Gallipoli (La Bataille des Dardanelles)

There is an interesting split in the voting for this movie (at the moment at least). Those who go expecting a documentary are impressed, or at least not disappointed. I anticipate that those giving the film 1 out of 10 are those who expected a war movie or a re-enaction of the invasion of Gallipoli.

So - if you want to see actors, gunfire and gore, this film will not suit you. If you want to see an independent documentary about Gallipoli, without bias towards any one side (the only enemy in these events was the War itself) then you'll come away both impressed and sobered. I found it a very moving film, and even quite liked Captain Guy Nightingale by the end.

If you are able to bear the oppressively grim nature of this documentary, you will get probably the best account of the stupid and wasteful Gallipoli offensive of WWI. The Mel Gibson film "Gallipoli" is also quite good but never really captures the level of wretchedness and waste you get in this Jeremy Iron-narrated documentary. But, I am warning you....if you are depressed the picture will only make it worse, as the battle was so long, wasteful and oppressive!

To make the film, they used a lot of film footage and photos from the battle--much like you'd see in many of the Ken Burns documentaries. And, like the Burns films (such as "The Civil War") you learn about the impact on the men involved by hearing their letters begin read. All in all, a great tribute to a lot of brave men...foolishly wasted in a hair-brained battle doomed to failure.

By the way, I generally use captions when I watch films. I am slightly hard of hearing but have used them for years since I have a deaf family member. I mention this because there is a problem with the captioning. First, it doesn't exactly match what's being said--it's more a summary. Second, the captions OFTEN came before the narration actually occurred. Both make it tough to watch this one if you can hear....so you might want to turn off the captions.

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The content of the film was the same old historical content we have all seen before, but heavily sanitized to prevent the audience being sick.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.

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.