Gallipoli (La Bataille des Dardanelles)

dramatic art about soldiers who died for the greed of their country.

died as a result of trying to conquer a country

some facts about this movie:

this is not an neutral documentary.

the story about sentimental and subjective narrations of the soldiers is great / fantastic!

but i think the whole movie cast the light on the countries which attacked a foreign country.

the audience is totally directed to have mercy with the attackers

watch the film and make your own opinion

The Allied invasion of and campaign in Gallipoli, Turkey, during World War 1. Shows both sides of the conflict.

Reasonably interesting. Accurately shows the history of the Gallipoli campaign, from both sides. Also does a fairly good job of covering the British and French fronts in the campaign - most documentaries concentrate on the ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand) front, to the point of ignoring the Helles lines.

A bit flat though. Doesn't really cover anything new. By showing the human side of the conflict, and smothering the film in melodrama and human tragedy, much of the military tactics and detail are missed. While a soldier's-view perspective is always welcome, it shouldn't overwhelm the movie to the point that the actual bigger picture is missed.

Jeremy Irons's sombre tone doesn't help either. Yes, it lends gravitas to the proceedings but it also makes the whole thing feel a bit dull.

Overall, worth watching if you know nothing about the Gallipoli campaign. Those viewers with a decent level of knowledge can take it or leave it.

Coming as it did after three documentary films with a nationalist flavor, Tolga Örnek's fourth film GALLIPOLI exposes some of the myths behind the nationalist cause.

Told through direct narration (in English by Jeremy Irons, in Turkish by Zafer Ergin), plus extracts from the diaries of ordinary soldiers - Turkish, ANZAC, British - with first-hand experience of the battle, GALLIPOLI tells the story of a thoroughly botched campaign characterized by lack of planning and outright pig- headedness. Prompted by the desire to occupy İstanbul/ Constantinople, and thereby neutralize the threat of the Ottoman Empire to the Suez Canal, the British government organized a naval campaign on the assumption that when the Ottomans saw the sheer size of the invading fleet, they would automatically flee in terror. Instead the Ottoman defense was so stout that three major British and French ships were sunk, and they had to retreat.

The British subsequently planned a military campaign based on landings in several parts of the Gallipoli peninsula. Yet they had little or no clue of what the terrain was like - as a result, they suffered massive casualties. The campaign settled into a war of attrition, with both sides sustaining heavy losses, until Mustafa Kemal led a decisive strike that forced the British and their Allies to withdraw.

Örnek's documentary emphasizes the sheer pointlessness of the whole campaign. No one was likely to benefit much from winning; for the soldiers forced to fight, it was nothing more than a living hell. British and ANZAC troops, who had come to Gallipoli with a sense of optimism, soon became disillusioned - not only by the incompetence of their commanders, but also by the knowledge that they would probably die a bloody death.

The only slight ray of optimism throughout the whole conflict was the way in which the ANZACS and the Ottomans - especially - developed a respect for one another that transcended military concerns. Both armies were comprised of young men with little or no prospect of surviving the conflict.

Örnek's narrative is both colorful yet harrowing, combining archive film with dramatized reconstructions and comments from a range of experts. Above all it reveals the ways in which nationalism can blind its supporters to the realities of life on the ground - especially those entrusted with directing military strategy.

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.

In my opinion, the movie is an excellent example of the realities of war and a tribute to the soldiers of all nations who fought and bled into the soil Gallipoli. The lack of violence in no way detracted from the magnitude of the tale in hand. It is honest, true and brave, just like the men that fought and died at the Hellespont. The lack of brutal depictions of violence are just and proper. Those men suffered enough for freedom, liberty and the right to self determination in a free and better world. They never wished to ever see such scene's again.That is the legacy of the event of Gallipoli. To suffer scene's of gratuitous pyro-technics and blood and gore is best not shown for the maintenance of proper respect for the combatants of this crucible of nationhood.

This film glories in the magnificence of men fighting for their lives,with honour, courage, dignity and irrepressible spirit and humour in the face of appalling adversity. This film is not interested in making a spectacle for fools to cheer over. The brutal outcomes that occoured from these personal combats of these men is not a thing that those that survived ever wished to see on a screen for entertainment. They saw enough of that at the time, and would much rather have never seen it at first, and never wished to review such scenes again on a screen in the name of "entertainment". The brutal horrors of the actualities of the vicious combat fought at Gallipoli were scenes that haunted their waking and sleeping hours for the rest of their natural days. It was the painful internal scars they, the men of all those nations who fought, carried inside to their graves. They all fought,and many died in the face of it all and somehow they, those mighty hearted men, managed to laugh in the teeth of constant dread death because they would'nt insult their mates by not being prepared to die game beside them. That's Australasian for brave, game is, but it applied to all combatants to a greater or lesser degree, but word from the boy's that fought was that Johhny Turk was as game, that is as brave, as you would ever wish for a soldier to be.

ANZAC's and Turks were fighting to establish their place on the world stage, and from 25/04/15 onwards, their respective claims for equality in Nationhood were made known and undeniable to that world. The director has made a masterpiece that truly honours the spirit and memory of those soldiers and serves as a reminder to future generations of all ages, for children can be taken without fear of frightening them for the sake of visual "horror" and it's morbid and pointless appeal. And children should attend this movie so as to learn what happened at that sacred shore before they were born. So that they can remember. For it is the nature of men, that they soon forget.