Opiniones de usuarios

There is not a lot wrong with this movie. The entire thing seems authentic - meaning you feel like you're in Australia in 1915. You are living on a farm, running in a race and ultimately in a war.

What is also very extraordinary is that there is not really a lot that happens, there is barely a plot. But it doesn't matter, because Peter Weir is a master storyteller. The actors are all superb and your heart may hurt at the climax - mine did.

Unforgettable, like all great movies.

Terrific film that so succinctly sums up the passion and the innocence of the Aussie soldiers as they gave their lives up for a cause not their own, believing to the end that duty demanded that they make a good showing of themselves. This story is based in historical fact and is still discussed today as one of the most terrible follies foisted upon young men by totally incompetent military leaders. There are even worse stories that are told about the wars outcome in France and Belgium but this film captures enough of the tragedy to drive home the point of how mad all wars are.

The very young and handsome and Aussie sounding Mel Gibson is very convincing as are the entire cast. Peter Weir crafted a heart wrenching film which ends with a moment that you just can not shake from your mind. Great film and very moving.

Peter Weir has long been one of my favorite directors, and he has had a career consumed by subtle, quiet, lingering films. He can make the most banal concept seem thrilling and suspenseful; a perfect example is the Harrison Ford film "Witness." It could have easily become a stupid, insulting, exploitative "thriller." The ending is, in retrospect, quite ridiculous. But Weir has a strange ability to make anything seem realistic.

"Gallipoli" is one of his older films, from 1981, and it stars a huge cast of names - most famous today, of course, Mel Gibson...whose name is now splattered across the front of the DVD case.

The story is a true one and follows a group of young Australian men who join the ANZACs in World War I. They are sent to Gallipoli, and amidst personal and emotional turmoil they must learn to band together and fight the Turkish Army.

The movie is long, as another reviewer on the site points out. But all of Weir's films are. What I didn't like about his most recent - "Master & Commander" - is that it used special effects (exteriors of ships, etc.) and action sequences (raging storms) to compensate for the slow bits... and came across (to me anyway) as quite dull and down-trodden.

"Gallipoli" is a great film - slow, subtle, low-key. It's a bit like an Australian version of "All Quiet on the Western Front." I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys slower films and can appreciate character-driven dramas. Don't go near it if your attention span was dimming during "xXx2."

A "Johnny Turk" here, as they say in the movie, just watched the movie and I am very much under the effect of it. I loved the movie, I think they portrayed the senselessness of the war very effectively without making any side the villain. As obvious to anyone watching the movie, the Australians were the victims in the truest sense of the word. They died so needlessly for a cause that was not their own. When I was a kid my mother would always tell me that they were tricked into joining the war thinking they would get to see Europe. So the sentiment in Turkey about Australians and New Zealanders has been favoring them. It was never "what were they doing here!!!! :@" but it was "what were they doing here :(((((" and we love it that Australians still care so much that they come back to visit the land every year in scores whereas I am ashamed to say I haven't been to Gallipoli yet. One thing not so obvious from the movie is that just as it was not the Australians' war to fight, it was not the Turks' war to fight either. In the movie they keep referring to the Ottoman Empire as Turkey. It may seem small but it is a crucial difference because the very reason that Turks took part in the war was because some blind ottoman officers could not face the truth, couldn't see that Ottoman Empire was living its final days and they were blinded by the prospect of the "good old days" that they had to drag the country down with their grandiosity complex.

Ataturk was in Gallipoli. After everything he said these words that have been embraced by the Turks towards our Anzac brothers: "Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives... you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore, rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours... You, the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land, they have become our sons as well."

Once again, I've had the pleasure of showing this film to one of my College literature classes; we're studying the World War One poets of England, and this film shows my students in vivid detail what made this war so different from anything that had come before it. The world lost its innocence with "The Great War," and we are still reeling from the consequences a century later. Peter Weir's magnificent film follows the story of two best "mates" from the Australian outback and their sudden thrust into the realities of a new world order. Mel Gibson, Mark Lee, and a fine cast create the sense of brotherhood and horror that makes this film so profoundly moving. The last 20 minutes spares the audience no detail, and while more recent films like "Black Hawk Down" and "Saving Private Ryan" are perhaps more graphic, "Gallipoli" immerses us in the human loss more fully. In "Gallipoli" we get to know these friends in intimate detail, making the losses they suffer in the end truly gut wrenching. Five stars out of five stars.

World War One was an exceptionally brutal conflict; what seems most incomprehensible to us today is the way that the generals kept sending young men over the top to be mown down by machine guns, even as the evidence accumulated that this tactic simply didn't work: it wasn't that victory came at a high price, but that lives were wasted with no chance of success. Peter Weir's film 'Gallipoli' tells the story of a pair of Australian sprinters who sign up to fight in the trenches: there's a lengthy study of their lives, in Australia and in training, before the inevitable brutal ending. There's a certain amount of anti-English sentiment in the movie (brave Aussie kids being effectively murdered by the heartless colonial power), and a classical soundtrack (Albinoni) that doesn't exactly add to the film's subtlety. But the conclusion is still heart-rending, made even more tragic by the knowledge that the story told here is just a microcosm for four long years of Europe-wide carnage.

Gallipoli is a great anti-war film. Not so much that it is against wars in general, but it portrays the brutality that occurred in the Great War. Officers did relentlessly order their men to charge at machine guns and Gallipoli was a prime example of throwing lives away in the First World War.

However, there is an anti-British sentiment in this movie that is a little too obvious for my likes. The movie makes the battle at Gallipoli out to be Australians being used as cannon fodder at the whim of British officers. That is totally untrue. There were more British soldiers who fought and died at Gallipoli than ANZACs. Australia had one great massacre in the Great War which was Gallipoli. The Brits had dozens, so Peter Weir becomes a little too self-indulgent in portraying the "Australian sacrifice". Every Commonwealth nation, including Canada I might add, suffered grievous casualties in WW1, along with Britain. There is a line in the movie where one Aussie asks what the Brits are doing during the battle. Another Aussie replys "they're on the beach drinking tea". That is just an insult to the British soldiers who fought and died there. As I have said, the British dead outnumbered the ANZAC dead by several thousands...look it up. Not to mention the British and French forces were suffereing heavy casualties EVERY DAY on the Western Front. My great Grandfather's brother in law was a British leftenant and he died at Gallipoli on the second day. So much for "drinking tea on the beach" eh? The whole incident was Winston Churchill's fault anyway, but the officers on both sides of the war were all responsible for the unnecessary deaths. Aussies who say WW1 was the British high class throwing "the lower Aussie class" at the machine guns are right, but remember that the British working classes went up against them too, even moreso.

I encourage Australia to promote their independence. They've had it for almost a 100 years and nobody is trying to take it away from them, but they shouldn't bite off the hand that fed them so to speak. Australia and New Zealand WERE BRITISH COLONIES after all.

Regardless of the political statements, however, Gallipoli is a good tale of sacrifice and war. The acting is excellent all around, including Mel Gibson, who, despite his very strange affinity with appearing in movies that are decisively anti-English (Braveheart, Patriot), always turns in a great performance.

7.5/10 (slow beginning, often boring until midway through)

I taught HS history and used very few commercial movies in teaching...the exceptions included GALLIPOLI and PATHS OF GLORY and the newer remake of ALL QUIET. I've never watched a film that builds plot, mood and theme any better than Gallipoli. While there are many light-hearted and humorous forays which add to character development, the ongoing drum-beat of the film is war, war, war--attack, attack, attack. I can't imagine any better musical score or musical editing:the juxtaposition of elegant Strauss waltzes the night before debarkation with the funereal Adagio as the troops cross the water is genius. I'm surprised that we haven't seen more of Marc Lee-the idealistic Archie. He does a wonderful job along with a VERY young Mel Gibson. When I showed the movie to my classes I was careful to watch THE STUDENTS as the final scenes arrived rather than the film. Now THAT was telling! I absolutely commend this film to all! (ADDED)BTW...Brits---try not to take the criticism of the military operation as criticism of YOU...I think the entire film was meant to be an indictment of war as an instrument of national policy. Your very own John Keegan observed that once wars begin, they have a way of creating their own momentum and justification. It's for this reason that Herodotus said that "all wars are popular in their inception". The film, as I viewed it, was about the futility of war, the fixation of military commanders to fix the "previous war" and the price we pay for stupidity. The lesson should not be lost on the US in Iraq either.

Perhaps the most interesting feature of this film, if you have never seen it, is to see Mel Gibson at such a young age. He was still pretty unknown - at least outside Australia - at the time this movie was released.

Actually, Mark Lee, not Gibson, is the star of this anti-war film about a maniacal Australian officer sending his troops off to a needless death. Lee and Gibson are "runners" who become friends in this World War I battle in Turkey.

The photography is decent in here, with an excellent director at the helm in Peter Weir, and I wouldn't mind seeing it on a 2.35 widescreen DVD format, since that is now available. I saw it on tape a number of years ago.

This is movie making at its finest. Splendidly acted and Directed, this is a magnificent movie. Mel Gibson is tremendous and no wonder why Gibson became a great Star, and later on a recognized talent for film making. I am a combat veteran of the great U S Army and the finale of this stunning film made me weep.

By now, most film-goers know what constitutes a war movie, and this film could be complemented, or criticized as being, really the 'Mother' of all of them. Mingling patriotism and tragedy, this film can make a case for every archetype and trope that we groan over in other films, and for that reason, is a really fine movie.

There is nothing more however, no plot element or characterization that would make the viewer even blink twice. The performances are basically excellent, for what they are, and unlike many a conventional film, the actors do not fall into self parody, but these performances are not really captivating either.

If there is a flaw, it is in the pacing. Rather than a beginning, middle and end,there seems to be a beginning and a middle cut short, but this might also be considered the strongest creative choice in the film, in demonstrating the tragedy of war through life cut short. It just depends on how you want to take it.

The reason that I do not give it kudos, for what it is, is that this film is significantly historically incorrect, relying on faux British mistakes to avoid implying too strongly that the war was an inherent tragedy, and to enhance the Australian sacrifice, without implying additional Australian responsibility, at British expense. You could still draw that conclusion (that the war was simply a tragedy) from this film, and there was plenty of callous wastage of life, and plenty of mistakes, and errors of judgment in the real war to be sure, but this film prefers to fictionalize the story, and so I rank it as no better, and no worse than most films. People who really like war movies should like it, and people that don't, should be forewarned.

Filmed in a period of cinematographic transition, between, on the first hand, the old Hollywood productions like The Longest Day (Ken Annakin and 4 others, 1962), A Bridge Too Far (Richard Attenborough, 1977) or The Great Escape (John Sturges, 1963) sometimes completely disconnected from the reality and the atrocities perpetrated on the battlefield by both sides and, on the other hand, darker and immeasurably more realistic productions from the late 70s, such as Come and See (Elem Klimov, 1985), The Deer Hunter (Michael Cimino, 1978), Das Boot (Wolfgang Petersen, 1981) and Le vieux fusil (Robert Enrico, 1975).

Indeed, if the first part of this movie is of a distressing insouciance, the two main protagonists striving to leave Australia to join the peninsula of Gallipoli, Turkey, like two children expecting their next summer camp, the second part is cold and raw, unbridled and cruel. In this respect, the film is appropriately lulled by the album Oxygène (Jean-Michel Jarre, 1976) for the sequences full of hope and carefree, camaraderie and friendship and the adagio of Albinoni (Remo Giazotto, 1945) for the poignant sequences of courage and sacrifice.

A moving film with a neat realization and an excellent cast.

All of our characters spend the entire first half of this movie developing their personalities, and letting the audience get to know them. The cast signs up for war, considering it to be just the sport that it had been in past days. Instead, all of them, with their individual phrases, look, and persona, join a cannon-fodder army which could indeed be compared to hell itself.

One of the particular themes that shows in this movie is the replacement of conventional weapons. No longer are the glory days when a man could be shot, shake hands with his foe, and call it a day. Instead, we watch many of our innocent, sporty youths run up to "fight the turks," and barely take one step before the loud rattling of a machine gun renders him mutilated beyond all recognition. Indeed, the heroes barely comprehend the concept of death, as one of the most harrowing lines states: "Barney. He's dead. He was standin' right beside me, and I- and I though' he jus' tripped and fell. Y'know, B-barney's like that. He's- He...Was always clumsy."

Another is the use of your allies and soldiers as cannon fodder. To supposedly "let the British advance into the peninsula," the Australian troops, including our youths, are forced to run directly into the no-mans' land, being shredded into kindling while their superiors question their ability as soldiers. "Why aren't we advancing?" "But sir, all of our men, they barely get out of the holes and they die!" "I don't care. We won't win until we advance. The fight must go on."

A movie that easily sheds tears (well, I cried), Gallipoli is not necessarily a film to enjoy, but instead to reveal the dark side of the "modernized" Western World.

Lee, Gibson & the rest of the mates portray all the best qualities in young men/soldiers. I thought the sound track was perfect. Consider it while Mark Lee races the horse back to the station headquarters. Any man with an interest in military history will find this movie informative as well as great entertainment.

Everyone seems to be tripping over themselves to speak of the beauty of this film. After watching it with an open mind, I can't give it any more than a 7 out of 10.

The film does not operate on the sublime, intellectual "art" level that some films, such as "Dead Poet's Society" seem to fit into nicely. You know, films that keep your mind moving from start to finish... as opposed to films that put everything before you and contain no subtext, no visual style, and no clear emotional tone or overall message. If it was art, I would be left thinking deeply and profoundly about all that I had seen. Instead I'm left with a little historical knowledge, and nothing else.

Archy (Mark Lee) is the only character with any depth. We don't understand the motivations of the other characters, or why they act the way they do. They are all automatons, whether their motivation comes from within (Frank Dunne), or from some Australian war propaganda (everyone else in the film).

The anti-war message is clear. However, whatever message was being put forth about the idividual young men in the army was completely lost on me.

A good, emotional film, but the ending isn't the big emotional punctuation mark everyone makes it out to be. Maybe I've seen too many war movies (or not enough), but while this movie is certainly above average among scale, writing and acting, it wasn't very exciting till the last few minutes, and even then there is such a sense of inevitability that I just had to laugh at the stupidity of those men who were giving orders, and the idiocy of the people following them.

But then, maybe that was the point.

This is a great, early Peter Weir classic. Two runners become friends in Australia early this century. Archy loves family, god and country, and yearns to serve his country in the Great War. Frank covers his painful youth with love of self, yet finds himself following Archy to war. A great tale of honor and sacrifice set in the context of one of Australia's great and tragic campaigns of the first World War. A must-see for any serious movie aficionado.

Two Australian sprinters face the brutal realities of war when they are sent to fight in the Gallipoli campaign in Turkey during World War I.

Peter Weir has made some great films and has been the key contributor to Australian cinema. In fact, it is hard to imagine anyone who has done more. Nicolas Roeg may have helped, and Peter Jackson has pushed New Zealand (which probably overflows to Australia), but Weir seems to be largely the sole force.

Mel Gibson appears in the film, more or less before he went big. Definitely before he reclaimed his American status (something he is still trying to do today, actually). Not his finest role, and certainly not his most memorable, but oh well. This is also, by the way, not among Weir's best films. But even a bad Weir is a good film.

When one group of nations takes up arms against another group of nations in a great war, there are two avenues of thought as to how to fight it. The first is to attack and defeat the most powerful of your enemies, for if you win that fight, the war is over. The second is that you select the weakest member of the opposing alliance and attack it until it surrenders. Since the more powerful nation in the opposing alliance will try to prevent this, aid will be sent that will likely not change the outcome. Winston Churchill was a strong proponent of the second option. In the Second World War he repeatedly advocated for an attack on the "soft underbelly" of the European Axis nations. This was the second round for his position, in the First World War he advocated the attack on Turkey that is known as the Gallipoli campaign. While that series of battles led to a lot of casualties and may have come close to knocking Turkey out of the war, it is judged as a failure and Churchill was demoted from his position as First Lord of the Admiralty. This movie is about a small group of men from western Australia that are caught up in the patriotic fervor of the war against the now hated Germans. Two men known for sprinting, Archy Hamilton and Frank Dunne enter a race and Hamilton wins. This is the start of a friendship and after a series of misplays, both manage to enlist in the Australian military and are sent to train in Egypt. Along with some other men they knew in Australia, they engage in some serious male bonding that prepares them for the upcoming battles. Once they land on the Gallipoli peninsula, they find the occasional shell and bullets from the enemy all a matter of routine. However, all changes when the Australian units are ordered to attack well prepared Turkish positions. Like so much of what took place in World War I, it was nothing but a slaughter when men charged over open ground against machine guns. The Australian units were decimated and all of the male bonds so carefully forged are literally killed. What makes it doubly heartbreaking is that this movie is based on actual events when the Australian 3rd Light Horse Brigade attacked the Turks when an artillery barrage ended seven minutes too soon. Up until the last ten minutes or so, this is a movie about male bonding and deep friendships. It is often amusing, with some very good scenes of camaraderie. However, the last part is about military rigidness that sends hundreds of brave young men to their deaths in a senseless attempt to achieve a hopeless objective. It is hard to watch such events transpire, more so because it is true.

Starring: Mark Lee and Mel Gibson.

If you are going for entertainment, I would say this is your movie. It was extremely entertaining and had my full interest the entire time. However, it had some flaws that in the end made this a really pointless film. The movie is about two Australian sprinters Archy (Lee) and Frank (Gibson) that end up going to war stationed in Egypt in World War I. It starts off promisingly and was really good all until the tension mounted ending, that really ruined the rest of the movie for me. It's not how the film ended that bothered me, but where the film ended that really annoyed me. Another thing this lacked was a solid center, instead of the loose string of events that this was. One thing that I found almost humorous was the music. Sometimes there was a beautiful violin solo, and sometimes weird 80's synthesizer music was used. The synthesizer music did not work at all, and sounded like something that would be in a bad sci-fi space movie. You will most likely enjoy this movie from beginning to...well not to end.

My rating: ** 1/2 out of ****.

A lesson still sadly unlearned by today's great "Empire" - this film builds perfectly to show that war IS terror. In 1915, as today, it is not the ruling elites that ultimately face that terror, but everyday people full of precious dreams and yet-to-be-fulfilled promise. "Gallipoli" follows the adventure of two Australian mates fighting for the British Empire in a badly-managed attack in Turkey during WW1. The deckchairs have been somewhat rearranged these days, but the message is as relevant, as chilling and as powerful as ever. A true classic.

Two Australian sprinters face the brutal realities of war when they are sent to fight in the Gallipoli campaign in Turkey during World War I.

The Australian sprinters from the outback are played persuasively by MEL Gibson and MARK LEE, both young and enthusiastic as the runners who form a close bond despite the fact that Gibson's character is not anxious to fight with the troops in a war far removed from his homeland.

The story is a bit ponderous for the first half, gradually building up the relationship of two youths who become the best of mates once they both enter the armed forces. But the buildup has enough holding power to keep the viewer watching until the climactic battle scenes, obviously designed to show the futility and horrors of trench warfare in 1914. The final freeze shot of Lee's character emphasizes the tragedy of it all--what with missed communications causing the war to continue instead of coming to a halt when Gibson's message arrives too late to save a futile situation with men being slaughtered.

Gorgeous color photography of bleak landscapes and battle scenes and colorful Turkish scenes of soldiers on liberty is stunning to behold. Mark Lee is astonishing as Archy and Mel Gibson equally good as his cocky "mate." It's easy to see why Gibson's star went on the rise after this film, but hard to tell why Mark Lee never reached the same heights despite a successful career abroad.

Well worth viewing.

Don't continue reading if you do not want to know how movie ends. I was drawn to this movie for the sound track, Mel Gibson and the historical significance. It was entertaining for cinematic reasons, but movie was weak because the characters lacked intelligence. Particularly the 18 year old who stated his excitement at the eventual combat he would engage in at Gallipoli. He stated that it was an 'adventure' as he wrote his letter home. What adventure? He had already trekked across Australia and seen the Pyramids, culture in Egypt. The only thing waiting for him in combat was a bullet. That is exactly what he got. He gives himself a pep talk before he runs into the 3rd and final wave of attack on an enemy that had already wiped out two waves of Australians completely with machine guns. He even dropped his gun so he could run faster to the enemy. What was he expecting when he got there? A kiss? Mel Gibson's character wasn't any smarter. If i ever watch this again it will be the music playing and the video blacked out.