Jinnah (1998) User Reviews

A courageous human biopic that deserves to be seen...

[mnalgirkar · 8/10 · 2 November 2007]

This is a high-quality biopic on the life of Jinnah, and an excellent film in general. It is a great character portrayal of a key figure in the history of the Indian subcontinent, and it peels away layers of Jinnah's life in the context of the events that shaped the independence struggle and the partition into India and Pakistan. The pace of the movie is unhurried and yet engaging; all the key actors have done a superb job of portraying their characters well and lent them credibility and depth. Lee, Fox, Kapoor, and Lintern were especially notable.

Being from India, I especially appreciated the opportunity to learn more about the life and persona of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who no doubt was among the most important historic figures of the time that shaped the history of the two countries. I liked the form of the film where Jinnah is challenged and questioned on many of the events in his personal life and on his political ideology. I feel that the film does an honest job of addressing and delving into those issues from his perspective and taking the viewer on an intimate journey into his motivations.

The partition is a sensitive, politically charged, and often divisive issue for the people of India and Pakistan; the scars on either side are deep and not too distant. However, films like Jinnah and also Gandhi to some extent offer a critical glimpse into the human aspects of the leaders of those times and what made them Quaid-e-Azam or Mahatma for the people then and also for the generations that followed.

moving and informative

[marypcb · 9/10 · 12 June 2002]

While I can't comment on the absolute historical accuracy, this film certainly taught me a lot more about the founding of Pakistan and explained many things I had wondered about in the conflict. Christopher Lee's excellent performance goes a long way towards making Jinnah a sympathetic character despite the controversial decisions he takes; I would say that this is some of his finest acting and I found the final scenes very moving indeed.

The flashback technique works well most of the time, although it's not always clear where some scenes are set (England, India, Pakistan or the imagination). This device packs a lot more information into scenes between the characters than a more realistic timeline would and sets the questions of the founding of Pakistan in the context of ongoing conflicts rather than leaving it as historical curiosity. The cinematography is excellent and you wouldn't know this wasn't a Hollywood film except for the thought-provoking treatment and lack of easy answers. One to look out for.

Terrible Injustice to an excellent film and an excellent actor

[colin-265 · 9/10 · 17 June 2006]

I thoroughly enjoyed Jinnah and it told the truth unlike Ghandi. The film never got the distribution it deserved in the USA nor surprisingly in England. Why is it that Christopher Lee, the most underrated actor of all time, was never nominated for an award for his superb portrayal of Jinnah? Why was it that this excellent film was passed over? I found it compulsive and once I got used to the strange beginning (angel debating whether Jinnah goes to Heaven or Hell)I was hooked. I would have given it 10 but for the silly scene (location in between Heaven and Hell) with Nehru and Ghandi looking at computer screens..... The trial of Mountbatten. however, was very interesting and clever. If you haven't seen this movie you need to and it is now available on DVD in UK and USA.

Christopher Lee considers Jinnah his BEST work to date

[megacool · 10/10 · 6 January 2003]

Best work under wraps - Christopher Lee

Christopher Lee may be starring in the forth-coming Lord of the Rings Trilogy and Star Wars: Episode II, but the lack of distribution for his 1998 film Jinnah continues to be a source of frustration for the actor.

Lee who plays the title role of Mohammed Ali Jinnah – who founded the nation of Pakistan in 1947 – shot the film on location there over a ten-week period in 1997 amid significant controversy (including attempts to have him arrested and deported). Since then, however, the film has never had a proper theatrical release and the ongoing potential for controversy could well be the reason.

At a special screening of Jinnah at the Barbican, Lee told Empire Online that he has been informed that distributors are afraid to show the film, fearing the possibility of terrorist repercussions from Muslim Fundamentalists. He was keen to point out, though, that this would be an unlikely reaction:

"[Jinnah] is the antithesis of that. It is the story of a remarkable man: a husband, a father and a brother who founded a nation. It has absolutely nothing to do with Fundamentalism," said Lee, adding that the film was not a political movie and had"played in Pakistan for a couple of months to packed houses and there was not one dissenting voice."

Lee did hit out at the portrayal of Jinnah in Richard Attenborough's Oscar-winning movie Gandhi, however, telling Empire Online: "The presentation of him in the film Gandhi was on the level of distortion. It was wildly inaccurate." Despite his long career, which includes over 200 screen credits, Lee considers Jinnah to be his best work to date.

"I'm very proud of this picture, and it should be shown," he said. "It must be shown. But what can we do about people who, I'm told, are afraid to show it?"

Source : Empire Online UK

The man himself

[matt-982 · 16 November 2004]

I tried to do as much research on the man, Mr. Ali jinnah, before i wrote this review. and even though i was not very well versed with the history of Pakistan, (in fact i wasn't even sure where Pakistan was exactly before seeing this movie), what i found was a series of reports by great biographers and historians, who have instead of being factual have decided to be emotional to the point of being ridiculously biased. i still, do not, know the reason why jinnah was hated by so many, because frankly no one seems to be able to prove a valid point, its all just bickering and bitterness.

However, i have gained respect for the man, in his unflinchingness, and "man of steel" attitude, a man who would bow to no one, and would never stoop below his standards and principles, if that made him cold and calculated, fine, at least he had fiber. Mountbatten is quoted as saying about Jinnah; "...That son of a Bit--, could turn you to stone with one look..." sounds like he was scared?

but its much easier to praise a movie like "gandhi" whose hero is such a simple case study, perfect in his nature and morals..etc etc... thats not a very hard case to sell, no wonder people liked it, it appealed to their sensibilities. Jinnah, may have been a man of steel, cold, unflinching, calculated, but how much do we really know of the man? we have on one hand reports by British journalists like Mr. Payne, whose "eyewitness" was just a bunch of idle thoughts and gut feelings with no real substance, but tainted by the inherent fear of the man (Jinnah), and on the other hand by embittered Indian writers who saw this man break up their country for an ideology they could never even hope to understand.

Jinnah was much deeper, i believe, a man who refused treatment for chronic tuberculosis, cause he believed that the Moslem's would never get their homeland, if he was viewed as weak, therefore he kept on going, steadfast, strong, like a locomotive, and in the end he died for it. No one knows the real Jinnah, but many have formed opinions based on 'stories' with no real truth behind them.

i read a excerpt from an article written by an Indian author, who wrote that in a rally held in 1930's, Jinnah was giving a speech in English and almost no one in the predominantly Hindi speaking crowd understood what he was saying, but when a British journalist queried a bystander on this he replied; "Its Mohammed Ali Jinnah, we trust him, whatever he says is right"

i don't think a man described in an unkind and biased history, as something close to Hitler, would command such respect and admiration from his people. He was, passionate, unflinching, upright, in short... a Great Man.

Matthew Davison New Jersey.

Excellent Protrayal of a Great Man

[abrown413 · 10/10 · 30 November 2002]

As a Westerner, I was only exhibited to one person in recent South Asian history, and that was Gandhi. Call it a media bias but M.A. Jinnah was never mentioned, let alone portrayed in a good or bad light. This film, beautifully pictured as well acted by the honorable Christopher Lee, embellishes historical facts that the West and India ignores. The scenery is excellent, as well as certain key points in the film exclaiming award worthy. A great scene is when Jinnah is talking to a little girl near the end. The humanity is simply awe inspiring. This is a factual portrayal of M.A. Jinnah. You will see others on this site praise or malign M.A. Jinnah, which is obvious of the hatred between some Indians and Pakistanis. Watch this film and read history and be the judge of it yourself.

The film is a reflection of the Greatness of Mohammad Ali Jinnah

[TechWiz100 · 10/10 · 29 December 2006]

The film is very good and brings out the best about Jinnah- a leader who sacrificed his home, family and love for his people. A must watch for every person who believes in freedom, equality and justice for mankind. I would recommend this film to every person, Pakistani or not. Also show this to your children, to make them understand the true virtues of a gentleman, an honest, brave and selfless leader. As Stanley Wolpert wrote in his book ' Jinnah of Pakistan', "Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three."

When ever you feel low and doubt your capabilities, sit down and watch this great movie. It will make you believe that honesty, integrity of character and determination can work wonders.

All the controversy was for naught...

[ajji-2 · 8/10 · 5 July 2000]

This film has been in the news since the cast was finalized. some people objected to a hindu (Shashi Kapoor) playing an angel, some objected that the role of Jinnah was given to an actor who played Dracula, and still others objected to the director, since he is persona non grata in Pakistan, because more than 2 decades ago he made the film that defied martial law regimes and made a monkey out of a certain general (now deceased). there were Pakistani directors, p***ed off that a banished director was preferred to their lot. yeah right, guys(i'm sorry u lost the chance to cast Babar Ali as Jinnah and Reema as Ruttie, and have them run around trees, singing in the rain), just give it up. artistic stuff of this calibre is WAAAAY out of your grasp. leave it to the experts.

Despite these and other difficulties the film got made, and despite numerous delays, the film was released. even though u can feel that some parts have been re-edited, it still leaves u with an intellegent and moving piece of cinema. kudos to the whole team and cast, especially Christopher Lee who positively SHINES in the role of Jinnah. Mr.Lee, i apologize on behalf of my countrymen. forgive them, for they r morons.

By no means a perfect film, this is FAR superior to the fodder that keeps coming out of Lollywood. before i go, just one last thing to say:

HURRAH !!!

rating: 8/10

Class that shows

[AdeelSu · 7/10 · 9 August 2002]

Jinnah the movie has some artistic beauty in it, even the blowing of sand in desert at the end of the movie leaves a deep impact over the viewer.

Actors have acted superbly but Talat Hussain has been wasted. He could have unleased his talent in the small role he had, like Om puri did in Gandhi.

Its no match for Gandhi,the story telling is different the personalities are different and the camera work is different. There are no negative characters in the film. Very neutral film, without making Jinnah an angel and Hindu's or British the scapegoat.

I only feel sorry for my country men , majority of whom will not be able to understand the story telling technique.

A Potpourri of Vestiges Review: Jamil Dehlavi's controversial biopic on Muhammad Ali Jinnah

[murtaza_mma · 9/10 · 20 April 2014]

Jinnah, directed by Jamil Dehlavi, is a 1998 controversial biopic about the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Renowned Islamic scholar Akbar Salahuddin Ahmed wrote the movie's screenplay. Jinnah stars the legendary English actor Sir Christopher Lee in the titular role. The movie costars Shashi Kapoor, Richard Lintern, James Fox, Indira Verma, Maria Aitken, and Talat Hussain. Dehlavi, a London-based filmmaker of Pakistani-French origin, is best known for The Blood of Hussain (1980)—a highly contentious, critically acclaimed film banned by the Pakistani military dictator at the time, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, as he believed the movie purposefully took digs at his tyrannical regime. Dehlavi effectively got relegated to the status of a persona non grata in Pakistan. Dejected and heartbroken, he later moved to the UK in want of creative freedom. Unfortunately, Dehlavi's controversial past would come back to haunt him two decades later during the filming of Jinnah.

Dehlavi's contentious choice of making a western Christian—that too someone whose most famous portrayal hitherto had been that of Count Dracula—to portray the part of Muhammad Ali Jinnah didn't go well with the extremist elements in Pakistan. The government of Pakistan withdrew its funding halfway through the film. Christopher Lee received death threats and the activists demanded for his arrest and deportation; Lee had to be surrounded by armed bodyguards throughout the shoot. As a result, Jinnah was never really afforded a proper theatrical release in Pakistan. Christopher Lee considers Jinnah to be the greatest achievement of his long and illustrious career.

The cinematic importance of Dehlavi's film can be easily gauged by the fact that till date it has been cinema's first and only major attempt at capturing in essence the philosophies and principles that underlined Muhammad Ali Jinnah's life. Before examining the movie further, it's essential to first try and demystify the enigma that was its subject: Muhammad Ali Jinnah. And, in order to fully grasp that, one needs to take the cognizance of the stature that Mr. Jinnah enjoyed at the time of independence. In many ways, he was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's arch nemesis, if ever there is one. In fact, it wouldn't be a hyperbole that, at the time, among Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Jinnah and Lord Mountbatten the future of India hung in the balance.

The official announcement of the Partition of India, as per the Mountbatten Plan, triggered a chaos on both sides of the newly established border as massive population exchanges started occurring between the two newly formed states in the months that immediately followed. The end result was a massacre of humongous proportions that claimed hundreds of thousands of innocent lives (mostly Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs) on both sides of the border. Jinnah being the grand architect behind the partition of British India into two separate states based on religion, a Hindu state and a Muslim state, was hailed as a hero in the newly formed state of Pakistan. But, in India, he was dubbed as a villain, was held responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. More than six decades have past but very little has changed. Mr. Jinnah continues to remain one of the most enigmatic, controversial and misunderstood figures in History.

The treatment that Dehlavi gives his movie is no less interesting than his subject. He chooses to present Mr. Jinnah's tale in form of flashbacks. The opening scene of the movie shows a terminally ill Mr. Jinnah, accompanied by his sister and confidante Fatima Jinnah, being taken in an ambulance to some hospital. The next scene cuts to an anteroom situated somewhere between Heaven and Hell where Mr. Jinnah is greeted by a friendly, humanoid Angel (played by Shashi Kapoor) who has an hour and a half to prepare Mr. Jinnah's case, the outcome of which would decide his fate. Will he be convicted or absolved? Will he go to Hell or Heaven? As Mr. Jinnah defends the accusations made against him, the audience is treated to sumptuous vignettes from different junctures in History as the story follows important events in Mr. Jinnah's life (not necessary in a linear fashion): be it his early days as a love- struck lawyer who dotes on a beautiful Parsi girl named Ruttie (whom he eventually married); his later days as the greatest adversary of Mahatma Gandhi; or his brief stint as the 1st Governor General of Pakistan before finally succumbing to tuberculosis.

Overall, Jinnah proves to be an important work of cinema that presents the caricature of a highly misunderstood man whose turbulent but celebrated life made his name a synonym for controversy. Jinnah had the courage to do what he felt was right for the greater good of his people. Although the movie is far from being flawless, it works well on the whole. The historical accuracy is undeniably questionable. The movie might upset those who lack forbearance. While the movie scandalizes Lord Mountbatten for being biased towards India, it takes a rather playful swipe at Mr. Nehru and Lady Mountbatten. Christopher Lee plays the part of older Jinnah with scalpel-like precision, Richard Lintern deserves a special mention for his arresting portrayal of the young Jinnah. James Fox (who plays Lord Mountbatten) and Maria Aitken (who plays Lady Mountbatten) are nothing short of being brilliant. Shashi Kapoor is charming to watch in the role of an Angel. These major performances are well backed up by the movie's support cast. But, Jinnah is not a movie for everyone.Only those with open minds should watch it, for it's bound to hurt the sentiments of those who lack tolerance and empathy. 9/10

A more in-depth review can be read at:

http://www.apotpourriofvestiges.com/

JINNAH (Jamil Dehlavi, 1998) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 10 August 2015]

Though I knew how proud Christopher Lee was of his achievement in this film, I had been wary of checking it out in view of the subject matter – which was as foreign to me as it must have been for most audiences (indeed, the movie was a straight-to-DVD release in the U.K., the star's very own native country!). However, I need not have worried since, not only was it a compelling biopic (the titular founder of the Muslim state of Pakistan was a contemporary – and religious rival – of "Mahatma" Gandhi) but one that was tackled in a quite original fashion for pictures of its ilk.

Having mentioned the beloved Hindu leader, at 110 minutes against the 188 of Richard Attenborough's GANDHI (1982), the film under review feels somewhat like a subplot within the epic narrative of that multiple Oscar-winner – in which Jinnah is said to have been unflatteringly portrayed (I have not watched it for years, so I cannot really say myself). As such, the plot here follows much the same pattern – following Jinnah from his youth as a barrister to an interracial marriage (though he would later disown his daughter for doing the same!) and his dealings with the British rulers (represented by war hero Lord Mountbatten – played by James Fox – whose wife apparently carried on an open affair with the future first Prime Minister of an independent India, Jawaharlal Nehru!). Ironically, despite their often radically different approach (Jinnah coming across as Malcolm X to his Martin Luther King), Gandhi was assassinated by his own people because of his ultimate consent to the country's "partition" – allowing the Muslim minority in India to have its own nation; in the film, he even meets Jinnah in the computer-driven(!) afterlife and chides him for it.

Incidentally, it is scenes such as the latter – which surprisingly abound here – that stand out, even more perhaps than the expected stirring speeches (powerful though these undeniably are); in fact, the movie emerges as more of a fantasia (though obviously far removed from the self-indulgent excesses of Ken Russell's treatment of many a classical composer in his 1970s heyday) than a typical biopic. This may have been done so as to give 76 year-old Lee maximum screen-time – but the notion of having him look over his life accompanied by a sharp-witted heavenly "narrator", to determine what good he has done but also where he went wrong (the moving finale has him asking forgiveness of his subjects for the great hardships they had to endure as a direct result of his honest struggle to lend them "dignity"), was certainly an inspired touch – shades of "A Christmas Carol" and IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946)! That said, some confusion is not avoided: not only does Lee see himself as an old man – but he is even shown advising his younger self (Richard Lintern) on what course of action to take! One of the best sequences, then, has him fictionally take up law one last time in order to try Lord Mountbatten for what he deems betrayal i.e. having renounced his pro-Pakistani stance – again, a welcome fanciful passage that reminds one of THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER (1941) and A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH (1946)!!

While the production went through much financial difficulties that almost saw it abandoned and Lee's casting was reportedly the cause of an uproar in Pakistan itself, it must be said that the actor's commanding performance really holds this together and, thus, he was justified to hold it in such high esteem within his extensive and varied canon.

Great portrayal of a Great Leader!!

[uptosky44 · 10/10 · 17 December 2007]

Well writing about my great leader shivers my hands and honestly speaking I have got no words for praising him.His personality could fit into times thousand years earlier and the same length later for he was so honest to everything he did and wanted to do.He never thought he had done enough but for us he did as much as we wouldn't even be able to pay back ever. This movie??Compare it to any routine box-office movie,,whether it be some action,thriller,true story or any other,,this movie has got a very very different and a bewitching touch to it with Mr.Jinnah explaining his motives behind everything he did,what a concept,awesome.Just like a live interview,I really appreciate the writer,the director,the whole team for carving out such a splendid concept and the actors/actresses deserve great applause for the work they did. A must-watch movie for everybody,,go and watch it whether you be a student,a professional,a teacher,a lawyer or even a family-man,you'd get many many lessons for your life to come when you get to see Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah's life story on screen,it's what can make you rise and individual and as a nation too.

Good but oddly cast...

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 14 October 2016]

When the film began, I noticed right away something that surely must have upset many Pakistanis when the film debuted...the man playing Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the Father of their country, was played by the very English Christopher Lee! While Ben Kingsly was part Indian by heritage (and he played the lead in "Gandhi"), Lee was too tall and English...in a movie that is essentially anti-English!

Now as far as the film goes, it is VERY unusual in style as it bounces about sequentially. Using a very strange plot device, the dead Jinnah is asked to do a post-mortem on his life by a guy who you must assume is some sort of heavenly messenger. As such, Jinnah's life is discussed and highlights of his career are mentioned. But, given how important he was and what a long life he had, it all felt very episodic to me and easily could have been a mini-series. So, despite nice production values and a nice film, it seems superficial and incomplete. Good but just too much for one movie to encapsulate.

Propaganda movie, full of accusion & lacks credible evidences.

[abhijeetjn14 · 4/10 · 19 March 2019]

I watched the movie to learn more about the view point of jinnah. A lot of things have been represented nicely, like Jinnah views & how he was against extremist Muslims.

But a lot of things that have been shown based on assumption and there's no credible proof of it. Some of them are -

nehru & Edwina having physical relations.

India airlifting troops to kashimir even before accession on kashimir to India.

There's no part in the movie which shows by Kashmir chose to go with India other than swallow justification that his king was Hindu. This is where I lost my cool, Kashmir has been a big issue & if in a movie which defines a country is made as propaganda without showing the complete picture. It's tragic.

Movie admits that violence happened at both sides, but all the violence shown in the movie was against Muslims why? Why violence not against hindus not shown?

Every viewer must watch this movie with pinch of salt.

I am glad that I had read many books before watching the movie else I would have been brainwashed to believe the propaganda.

a very good presentation

[mansoorad · 31 July 2006]

well, when the movie was in process, even the general public in Pakistan was having certain reservations about it. however, it looks a fine product once it comes out. i think apart from certain aspects which can be presented more efficiently, the film is a good presentation of the life of Jinnah.

the movie has portrayed the life of a politician who never went to jail during a whole revolution. it shows that with statesmanship and with logic of your opinion, you need not to be violent to prove your point and thats what exactly done by Mr Jinnah. he never called for civil dis obedience or violent aggression against the rulers, he never called for bloodshed or violence and still managed to create a country on the map of the world. a good learning for all the current dispute holders in the world.

lee was superb, his gestures, his moves and his style shows his research on Jinnah. he shows his skill and his grip on the characters. other actors were OK but the screen play can be more strong. over all a good film, some people may disagree with the creation of two nation theory but no body can object the personality of Jinnah as a law abiding and man of principal politician.

Great movie about a GREAT MAN!

[erazer79 · 10/10 · 2 May 2000]

The movie tells the story of the leader of PAKISTAN, the great QUAID E AZAM MOHAMMAD ALI JINNAH, and the creation of PAKISTAN.

A cinematic masterpiece, it brought tears to my eyes and effected me deeply.

This movie sets the record straight about THE GREAT JINNAH, after the biased potrayal of him in the movie "gandhi".

Befitting Portrayal of the Great Quaid (Jinnah)

[Umar Mansoor Bajwa · 9/10 · 6 January 2007]

Comparatively, this is a movie in its own class, well directed and effectively pictured. The Quaid-e-Azam (Muhammed Ali Jinnah) is portrayed as a leader of unwavering integrity and impeccable determination, all set to win a country for the hapless Muslims of the sub-continent.

However, history has been distorted (wittingly or unwittingly ?) at least on one occasion. It was not Allama Iqbal who persuaded Jinnah in 1933 to return to the sub-continent and lead the Muslims. Instead, the fact is that Mr. Abdur Rahim Dard (the resident missionary of Ahmadiyya Community) in London was responsible for convincing Mr. Jinnah to return to his land of birth and fight for the cause of his brethren Muslims. It was Mr. Dard's eloquent persuasion that led Mr. Jinnah to accept his logic of leading/guiding the hapless Muslim masses of south Asia. It seems that Mr. Jamil Dehlevi could not muster the courage to film this fact as it would had annoyed the Pakistani countrymen beyond any reasonable rationale. THE TRUTH WILL LIVE FOREVER. NO AMOUNT OR REASON AS EXCUSE FOR THE DISTORTION OF HISTORY CAN BE JUSTIFIED.

It may be the best acting performance of Christopher Lee, quite in contrast with his earlier dreadful image of Count Dracula and mostly negative roles as villain like in the Bond movie "The Man with The Golden Gun" .... but, he was, indeed too bulky to portray an aged and skinny Jinnah, as in reality.

All said, the movie is respectably poised to exalt the saintly image of an honest and principled leader of the Muslims of the South Asian subcontinent.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah 1876-1948

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 4 October 2016]

I think that of all 20th century statesman Charles DeGaulle would have understood Jinnah best. DeGaulle during the darkest days of World War II said that in his mind and body rested the honor of France, that rump minority group of Free French fighters whom he led who would not submit to an occupying territory. DeGaulle saw himself correctly and he would have seen Jinnah in the same way, fighting for the honor of his Moslem people for their right to a separate nation and a separate destiny which we call Pakistan.

It's now a time for Jinnah to receive his eternal destination after he died and Christopher Lee as Jinnah is with his heavenly host in the view of the afterlife Islam has. The film is a recollection of those last years with World War II, the British leaving India, and the partition that created India and Pakistan. Pakistan had an East and West part with the nation of India in between. That ultimately didn't work out and we now call East Pakistan the nation of Bangladesh. But that's a whole other film.

With Richard Lintern playing a younger Jinnah and showing incidents of Jinnah's personal life, Lee is the older Jinnah and the principal actors in the creation of Pakistan by way of the partition are James Fox as Lord Louis Mountbatten, Maria Aitken as Lady Edwina Mountbatten and Robert Ashby as Jawaralal Nehru. Nehru, India's first prime minister and Lady Mountbatten were a most discreet item and it's this film's contention that Nehru did a lot of back channel negotiation with Lady Mountbatten. They were as discreet as Tracy and Hepburn in their day.

Pakistan had a rough delivery at birth, but survived it. It was a violent birth and millions died during the fleeing of refugees from both new countries. It is this film's contention that Lord Mountbatten settled on untenable lines for the boundaries of the two countries and the possession of Kashmir is to this day a matter of contention.

Jinnah due to the controversy of having a western actor in the lead had its own controversial birth. But Lee and Lintern create a fine joint portrayal of Pakistan's founder and Jinnah is a fine film both entertaining and educational.

Good Movie but can't replace a descent history book

[AnonQWERT · 9/10 · 13 June 2006]

It's a great movie but if you really want to know about Muhammad Ali Jinnah read a decent history book (perfiberabally not one from USA or India)

and the guy who commented about the killings in East Pakistan should also consider Abrahim Lincoln's USA when he killed millions of people to win his civil war. You will find the only difference is that no one from the outside world got involved in it and both parties used similar weapons, while the Pakistanis had damaged weapons (thanks to India) and its allies (including the US) refused to help them.

the guy who says that Jinnah's daughter should have been allowed to marry a Zionist should think how he would feel if his daughter marries a Jew (If he is a Christan) or a Christan (if he is a Jew) or any religious man (if he is an atheist) and consider why he wouldn't allow it. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RELIGIOUS TOLERIANCE(Meaning living peacefully with people of other religions or minorities) AND MARRYING SOMEONE FROM ANOTHER RELIGION.(Consider the effect this would have on the children of such parents)

Good movie but with a lot of bias

[balajiviswanathan · 6/10 · 19 May 2010]

I'm an Indian who wanted to learn about Mr. Jinnah. But, I didn't learn a lot of new stuff and was a quite disappointed.

The good stuff: 1.Lee's acting was quite good and he was quite good for the part. Though he is not Ben Kinsley, he is the main pivot here.

2. Mahatma and Nehru, though portrayed by weak actors, were not depicted too negatively.

3.For a Pakistani film, the film was reasonably professional.

Bad stuff: 1. Younger Jinnah (Lintern) never looked/spoke remotely South Asian. It looked more like the director was trying too much to play to the Western audience.

2. A lot of times the scenes were ridiculous like Gandhiji staring his computer etc.

3. Jinnah's sister in most of the movie really looked like a witch, and maybe she was one.

4. Throughout the movie the Hindus were predators and muslims were shown the prey/reactors. On the contrary while only 10% of Muslims were forced to flee India, 90% of Hindus in Pakistan were either slaughtered or become refugees in India. If Hindus were as blood thirsty as was portrayed in the movie, we would not have let 200 million muslims to stay in our country. Both sides had their victims and evil forces.

5.Maharaja of Kashmir signed the ascension to India after Jinnah invaded Kashmir while the movie totally ignored the crucial fact.

6. There was far too much stress on Edwina-Nehru that at some point I felt it was Nehru/Edwina's biopic rather than Jinnah's.

7. If Civil disobedience and Nonviolence made one a Hindu as depicted in the movie, then Rev. Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Henry Thoreau must all be Hindus! Nonviolence is beyond religion and as shown in the movie, Jinnah failed to grasp it.

8. Mountbatten's portrayal was horrible. He was shown to be without humor, grace, etc.

While Pakistanis are right to claim that Jinnah created their nation for them from India, they must also remember that there would be nothing called Pakistan had British India not won her Independence. Jinnah did relatively nothing to win independence to India and that is a fact. If not for Gandhi, India would have taken a few more decades to gain independence and by that time Quaid and his ideas of Partition would have long been dead.

I would give an above-average rating of 6 for a relatively bold story telling and good acting, but on the whole it was quite disappointing.

Cuts Ghandi down to size

[nasirn · 10/10 · 15 May 2001]

The first significant film about this great leader who took a stand to oppose the then brewing Hindu fundamentalism which we see in full swing today.

Unfortunately this film did not get the publicity and audience it truly deserved. Even today it is screened on Movie channels at unearthly hours.

The likeness of Mr. Lee to the real life Jinnah more then justify his choice for the leading role and despite its artistic slant, the historical accuracy of people and events give the film a chilling touch of reality that veterans and historians will appreciate.

This is a highly moving film but in contrast to Attenborough's Ghandi film it does not shower the hero with praises and gold dust. It offers a critical analysis by putting Mr. Jinnah on a hypothetical trial and asks you to decide - was he right or was he wrong?

Excellent biography and historical tale

[aamirabbas · 7/10 · 10 June 2004]

This movie was superb...it showed Jinnah's transformation from a man who was the champion of Hindu-Muslim unity to when he decided to ask for Pakistan in Muslim-majority areas of British India. It also gives due credit to Gandhi and Nehru and the three of them explain their role in independence from the British. Other interesting aspects of the movie is the affair Nehru had with Mountbatten's wife, which is important since it was a way for Nehru to influence Mountbatten.

However this movie will be better understood or appreciated by people of the subcontinent. I am afraid regular moviegoers might find the material too myopic to a certain place and time.

The movie depicts history from a pretty neutral viewpoint

[owais2010 · 10/10 · 19 May 2006]

There are two things to such a movie. First is weather you agree with the history as depicted in the movie and the second is quality of the movie in artistic sense. In this regards I think it depicts the history with a pretty neutral point of view, many Indians and indeed many westerners have presented history in such a manner that even a neutral account seems to take a lot of gloss away from Congress leaders like Nehru and hence such remarks appear anti Nehru and anti Mountbatten.

As far as the artistic value of the movie, although its a nice effort, I believe its not perfect although for Christopher Lee it was a job well done. For one thing, a person not knowing much about Indo-Pak independence would be left with many questions. I only hope that this film is re-done sometime in the future when Hollywood is a bit more favorable towards Muslim leaders and makes decent budget movies on leaders and issues relating to South Asia (not just Gandhi) and Middle East.

Not great, but good enough

[arabellaabid · 6/10 · 11 April 2019]

Jinnah is a movie that proves ahead of it's time for 1998. It breezes through a variety of critical historic events while still managing to provide adequate detail and context for viewers with no historic knowledge of the subject matter. It also does a remarkable job at displaying the incredibly oppositional political points of view regarding the conflict, and not painting Jinnah as an idol or flawless individual. Especially pertaining to scenes in which the popular opinion of him was directly addressed and in some ways offered Jinnah a chance to justify his actions. I do think, however, that the subplot involving Jinnah being in a comedic state of purgatory was gimmicky and took away from the seriousness of the partition. I also feel this way about the scene in which Jinnah speaks to the younger version of himself. I think it added little to no relevance to the main storyline, was confusing, and felt misplaced for a topic so heavy. I was also not a fan of the lack of Urdu, Farsi, Punjabi or Hindi. For a movie based in India, it was surprising to see only hints of the native tongue being spoken - especially only by "commoners" and people with no political position but rather just extras. In my opinion, the brief references to authorities figures by traditional titles was underwhelming for a country that was tackling how much influence the colonizer should keep in the country, but still used the language given to them by the colonizer. In addition, I also think the film did Fatima dirty as it made no effort in highlighting her incredible achievements but still focused on portraying her as a heroine who gave up marriage to support her brother's dreams and aide them in any way she could. Although I understand that this is a far cry from the typical portrayal of women, especially women of colour, it was disappointing that she was being portrayed as revolutionary with no real examples of why to support the claim. I also feel that her presence extended beyond the scenes that were shown, and there was no mention of how fundamental she was in the partition process as opposed to her portrayal in the movie as a strong female character who still acted in a relatively domesticated manner. Lastly, it seemed downright irresponsible to hint at a subplot involving Fatima as jealous of Rattanbai/Ruttie for her youth and influence on Jinnah. It went against everything that was being emphasized about her personality. Ultimately, I tolerated Jinnah. It's not a film that I'm particularly passionate about, even though the subject surrounding it is of great interest to me. I don't think it's a bad film, but I'm not sure if I would categorize it as incredible - especially considering that none of the actors were people of colour. It does, however, do a much better job than similar films about the topic. I don't know if I would watch it again, but I'm glad to have seen it once.

What were they thinking?

[Shai_K · 3/10 · 30 December 2006]

'Jinnah' is probably the best movie to come out of Pakistan. Yet, it leaves much to be desired. The Hell-Heaven portion was best avoided. And the movie, instead of giving an unbiased account of Jinnah's life, ends up being a decree on the lives of some of his political contemporaries. At best the movie is an attempt to show Jinnah as a man wronged by the Western media, and Gandhi and the others wrongly depicted as martyrs. A more positive approach would have the movie good. Also, the unverifiable bedroom scenes between Nehru and Lady Mountbatten do little to establish the credibility of this movie. The acting is brilliant, though. Christopher Lee does justice to his part. And so does the younger Jinnah. But, it's funny how a then 44 year old man (in 1920) looks no older than 30. Shashi Kapoor is positively irritating, and no more than an unnecessary comic element in an otherwise serious movie. The makers have done a commendable job in inculcating all aspects of Jinnah's life - personal, political, and professional (as an extremely successful lawyer). All in all, 'Jinnah' suffers from the pretentious bravado of its makers, and what could have been a fascinating tale into the man's life, ends up becoming a bit of a farce.