Huievest
Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.
Iseerphia
All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.
Aneesa Wardle
The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.
Robert J. Maxwell
Without putting much thought to it, I'd always believed that the toughest part of the Gallipoli campaign was landing on the beach, but this documentary makes it clear that, however bungled those landings were, much worse was to follow.Gallipoli is in what is now Turkey, a narrow peninsula guarding the Dardanelles, the narrow straight that led from the Mediterranean Sea to the Ottoman Empire's capital at Istanbul and, oh, how the Allies wanted to conquer and occupy Istanbul.Maybe I'd better back up. Kids, this is World War I we're talking about. (That's the one that came before World War II.) Great Britain, France, and later the United States, fought against Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey. There were a lot of little countries involved as well. The Ottoman Empire, centered in Turkey, was crumbling. It had been crumbling for years. That's what the Crimean War was all about. That was in 1859 and -- well, forget it.Here's how the Allied thrust against Istanbul began. A powerful British fleet showed up and began to shell the Turkish forts. The idea was to make such a demonstration of power that the Turks would throw up their hands and immediately surrender. The Turks might even be happy to be liberated. Instead, they sank a couple of battleships and drove the fleet off. The Allied leaders were irritated and reluctantly decided they'd have to send troops ashore. They did so at Gallipoli and the attempt failed. No, it didn't just fail. It was a bloody calamity.This film gives us all the misery of the trenches at Gallipoli. Structurally, it resembles Ken Burns' splendid series on the American Civil War. There are still photographs, motion pictures, talking heads, contemporary location photography, and letters from the troops. But, within the strictures set by time, it lacks the fullness of Burns' quotidian detail. Also like Burns' film, it doesn't really provide enough maps. When the 4/15th attacked Hill 1870, I didn't know who was where or what the objective was.It's possible that some of the commanders didn't know either. World War I was fought during a period of extreme social-class bifurcation. There was the officer corps and then there was everybody else. As a commander, if I lost 10,000 men and you lost 11,000 men, I won.And the director, Tolga Ornek, doesn't shy away from professional disinterest in the men's welfare. The Australin/New Zealand soldiers were order to charge across a field that was covered by Turkish machine guns. The first wave failed. So a second wave was ordered. When that failed, a third and then a fourth wave was ordered. Hundreds of soldiers were shot down and killed and many more wounded in an area the size of a tennis court.Even in their own lines men were catching diseases or dying from them. The fields were littered with rotting corpses. There was no sanitation. The latrines were boxes or holes dug into the sides of the trenches. The flies would be feasting on a putrefying body one minute and landing on your open can of bully beef the next.But then the entire war, like all wars, was rather like a disease that periodically breaks out in epidemics. A documentary like this fills us with pity for all the suffering. "War is all hell," as General William Tecumsah Sherman said. It's not only tragic but, as the film illustrates, positively melancholy. And then we begin to gear up for the next one. Those ubiquitous flies.I'm happy to report that this documentary hasn't succumbed to the faddish use of lightning-quick editing, reverse negatives, a cascade of computer-generated special effects, or glitz in any form. It's a straightforward depiction of the Gallipoli campaign, with a greater emphasis on the personal rather than the military aspects.
Alan Alan (rossi-38)
I have to say that I know the documentaries of Mister Örnek and so I knew that I will get a very well made piece of movie documentary. I was not disappointed. As a history nerd - I did saw hundreds of documentary and liked the different approach of this work.The Director and his 17 Consultants (historians, Veteran families) tried to access the reality of the gallipoli through the letters of solders from both sides. So, the history is followed by British, Australian and Turkish soldiers.Narrated is this docu by Jeremy Irons and Sam Neill - both boost the intensity and emotionality of this documentary by their great voices.I saw this film in a cinema in italy in Dolby Surround. I did buy the DVD last year and will wait again 3-7 years for the next work of this talented director and his very good documentaries.Summary: Well made. Intense. History with emotions - wrapped in a war documentary with great narrators
cern
We went to the cinema expecting a biggish budget release and got an art-house movie. The movie was projected digitally onto about two thirds of the screen real estate with sloping edges classic of digital projection, and had a limited stereo soundtrack which was wasted on the cinema experience.The content of the film was the same old historical content we have all seen before, but heavily sanitized to prevent the audience being sick. Live action scenes what little of them there were, were re-used constantly in classic documentary style, which became annoying after a while.I was somewhat amazed that only 4 people turned up to watch it, guess the rest knew something we didn't.I suspect the producers made the film to recognize the ninetieth anniversary of Gallipoli. I have to question whether they should have bothered.Seven out of Ten for trying, and out of respect for the ANZAC's.
