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.

It is absolutely clear that the conquest of Constantinople was a great victory for the Ottamans who finished what the crusaders started in 1204. BUT. We must respect history and the director of the film did non respect history at all. During the siege, Constantinople had nothing to do with the glorious city of the past. Only 40.000 of once 1.000.000 people lived inside the walls which were defended only by 7.000 soldiers. 2.000 of them were foreigners. The Ottomans had an army of about minimum 100.000 soldiers. Some say that the army had 200.000 or more soldiers. The Byzantine empire was found at that time at the lowest level of her past glory and in the absolute decline. It is know to everybody who knows only a few things about history that the Ottomans entered the city though an unguarded small gate known as Kerkoporta which has been left open by mistake. This gives a picture of history as it really happened and nobody can argue about that.Because it is history! The Byzantine empire had come to an end as it happens in all the empires in history. There is no place here to talk about more historic facts. I understand that the film maker wanted to give to Mohamed the part of the glory that he deserves. But the end of the film it is absolutely ridiculous and was made only for propaganda reasons. People who study history knows very well what happened at that days when a city was conquered. Massacres. That happened in Constantinople as well. The director the only thing that he does not tell us is that Mohamed gave candies to children! The conquest is without doubt a great achievement of the Ottomans. It helped them built their empire. The dominated east for about 500 years. But without of course knowing Mohamed gave west a great gift as after the fall of the city all the great men escaped to the west and they helped Renaissance to begin. The film is not bad at all and in my opinion is by far better than Hollywood films of that kind. The Turks are making a great effort to raise their country and are to be praised for this.Since i visited Constantinople a few times i can say that progress is visible in Turkey. Hope that in the future they will make again films like this and even better. But please respect history. History can not change because some people want to do propaganda thank you

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.

First of all, you must bare in mind that this is the Turkish point of view, do not expect for history accuracy. Historically, this is quite a disaster (to name a few things "MISPLACED": The Byzantine Empire was, in the 15th century, at it's lowest point, with lots of debts, it had almost nothing to do with the happy and celebrating empire that you can see in the movie. Then again, the Ottomans did plunder Constantinople for 3 days after the conquest!! So the final scene it's a big lie.)

For the average viewer it is more important the artistic value of the film, for "Fetih 1453" it's not a History/Documentary/Biography one. So, how good is it? Well, it's an average movie, with good action scenes, nice visual effects (exaggerated from time to time), a good enough script (neither excellent nor dumb) BUT, most of all, it's a strong recommendation for the fans of action movies with a distinctive fragrance of history. "Braveheart" and "Gladiator" are 2 of the masterpieces in the branch.

"Fetih 1453" has some good acting, some bad acting, some good directing (but he took an overwhelming task here with this subject - he managed enough well I could say but no cinematic breakthrough at all). So, sincerely, I would have ranked it 6 (that would be a mark that I call "only for the fans of the genre", but the movie has one ACE - the Picture, ladies and gentlemen! A beautiful job done here. Artistic indeed!

At the end, you get no essential idea about life, feelings and beliefs - as what I consider to be a purpose of all arts - but an average nice to see action movie.

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.