Fetih 1453

I started watching this movie last night and only watched the first hour. As far as I've seen the actors do not fit the historical characters mostly. The main character "Fatih Sultan Mehmet" gives a feeling of a weak man determined to destroy the Byzantium empire. He is reflected as a sick minded, obsessive person with no human feelings. If you can recall the Turkish TV series "Sultan Murad the 4th" with Cihan Unal starring as the sultan , compared to him , Sultan Mehmed character is a weakling. I think that is an insult to the actual person who is considered as one of the most heroic sultans in the Ottoman lineage. Most of the other characters also seem like they can't reflect the persona of a 15th century historical figure. They play their parts as if they are in a contemporary movie. It seems to me that the producers didn't employ serious historical consultants in the making, but they just made up stuff as they wished. If you compare the characters in this movie to a real good historical movie such as "mission" with Robert de Niro, you can see what I mean.

I think the reason behind the bad casting is in the politics in Turkey. The financiers were probably from one conservative group, the production crew an the cast were from modernists, and as a result, they didn't cast some of the actors in Turkey who would fit to some of the roles perfectly because they were affiliated with other groups. It's a pity that political wars in Turkey weakens everything from economy to film industry.

Other than these, this movie deserves praise for some good action scenes, computer generated graphics and visual effects, costumes, and set designs.

I can accept this movie has the strongest and newest production so far in Turkey, besides 'conquest' wouldn't be better theme if worldwide attention is desired by Turkish history. Before I watch the movie I was filled with an expectation of heroic, enthusiastic fiction.However I frustrated. I laughed a lot; during the movie. Cause the dialogues were just like what I've read at high school history books. I would expect new information, deeper and more creative dialogues and language. I don't have a word to say to the movie technically. Moreover, I didn't like Mehmet as his outer view. The original Mehmet was supposed to be uglier and tough; but he had a kind of baby face, and I think he had a plastic surgery on his nose. These are important details if you are shooting an history movie and want it to be talked for years, I guess. During the movie I like the scene of Mehmet and his son Bayezid, but I still think this scene would be projected more drastic and touching to awake the audience. In the beginning of the movie there were so many cuts to give every detail; they would be given in longer scenes, cause they just made me feel sick. I can understand that there must be a love theme in a movie as long as being good. But in 'Conquest' it was averaged (even bad). Throughout the movie I waited to hear a military band march. It would really make the audience's hair stood on end. Finally I watched a good old-time Byzantium and Ottoman movie (1970's). The Conquest of Istanbul must have been made with a much more better scenario.

This movie tells the story of the Life of Mehmed II...the Fall of Constantinople...well, you don't have to be a historian to realize the unprecedented distortion of History. I watched this movie with the best intentions, i wanted to like it, since this was the first time that such a historical event as the Fall of Constantinople was depicted in the big screen. However, at the end of the film, the general feeling was lukewarm. I would like to judge this movie both as a piece of art, and as a piece of history telling.. Production was good. There was a good effort in depicting Constantinople with special effects, and credit should be given to the ones responsible for this. The "bird's view" shots of the city were impressive, Hagia Sophia, Hippodrome, Palaces, the Gates..all can be easily compared to shots of Rome in Gladiator or the shots of Babylon in Alexander. However, there were some problematic "green background" shots where the special effects were poor and fakeness was obvious, especially in shots were actors were implemented. The script was average, not too complicated, kept really simple..but faithful to the Ottomans' point of view..and the direction..well, it was average to bad, with awkward imbalances and gaps. This, in combination with some bad acting made things worse, especially for the first half of the movie. Another issue I would like to note is the absolute miscast for the film. The actors chosen to portray certain characters were purposely selected. Someone could easily see the good and noble Mehmed II, and the "ruthless, almost satanic" face of Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos. The second half of the film was more enjoyable for me. The battles were OK and, as i have already mentioned, it was nice to see at last in a movie the Siege of Constantinople, as Hollywood insists on depicting only the Crusades in Jerusalem, the Battles of Joan of Arc and the skirmishes of Robin Hood. However, I can't help it but judge the movie here as far as the history depiction is concerned...and this depiction could not be more inaccurate... Of course, from the Ottoman point of view, there were so many Turkish heroes that distinguished either with their actions of heroism, or their death. But why this story telling is kept one sided? Why is it kept secret that the city had only 7,000 soldiers defending it? Why is it kept secret that the Ottomans entered the city from a small, unguarded gate? Why is it kept secret that Giustiniani was wounded by a cannonball? Why, by the way, is he depicted as evil? And why we hear nothing about the Emperor's last stand in the battle? This is what annoyed me the most...Constantine Palaiologos was fighting alongside his troops. After realizing that the city is doomed, he tore his imperial suite and no one could distinguish him from the rest of the soldiers. He died fighting, defending his city, his people and his faith...he was depicted throughout the movie but his last stand was somehow suddenly forgot by the filmmakers...and last, but not least..without any intention to criticize the Turks but with all due respect the last scene of the film was rather funny..it is recorded in History what happened after the capture of the city, how many were enslaved and tortured..Mehmed II did indeed offer freedom to Christians, but there is no word in the film about the impaled and tortured Christians, or the fact that the Emperor's head was put in the Hippodrome.. Generally, my rating is 6/10 for the effort and some quite good fight scenes.

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.

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/