Atatürk 1881-1919

There is no exaggration and unnecessary sentimental touch. It is just what exactly it must be. Some dark scenes are hard to see on the cinema but it also deserves to be a TV series with more detaild look. If it was a bad version about Ataturk, i would criticize harshly but nothing to say bad in general. The actor is perfect to speak different languages lika a native. It was impressive. Visual effects are good according to the budget and support behind the movie. It must be on the platforms but it was got out because of some political reasons. It must be shown on national TV as well. It is educative.

I really enjoyed the acting and story telling. I believe it could be made longer because at some points I felt the timeline was really compressed and jumped over events very quickly. But providing that the movie is going through so many people and events it is not fair to judge it on this ground. Since it is not fictitious but depends on real events and people, It would have been better if there were descriptions of characters with some under titles when they were introduced especially for non Turkish viewers. But thanks to the cast and the director, great movie overall and highly recommended.

I found the Atatürk film to be quite innovative in many ways. Particularly impressive was its portrayal of the pivotal events that shaped Mustafa Kemal's character and the incidents that formed the personality that we know. It was enlightening to see the people and events that influenced him, and how his character evolved.

However, I had to deduct a point because while the scenes, costumes, and dialogues accurately reflected the period, some felt overly theatrical. Certain scenes were so meticulously staged and visually appealing that they distanced me from the reality of the events.

Furthermore, while we should be able to see both the strengths and weaknesses of Atatürk as a human being, the film consistently set him apart from other characters, almost deifying him. This, in my opinion, compromised the film's connection to reality, which is essential for a biographical piece.

Despite these criticisms, I would generally give the film a 10 out of 10, so perhaps giving it a 9 is a bit unfair.

A film like this has never been released before. It was very good. It explained Ataturk and the last periods of the Ottoman Empire well. A great effort was made. I wish Disney+ had not stopped broadcasting it, it would have reached more people (globally). Aras Bulut played Imreli well. In other Ataturk films, there was an effort to deepen Ataturk's voice and add diction, but in this film, it was realistic. Ataturk was already speaking with a refugee accent. This is also the case in this film. Of course, it has its shortcomings, such as Enver Pasha, the Committee of Union and Progress, etc. It could have been better. The color toning etc. Of the film is quite good.

This film is a piece of art despite being a low-budget biographical film. Its equivalents, such as the super big-budget Napoleon released around the same time as Ataturk, the cinematic storytelling in "Ataturk" is stronger. You will see his character development starting from a childhood until him being a visionary, but very fidel warrior for his country. The noble scene during the Gallipoli (part 2) where his conscience is always aware of the blood of his soldiers who died, while the sultan tries to corrupt him, you'll feel almost what he feels. Ataturk is more compelling than its big-budget counterparts because the scenario is well thought, the storytelling techniques used are are unique.