Gelibolu (2005) Poster

(2005)

User Reviews

Review this title
10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
This is not a war movie
ACFG8 November 2005
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.
38 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Documentary Concentrating on the Experiences of Ordinary Soldiers During a Pointless Campaign
l_rawjalaurence3 March 2016
Coming as it did after three documentary films with a nationalist flavor, Tolga Örnek's fourth film GALLIPOLI exposes some of the myths behind the nationalist cause.

Told through direct narration (in English by Jeremy Irons, in Turkish by Zafer Ergin), plus extracts from the diaries of ordinary soldiers - Turkish, ANZAC, British - with first-hand experience of the battle, GALLIPOLI tells the story of a thoroughly botched campaign characterized by lack of planning and outright pig- headedness. Prompted by the desire to occupy İstanbul/ Constantinople, and thereby neutralize the threat of the Ottoman Empire to the Suez Canal, the British government organized a naval campaign on the assumption that when the Ottomans saw the sheer size of the invading fleet, they would automatically flee in terror. Instead the Ottoman defense was so stout that three major British and French ships were sunk, and they had to retreat.

The British subsequently planned a military campaign based on landings in several parts of the Gallipoli peninsula. Yet they had little or no clue of what the terrain was like - as a result, they suffered massive casualties. The campaign settled into a war of attrition, with both sides sustaining heavy losses, until Mustafa Kemal led a decisive strike that forced the British and their Allies to withdraw.

Örnek's documentary emphasizes the sheer pointlessness of the whole campaign. No one was likely to benefit much from winning; for the soldiers forced to fight, it was nothing more than a living hell. British and ANZAC troops, who had come to Gallipoli with a sense of optimism, soon became disillusioned - not only by the incompetence of their commanders, but also by the knowledge that they would probably die a bloody death.

The only slight ray of optimism throughout the whole conflict was the way in which the ANZACS and the Ottomans - especially - developed a respect for one another that transcended military concerns. Both armies were comprised of young men with little or no prospect of surviving the conflict.

Örnek's narrative is both colorful yet harrowing, combining archive film with dramatized reconstructions and comments from a range of experts. Above all it reveals the ways in which nationalism can blind its supporters to the realities of life on the ground - especially those entrusted with directing military strategy.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Come Drink From the Cup of Destruction.
rmax30482320 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Without putting much thought to it, I'd always believed that the toughest part of the Gallipoli campaign was landing on the beach, but this documentary makes it clear that, however bungled those landings were, much worse was to follow.

Gallipoli is in what is now Turkey, a narrow peninsula guarding the Dardanelles, the narrow straight that led from the Mediterranean Sea to the Ottoman Empire's capital at Istanbul and, oh, how the Allies wanted to conquer and occupy Istanbul.

Maybe I'd better back up. Kids, this is World War I we're talking about. (That's the one that came before World War II.) Great Britain, France, and later the United States, fought against Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey. There were a lot of little countries involved as well. The Ottoman Empire, centered in Turkey, was crumbling. It had been crumbling for years. That's what the Crimean War was all about. That was in 1859 and -- well, forget it.

Here's how the Allied thrust against Istanbul began. A powerful British fleet showed up and began to shell the Turkish forts. The idea was to make such a demonstration of power that the Turks would throw up their hands and immediately surrender. The Turks might even be happy to be liberated. Instead, they sank a couple of battleships and drove the fleet off. The Allied leaders were irritated and reluctantly decided they'd have to send troops ashore. They did so at Gallipoli and the attempt failed. No, it didn't just fail. It was a bloody calamity.

This film gives us all the misery of the trenches at Gallipoli. Structurally, it resembles Ken Burns' splendid series on the American Civil War. There are still photographs, motion pictures, talking heads, contemporary location photography, and letters from the troops. But, within the strictures set by time, it lacks the fullness of Burns' quotidian detail. Also like Burns' film, it doesn't really provide enough maps. When the 4/15th attacked Hill 1870, I didn't know who was where or what the objective was.

It's possible that some of the commanders didn't know either. World War I was fought during a period of extreme social-class bifurcation. There was the officer corps and then there was everybody else. As a commander, if I lost 10,000 men and you lost 11,000 men, I won.

And the director, Tolga Ornek, doesn't shy away from professional disinterest in the men's welfare. The Australin/New Zealand soldiers were order to charge across a field that was covered by Turkish machine guns. The first wave failed. So a second wave was ordered. When that failed, a third and then a fourth wave was ordered. Hundreds of soldiers were shot down and killed and many more wounded in an area the size of a tennis court.

Even in their own lines men were catching diseases or dying from them. The fields were littered with rotting corpses. There was no sanitation. The latrines were boxes or holes dug into the sides of the trenches. The flies would be feasting on a putrefying body one minute and landing on your open can of bully beef the next.

But then the entire war, like all wars, was rather like a disease that periodically breaks out in epidemics. A documentary like this fills us with pity for all the suffering. "War is all hell," as General William Tecumsah Sherman said. It's not only tragic but, as the film illustrates, positively melancholy. And then we begin to gear up for the next one. Those ubiquitous flies.

I'm happy to report that this documentary hasn't succumbed to the faddish use of lightning-quick editing, reverse negatives, a cascade of computer-generated special effects, or glitz in any form. It's a straightforward depiction of the Gallipoli campaign, with a greater emphasis on the personal rather than the military aspects.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I liked it very much. Different view on history
rossi-382 November 2008
I have to say that I know the documentaries of Mister Örnek and so I knew that I will get a very well made piece of movie documentary. I was not disappointed. As a history nerd - I did saw hundreds of documentary and liked the different approach of this work.

The Director and his 17 Consultants (historians, Veteran families) tried to access the reality of the gallipoli through the letters of solders from both sides. So, the history is followed by British, Australian and Turkish soldiers.

Narrated is this docu by Jeremy Irons and Sam Neill - both boost the intensity and emotionality of this documentary by their great voices.

I saw this film in a cinema in italy in Dolby Surround. I did buy the DVD last year and will wait again 3-7 years for the next work of this talented director and his very good documentaries.

Summary: Well made. Intense. History with emotions - wrapped in a war documentary with great narrators
21 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
It was a Top Film
jrootsey13 April 2006
In my opinion, the movie is an excellent example of the realities of war and a tribute to the soldiers of all nations who fought and bled into the soil Gallipoli. The lack of violence in no way detracted from the magnitude of the tale in hand. It is honest, true and brave, just like the men that fought and died at the Hellespont. The lack of brutal depictions of violence are just and proper. Those men suffered enough for freedom, liberty and the right to self determination in a free and better world. They never wished to ever see such scene's again.That is the legacy of the event of Gallipoli. To suffer scene's of gratuitous pyro-technics and blood and gore is best not shown for the maintenance of proper respect for the combatants of this crucible of nationhood.

This film glories in the magnificence of men fighting for their lives,with honour, courage, dignity and irrepressible spirit and humour in the face of appalling adversity. This film is not interested in making a spectacle for fools to cheer over. The brutal outcomes that occoured from these personal combats of these men is not a thing that those that survived ever wished to see on a screen for entertainment. They saw enough of that at the time, and would much rather have never seen it at first, and never wished to review such scenes again on a screen in the name of "entertainment". The brutal horrors of the actualities of the vicious combat fought at Gallipoli were scenes that haunted their waking and sleeping hours for the rest of their natural days. It was the painful internal scars they, the men of all those nations who fought, carried inside to their graves. They all fought,and many died in the face of it all and somehow they, those mighty hearted men, managed to laugh in the teeth of constant dread death because they would'nt insult their mates by not being prepared to die game beside them. That's Australasian for brave, game is, but it applied to all combatants to a greater or lesser degree, but word from the boy's that fought was that Johhny Turk was as game, that is as brave, as you would ever wish for a soldier to be.

ANZAC's and Turks were fighting to establish their place on the world stage, and from 25/04/15 onwards, their respective claims for equality in Nationhood were made known and undeniable to that world. The director has made a masterpiece that truly honours the spirit and memory of those soldiers and serves as a reminder to future generations of all ages, for children can be taken without fear of frightening them for the sake of visual "horror" and it's morbid and pointless appeal. And children should attend this movie so as to learn what happened at that sacred shore before they were born. So that they can remember. For it is the nature of men, that they soon forget.
31 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It really captures the awfulness and stupidity of this battle...it's unrelentingly grim!
planktonrules5 July 2018
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.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Nothing New
cern5 November 2005
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.
13 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Real documentary
alperkendir-120 July 2020
Very informative, objective, heart touching.

Explains about a very strategical front of the 1st WW.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Reasonably interesting, but a bit flat
grantss30 June 2018
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.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
dramatic art
mya91115 July 2008
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
6 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed