all.