IMDb-BEWERTUNG
6,4/10
59.654
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Nach dem Tod seines Vaters Murat II. steigt Mehmet II. auf den osmanischen Thron. Nachdem er inneren und äußeren Feinden getrotzt hat, beschließt er, das zu vollenden, was ihm bestimmt war -... Alles lesenNach dem Tod seines Vaters Murat II. steigt Mehmet II. auf den osmanischen Thron. Nachdem er inneren und äußeren Feinden getrotzt hat, beschließt er, das zu vollenden, was ihm bestimmt war - Konstantinopel zu erobern.Nach dem Tod seines Vaters Murat II. steigt Mehmet II. auf den osmanischen Thron. Nachdem er inneren und äußeren Feinden getrotzt hat, beschließt er, das zu vollenden, was ihm bestimmt war - Konstantinopel zu erobern.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
- Auszeichnungen
- 1 wins total
Empfohlene Bewertungen
First of all, you must bare in mind that this is the Turkish point of view, do not expect for history accuracy. Historically, this is quite a disaster (to name a few things "MISPLACED": The Byzantine Empire was, in the 15th century, at it's lowest point, with lots of debts, it had almost nothing to do with the happy and celebrating empire that you can see in the movie. Then again, the Ottomans did plunder Constantinople for 3 days after the conquest!! So the final scene it's a big lie.)
For the average viewer it is more important the artistic value of the film, for "Fetih 1453" it's not a History/Documentary/Biography one. So, how good is it? Well, it's an average movie, with good action scenes, nice visual effects (exaggerated from time to time), a good enough script (neither excellent nor dumb) BUT, most of all, it's a strong recommendation for the fans of action movies with a distinctive fragrance of history. "Braveheart" and "Gladiator" are 2 of the masterpieces in the branch.
"Fetih 1453" has some good acting, some bad acting, some good directing (but he took an overwhelming task here with this subject - he managed enough well I could say but no cinematic breakthrough at all). So, sincerely, I would have ranked it 6 (that would be a mark that I call "only for the fans of the genre", but the movie has one ACE - the Picture, ladies and gentlemen! A beautiful job done here. Artistic indeed!
At the end, you get no essential idea about life, feelings and beliefs - as what I consider to be a purpose of all arts - but an average nice to see action movie.
For the average viewer it is more important the artistic value of the film, for "Fetih 1453" it's not a History/Documentary/Biography one. So, how good is it? Well, it's an average movie, with good action scenes, nice visual effects (exaggerated from time to time), a good enough script (neither excellent nor dumb) BUT, most of all, it's a strong recommendation for the fans of action movies with a distinctive fragrance of history. "Braveheart" and "Gladiator" are 2 of the masterpieces in the branch.
"Fetih 1453" has some good acting, some bad acting, some good directing (but he took an overwhelming task here with this subject - he managed enough well I could say but no cinematic breakthrough at all). So, sincerely, I would have ranked it 6 (that would be a mark that I call "only for the fans of the genre", but the movie has one ACE - the Picture, ladies and gentlemen! A beautiful job done here. Artistic indeed!
At the end, you get no essential idea about life, feelings and beliefs - as what I consider to be a purpose of all arts - but an average nice to see action movie.
It is absolutely clear that the conquest of Constantinople was a great victory for the Ottamans who finished what the crusaders started in 1204. BUT. We must respect history and the director of the film did non respect history at all. During the siege, Constantinople had nothing to do with the glorious city of the past. Only 40.000 of once 1.000.000 people lived inside the walls which were defended only by 7.000 soldiers. 2.000 of them were foreigners. The Ottomans had an army of about minimum 100.000 soldiers. Some say that the army had 200.000 or more soldiers. The Byzantine empire was found at that time at the lowest level of her past glory and in the absolute decline. It is know to everybody who knows only a few things about history that the Ottomans entered the city though an unguarded small gate known as Kerkoporta which has been left open by mistake. This gives a picture of history as it really happened and nobody can argue about that.Because it is history! The Byzantine empire had come to an end as it happens in all the empires in history. There is no place here to talk about more historic facts. I understand that the film maker wanted to give to Mohamed the part of the glory that he deserves. But the end of the film it is absolutely ridiculous and was made only for propaganda reasons. People who study history knows very well what happened at that days when a city was conquered. Massacres. That happened in Constantinople as well. The director the only thing that he does not tell us is that Mohamed gave candies to children! The conquest is without doubt a great achievement of the Ottomans. It helped them built their empire. The dominated east for about 500 years. But without of course knowing Mohamed gave west a great gift as after the fall of the city all the great men escaped to the west and they helped Renaissance to begin. The film is not bad at all and in my opinion is by far better than Hollywood films of that kind. The Turks are making a great effort to raise their country and are to be praised for this.Since i visited Constantinople a few times i can say that progress is visible in Turkey. Hope that in the future they will make again films like this and even better. But please respect history. History can not change because some people want to do propaganda thank you
Almost everything in the movie, is very blown up: Costumes, characters, places... Not everything fits to what really happened back then, nor does it have to. But that doesn't mean that the director has the right to irritatingly twist history in favor of conservatives in Turkey.
He falsely presents Emperor Mehmet II as a superhero that makes almost no mistakes, and as a monogamous person. Of course, the facts that he was a wine drinker, a lover of ancient Greek and Roman arts, that he let the city to be sacked for two days, he hanged one of his viziers, and killed all his brothers and made a law that allows and suggests his successors to kill their brothers "for continuation of the state", were all ignored! And we see "the enemies" always speak with a sneaky voice which shows that they're the coward and evil guys. Byzantine Emperor has a weird "digital palace" that has numberless columns, and lives in corruption. War scenes and military costumes are so unrealistic, as well... The list goes on.
Shortly, what I saw was a religious, peasant point of view and a foolish sublimation of Ottoman history. That's what happens with big budget and very limited mentality.
He falsely presents Emperor Mehmet II as a superhero that makes almost no mistakes, and as a monogamous person. Of course, the facts that he was a wine drinker, a lover of ancient Greek and Roman arts, that he let the city to be sacked for two days, he hanged one of his viziers, and killed all his brothers and made a law that allows and suggests his successors to kill their brothers "for continuation of the state", were all ignored! And we see "the enemies" always speak with a sneaky voice which shows that they're the coward and evil guys. Byzantine Emperor has a weird "digital palace" that has numberless columns, and lives in corruption. War scenes and military costumes are so unrealistic, as well... The list goes on.
Shortly, what I saw was a religious, peasant point of view and a foolish sublimation of Ottoman history. That's what happens with big budget and very limited mentality.
Would you understand that someone rates "Saving private Ryan" with a 1, because it depicts germans like evils and morons?
This film has many problems, but it's not more manichaeistic than western (american) films about christians, WWII or Vietnam's war.
And it's worth to see it at least because it's a different subject, from another point of view.
This film has many problems, but it's not more manichaeistic than western (american) films about christians, WWII or Vietnam's war.
And it's worth to see it at least because it's a different subject, from another point of view.
The film isn't good enough to tell us who was really Ottoman empire and what they did before and after the conquest.Ottoman empire lasted 400 years and everybody lived in peace and harmony,some countries paid tribute but never new born babies only 10 to 12 years old boys to make them special soldiers,many Christian families were willing to comply with that because it offered the possibility of great social advancement and also they were paid salaries and pensions on retirement not just this there are some other interesting facts like Dutch tulip was introduced to Holland by the Ottomans,math,physics,geometry,maps etc.Please visit http://sylverblaque.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/5-medieval- facts-of-ottomans-the-harem-home/
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesFatih Sultan Mehmed conquered Istanbul when he was 21 .
- PatzerAt one point, Giovanni Giustiniani uses a telescope to watch the invading troops. The telescope was not invented in the West until the early-1600s.
- Zitate
Sultan Mehmed II: Either I will conquer Istanbul or Istanbul will conquer me.
- VerbindungenReferenced in Pek Yakinda (2014)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Conquest 1453?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box Office
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 35.730 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 35.730 $
- 8. Apr. 2012
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 35.797.045 $
- Laufzeit
- 2 Std. 42 Min.(162 min)
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.35 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen