Constantinople

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.

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)

I will not go into how the movie is historically accurate (it's simply inaccurate), how it favors Turks and hides their devils (though one should think how could balkan nations manage to preserve their religion, language and culture under Ottoman ruling for 2-4 centuries while all British and French colonies lost all in a century before commenting on this topic), how Vatican was portraited as selfish (I haven't heard anything about their conditioned support until this movie).

My main disappointment is the movie itself. Though its budget is quite high for any Turkish movie, it's not on par with Hollywood productions. So, I didn't expect Hollywood quality special effects and I'm not disappointed in this regard. They are cheap, though not cheapest, compared to Hollywood. But I think that's all can be done within its budget. So it doesn't bother me.

My concerns are about things that has nothing to do with the budget. I don't know if it's due to script or directing but storytelling is awful. The story jumps from here to there and back so suddenly. It's like watching sketches joined as a movie. Also I don't understand why Arabic people talk in Arabic but Byzantians and Italians talk in Turkish.

And there is no character development. Why Giovanni Giustiniani is bad? He behaved kindly to Era. We haven't seen him acting badly to his men. And bam, he became evil. When I think objectively, I see a thoughtful man who is doing his job very good (just how a respected commander should be). So they should fight as respectful rivals at the end. If the director wanted us to hate him, then he should have portraited him as an evil. And why Era developed a sudden feeling of revenge? As an adopted Muslim, she spent all her life with Christians (except her childhood) and she hasn't shown any dislike to the community she's been in. She's just like an happy Christian. Also, the foreseen one, Mehmet The Conqueror is portraited as a man obsessed with taking Istanbul. He should have been a wise and intelligent commander. But when everything goes bad, he begins to shout and insult his men. This is the behaviour we see from cruel kings in Hollywood productions. It's not the behaviour the hero should have. He should not lose his temper, he should have been patient (Look at Saladdin in Kingdom of Heaven while his attacks become ineffective). And his motive should not simply be based on Hz. Mohammed's word. There should be other reasons (for example ongoing threat to Ottomans, etc) for the need to take Istanbul and the prophet's word should have been shown just before the end credits.

There are many illogical things (scriptwise). One of them is: Ottoman tunnel diggers has been digging tunnels for 2 days and they are still outside the citywalls. But when Byzantines become aware of them, they also dig tunnels but they reach them (which is outside the city walls) in almost ten minutes? Byzantine soldiers digging faster than digging specialists?

For cinematography, I won't say anything. It's just not good.

Overall, it's a miss. It has the potential but not because of limited budget but bad script and directing, the movie wasted his chance.

PS: Some will say "Do not overcriticize your country's work". But as I said, I have nothing to say against technical aspects, it's one of the best when considered within its budget, but scripting and directing has nothing to do with budget and these are the ones that make this movie bad. Nothing else.

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.

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.