It is clear that the director of this movie fancies himself as a revisionist historian. The original Pindaris, about whose exploits Veer is, were plunderers, soldiers of fortune who attached themselves to Maratha states while the Mughal Empire was breaking up and the British were in the ascendant. They were not, in any sense, freedom fighters, as the film seems to suggest.
In Veer, the Pindari chief (Mithun) sends his sons (Salman and Sohail) to England to better know the English and plot against the Empire. It might be wiser to put this decision down to attractive shooting locations than to history.
Englishmen in the movie are quite revolting and to be revolted against, but Englishwomen are different. They are to be conquered, or at the very least flirted with, and certainly, there are many Anglo Saxon hearts aflutter when Veer (Salman), fierce fighter and exotic dancer, is in London Town. Shortly, he runs into an Indian princess whose railway carriage he once looted back home. It is just the kind of thing that can make a man in England feel nostalgic. So he steals her heart and it is no coincidence that she (Zarine) bears an uncanny resemblance to a princess before her, Katrina Kaif.
Frankly, you wouldn’t fuss about historical accuracy if Veer were an engaging film. Jodha Akbar was an inventive bit of history, but absorbing. This film is as dead as a dodo. Once Veer is back from their sojourn in England, battle scene after battle scene wears you down. Oddly enough, the man Pindaris love to hate is not Lord Hastings, whose military campaign cut them down to size, but a local Raja (Jackie) with a golden arm, who also happens to be the Papa of the lovely princess.
Bad acting and terrible lines make Veer an unwatchable film. The movie is full of sound and fury, signifying director Anil Sharma and his Gadar: Ek Prem Katha style of filmmaking—cinema with volume but with no syntax.