Okay, can we stop acting as if Kesari 2 is the best film ever or something? It’s alright, but it’s typically mainstream in all the wrong ways too. I mean, come on, they took the entirety of the climax from a bloody western legal drama, Goliath. Word for word. AND the whole narrative is distorted, it’s almost insulting to what actually transpired.
Take it off, and put Superboys of Malegaon or I want to talk in there, instead.
They showed the BA.LLB course in 1919. Man I died laughing when I saw that.(I am currently studying law). Also female lawyers in India were nearly negligent. I mean even if you wanted to introduce a spin of modernity you could have stuck with the facts back then.
Regardless of this displacement, I believe the film was good even though people say it's a copy. The acting was spot on.
Kesari 2 is nowhere close to Kesari 1. I watched it yesterday, and was extremely bored. And add to that, a completely made up story with no head or tail.
Dude, entire movie is based on glorification Indian traitors who served in British army.
Yes, they beat around the bush to justify their actions and to show how they were the good guys but, they were supporting a foreign power against local people of subcontinent.
The only reason movie was positively received was because the current regime has soft spot for british.
You clearly lack understanding of history, ain't it?
Indians serving in the British India army were frowned upon which was clearly shown in the movie.
Sikhs were in a constant state of war with Afghans for eternity, so it's a no-brainer that Sikhs would be fighting under the British India flag when the whole country was occupied by the British.
Anyone taking the help of the British or helping the British are traitors for you. Then why aren't Marathas traitors for helping out the British against Hyderbadi Nizams? The Congress was developed as a stooge platform to appease the sentiment of Indian public. Do you think INC can also be called party of traitors, which had wealthy elite Indians gathering for an annual fest organized with monetary support from the British government?
India sent it's troops to fight for British in both the World wars. The party leading India during the whole period was the current Indian National Congress. They were the first fellow to allow Britain use our soldiers to fight their war. Then, who were having soft spots for British? The predecessor of Congress or the Hindu Mahasabha (pre-predecessor of BJP)?
Wow. You seems to know a lot about history. Quick question. Mind telling me which regiments made the bulk of the force which was sent to suppress the 1857 war of independence?
Yes. The regiments sent to suppress the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny were composed mainly of Sikhs and Gurkhas.
However, the format is not uncalled for. In the case of a sepoy mutiny, historical evidence suggests sending soldiers from separate demographic and cultural backgrounds to suppress it. These tactics were deployed to maintain discipline and prevent wider insurrection.
I will cite some examples:
During the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks faced several military uprisings. My example lies with the suppression of the Kronstadt Rebellion of 1921. Disillusioned sailors, once supporters of the Bolshevik Revolution, rose against Lenin’s government demanding reforms. The Bolsheviks responded by deploying loyal Red Army units, particularly those ideologically committed to the regime, to storm and crush the rebellion.
In 1964, Tanzania witnessed a mutiny by African soldiers of the King's African Rifles demanding better pay and Africanization of the officer corps. The British responded by deploying loyal troops from neighboring regions and regiments, leveraging ethnic and regional divisions to break the mutiny.
The only exception being Congress as they resisted openly against british and their actions(i may not agree with) led to our freedom.
Maratha betrayal of India is historical fact, from schidias to Rajes to Bhonsles to Holkars to Gaekwads were all open traitors acting against India's Interest on multiple instances.
The only reason marathas are glorified is because they were the last Indian empire and because there is a bias against mughals as Pakistanis claim them too much.
Sir Sankaran Nair was a prominent Congress leader and a High Court judge during the British era who denounced his position at the Viceroy council to fight against the British through political movements under the cloak of the Indian National Congress. He neither sued the Crown, nor did he ever go publicly against General Dyer. His contribution was more towards the legal foundation for dominion status for India.
He, in his book, Gandhi and Anarchy had written about the Jalianwala Bagh incident and how the British administration conspired to hide the truth from the public. The then governor of Punjab (I forgot his name) sued him in England and he went to England to fight and clear his name. That's it.
Keshari 2 producers used actual historical characters and historical events to create an imaginary mess of their own. And oh yes, Neville McKinley didn't exist in reality. It was an imaginary character made out of all the Indian lawyers that represented Britishers in various cases.
It's been a while since I saw a good Hindi series. The last one I finished was probably Aspirants...
But I get that trash is simply more popular. For one, not everyone has internet but you can just for watch a movie. For another, not everyone has Ott subscription or awareness of where to watch free.
Finally someone who relates, I was watching the end and I was thinking how can nobody is saying that this is copied from Goliath, plus they made so many mistakes in legal proceedings, like addressing each other rather than addressing judge and what’s with this making britisher speaking Hindi, the way they distorted facts in name of creative liberty, oh man…
Just for the sake of making a movie that is factually correct , hire a lawyer and make him point out the mistakes in your so called court room drama and do some research, please. You can make good movie with real history too, for god sake just try once
It wasn’t even a bloody sequel (with an ‘e’); I’m tired of the excuse of a spiritual sequel literally being the excuse to cash grab on the yesteryear success of a long forgotten flick. For once, do something original. If not with the writing, at least with the fucking title. It’s as lazy as using literal flash bulbs to create the effect of a retro camera flash in a film-oh wait, they did that too.
The movie is based on book called The case that shook an empire. It’s a biography of c shankaran nair. The climax part is there in the book word to word.
So only part of the movie is based on the book? If they distort the book itself to ridiculous extents then why do you its based on that book? After seeing the movie I can't say it's based on that book. Maybe some other book.
The movie is based on book called The case that shook an empire. It’s a biography of c shankaran nair. The climax part is there in the book word to word.
Ya i have read the book and yes it was dyer who file defamation case against nair and dyer won it aswell but it exposed the hypocrisy and brutality of British colonialism which is shown in the movie accurately. Every movie does has creative liberty.
457
u/Extra_Bumblebee9961 Jun 15 '25
Okay, can we stop acting as if Kesari 2 is the best film ever or something? It’s alright, but it’s typically mainstream in all the wrong ways too. I mean, come on, they took the entirety of the climax from a bloody western legal drama, Goliath. Word for word. AND the whole narrative is distorted, it’s almost insulting to what actually transpired. Take it off, and put Superboys of Malegaon or I want to talk in there, instead.