IMDb रेटिंग
6.4/10
60 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंAfter the death of his father Murat II, Mehmet II ascends to the Ottoman throne. After braving internal and external enemies, he decides to complete what he was destined to do - conquer Cons... सभी पढ़ेंAfter the death of his father Murat II, Mehmet II ascends to the Ottoman throne. After braving internal and external enemies, he decides to complete what he was destined to do - conquer Constantinople.After the death of his father Murat II, Mehmet II ascends to the Ottoman throne. After braving internal and external enemies, he decides to complete what he was destined to do - conquer Constantinople.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
- पुरस्कार
- कुल 1 जीत
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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 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.
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.
So I finally got around to watching this film after having it on my list for quite some time. I have almost no historical knowledge of the Ottoman/Byzantine empire from this time period; I went into this film looking to be entertained, to watch a pseudo-historical period piece similar to something like "300" (expecting less action) and that's exactly what I got.
The cinematography, sets, landscapes, and costumes were all very beautiful. There was a surprising amount of military-related action, and while there were a few slower moments involving politics and character relationships, overall I was entertained and didn't really find the film boring at all despite the 2 hour 40 minute run time.
I see a lot of criticism on this forum regarding the historical inaccuracies and the possible vote-manipulation but I really can't understand why. The film doesn't market itself as a documentary, it's as historically accurate as 300 or Gladiator. The film stands on it's own if you go into it with an open mind without any expectations other than being entertained. As for the vote-manipulation by Turkish people, I myself am not Turkish, I'm Canadian (english/german ancestry) and in fact don't even know a single Turkish person. I easily rate this film 7/10 based on the quality and entertainment value and have already recommended it to several friends who all enjoyed it as much or more than I have.
Ignore the naysayers! If you enjoy a beautiful and well-made film with a touch of political intrigue and big-scale siege warfare you will enjoy Fetih 1453 (Conquest 1453)
The cinematography, sets, landscapes, and costumes were all very beautiful. There was a surprising amount of military-related action, and while there were a few slower moments involving politics and character relationships, overall I was entertained and didn't really find the film boring at all despite the 2 hour 40 minute run time.
I see a lot of criticism on this forum regarding the historical inaccuracies and the possible vote-manipulation but I really can't understand why. The film doesn't market itself as a documentary, it's as historically accurate as 300 or Gladiator. The film stands on it's own if you go into it with an open mind without any expectations other than being entertained. As for the vote-manipulation by Turkish people, I myself am not Turkish, I'm Canadian (english/german ancestry) and in fact don't even know a single Turkish person. I easily rate this film 7/10 based on the quality and entertainment value and have already recommended it to several friends who all enjoyed it as much or more than I have.
Ignore the naysayers! If you enjoy a beautiful and well-made film with a touch of political intrigue and big-scale siege warfare you will enjoy Fetih 1453 (Conquest 1453)
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.
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाFatih Sultan Mehmed conquered Istanbul when he was 21 .
- गूफ़At one point, Giovanni Giustiniani uses a telescope to watch the invading troops. The telescope was not invented in the West until the early-1600s.
- भाव
Sultan Mehmed II: Either I will conquer Istanbul or Istanbul will conquer me.
- कनेक्शनReferenced in Pek Yakinda (2014)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Conquest 1453?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $35,730
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $35,730
- 8 अप्रैल 2012
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $3,57,97,045
- चलने की अवधि
- 2 घं 42 मि(162 min)
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.35 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें