Much of the film holds up because there’s conviction even in the foolishness. You may find it hard to believe that one man can single-handedly fight an armed gang, but Salman dive into the most preposterous scenes.
Even if you’re willing to forgive all the historical factual errors and the complete disregard for detail, Veer starring Salman Khan, is still an impossible movie to be pleased about.
Veer is set in the late 19th century – although dates in no way keep in touch with costumes, language or even age and appearance of actors – this Anil Sharma-directed clunker is the story of a Rajputana warrior clan, the Pindharis, who swears revenge on the King of Madhavgarh (played by Jackie Shroff) after he joins hands with the British and cheats the Pindharis of their land and cunningly slaughters their men.
The head of the tribe, Prithvi Singh (played by Mithun Chakraborty), sends his sons Veer and Punya (played by Salman khan and Sohail Khan) to study in London to become familiar with the British game-plan for their country. But as often happens in most unoriginal Hindi films, once there Veer falls for the princess of Madhavgarh and the daughter of his tribe’s affirmed enemy Yashodhara (played by overfed debutante Zarine Khan).
Scripted by Salman Khan himself, Veer suffers from mechanical overkill. There is just so much contrived jabber-jabber you can take about shielding your honor, about duty versus love, and about drinking the blood of the British. The film’s director, Anil Sharma, may have touched a chord with a similarly patriotic approach in his Sunny Deol-starrer Gadar: Ek Prem Katha, but in Veer the chest-thumping melodrama appears mechanical and disproportionate.
Much of the film holds up because there's conviction even in the foolishness. You may find it hard to believe that one man can single-handedly fight an armed gang, but Salman dive into the most preposterous scenes.
