Fetih 1453 (2012) Poster

(2012)

User Reviews

Review this title
145 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
An insult to Turks, an insult to filmmaking
picaresk10 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This film is an insult to Faith Sultan Mehmet, to Ottoman history, and to the intelligence of any audience. It is the very example of how western orientalizm can be internalized. The reason why the conquest of Constantinopolis was a matter of survival for the Turks -the economical, political reasons- were totally non existent. Mehmet II, a well educated man, is nothing more than a religious zealot in this film. Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos, who is well respected by the Turks, is a caricature.

Suicide bombings, only a phenomenon of late 20th century, is a common theme in the film: all Ottoman soldiers behave like suicide bombers! What is this? What are they trying to imply? This is a part of the recent series of superficial films and TV shows which seem to aim de-educating Turkey, constantly attack reason, and play at Turkish people's feelings of being under attack of western contempt, orientalizm and memories of WWI defeat.

The side themes fail as hard as the main theme: an absurd love story, a wife with no dialogue, unexplainable motives of Urban, and so on...

This film is harshly criticized in Turkey. I can't imagine why it is being defended so eagerly on IMDb. Because it fails in stirring any feeling of satisfaction of national pride as well. No character study, no context, no wit, not even a propaganda, just the first depiction of the conquest with a relatively big production, a way to imagine how it was, and that's why people go to see this movie in masses. One can't deny the production of war scenes is an improvement for Turkish film industry, but unfortunately, that's all.
83 out of 112 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
One word ; disappointment!
tolgaelverdi6 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Well,before reading my review, you should know something about me first. I don't like commenting on movies generally, because it's relative, you like or you hate, i have no right to comment. Another thing that needs to be considered, i'm from Turkey. Finally, i'm not racist.

Why i write this comment even if i say liking/disliking a movie is relative ? Because of high-rated comments. I can't believe how people voted this movie 8.9 There are lots of historical and scientific inaccuracies, acting is terrible, really terrible and visual effects are worse than acting. I can not even decide what kind of movie is this ? Romance? Drama? Sci-Fi? Action? or anime ? Yes, it is possible, there are lots of bad movies around the world. But this one is over-rated and on the other hand, lots of money has spent on it.

There are some scenes that i was ashamed, like those so-called romance scenes.I decided to quit watching so many times.

They could have made a great documentary without wasting such huge amounts of money.
79 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
fake kingdom of heaven, lead actor fake aragorn Warning: Spoilers
17 million dollar budget may be the highest number in Turkish film making industry, but this does NOT make it sufficient or even close to sufficient for a film like Fetih. Acting is less then amateur cause they don't have enough payment to hire real actors. Ships and language do Not suit ottoman era. There are enormous historical mistakes even conflicts. Make you wonder whether the director consulted some or any historians. Sword fighting scenes are unbearable. Ulubatlı Hasan has nothing to do with being an ottoman nor a turk. Director tries to make a replica of Aragorn which he fails desperately. Because even if he did it successfully it would again has no value as Ulubatlı Hasan was an ottoman, and Aragorn a fiction hero. His way of fighting does NOT resemble Turkish techniques, he is just moving like a disgustingly cheap samurai with cheaper aragorn hair and beard cut. This director has no clue about the character even about the character's outfit. He could have at least looked into any history book and get a clue.

The worst scene was the illegal sex scene which has no way to happen in Hasan's life.

Visual effects are worse then that are in power rangers, especially the scene where the ship sinks. İt was SO bad that it was the scene i left the theatre. And ships in this movie are not the ships Sultan Mehmet had transported through land which was considered "impossible" at the time. This transportation of battle ships across the landscape İS one of the hardest decisions made by a leader if not the only one, in the history of mankind. And the effect of this decision on the people or on the historians of that time is totally ignored in this movie. Sultan Mehmet the Conquerer, the wise, the loyal, who has great piety is just an arrogant kid in this movie. The charismatic scholar of Islam, great hodja Akşemseddin (his name means "the sun of religion") is again totally ignored.

The scene where two kings meet on horse backs DİD NOT happen in the siege, it's from Ridley Scott's K.O.H. Enough writing about this film, it doesn't worth to write about. Director has just edited scenes from foreign films, so he is not a real director, he is a fake editor. İ gave it 1 out of 10 because there's no scoring system below zero in İMDB.
192 out of 293 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Fall of Constantinople...and the "Fall" of Truth
tripolis296 October 2012
This movie tells the story of the Life of Mehmed II...the Fall of Constantinople...well, you don't have to be a historian to realize the unprecedented distortion of History. I watched this movie with the best intentions, i wanted to like it, since this was the first time that such a historical event as the Fall of Constantinople was depicted in the big screen. However, at the end of the film, the general feeling was lukewarm. I would like to judge this movie both as a piece of art, and as a piece of history telling.. Production was good. There was a good effort in depicting Constantinople with special effects, and credit should be given to the ones responsible for this. The "bird's view" shots of the city were impressive, Hagia Sophia, Hippodrome, Palaces, the Gates..all can be easily compared to shots of Rome in Gladiator or the shots of Babylon in Alexander. However, there were some problematic "green background" shots where the special effects were poor and fakeness was obvious, especially in shots were actors were implemented. The script was average, not too complicated, kept really simple..but faithful to the Ottomans' point of view..and the direction..well, it was average to bad, with awkward imbalances and gaps. This, in combination with some bad acting made things worse, especially for the first half of the movie. Another issue I would like to note is the absolute miscast for the film. The actors chosen to portray certain characters were purposely selected. Someone could easily see the good and noble Mehmed II, and the "ruthless, almost satanic" face of Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos. The second half of the film was more enjoyable for me. The battles were OK and, as i have already mentioned, it was nice to see at last in a movie the Siege of Constantinople, as Hollywood insists on depicting only the Crusades in Jerusalem, the Battles of Joan of Arc and the skirmishes of Robin Hood. However, I can't help it but judge the movie here as far as the history depiction is concerned...and this depiction could not be more inaccurate... Of course, from the Ottoman point of view, there were so many Turkish heroes that distinguished either with their actions of heroism, or their death. But why this story telling is kept one sided? Why is it kept secret that the city had only 7,000 soldiers defending it? Why is it kept secret that the Ottomans entered the city from a small, unguarded gate? Why is it kept secret that Giustiniani was wounded by a cannonball? Why, by the way, is he depicted as evil? And why we hear nothing about the Emperor's last stand in the battle? This is what annoyed me the most...Constantine Palaiologos was fighting alongside his troops. After realizing that the city is doomed, he tore his imperial suite and no one could distinguish him from the rest of the soldiers. He died fighting, defending his city, his people and his faith...he was depicted throughout the movie but his last stand was somehow suddenly forgot by the filmmakers...and last, but not least..without any intention to criticize the Turks but with all due respect the last scene of the film was rather funny..it is recorded in History what happened after the capture of the city, how many were enslaved and tortured..Mehmed II did indeed offer freedom to Christians, but there is no word in the film about the impaled and tortured Christians, or the fact that the Emperor's head was put in the Hippodrome.. Generally, my rating is 6/10 for the effort and some quite good fight scenes.
63 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Exaggeration and Sublimation of Ottoman History
aleladebirali18 September 2012
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.
151 out of 229 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Historically inaccurate, but more importantly bad as a movie
sithocan13 September 2012
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.
106 out of 158 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Waste of time
dorimi22 August 2012
As someone said before "I am sorry but 12 year old kids and illiterate people may find this movie great but in reality this actually had a great potential but is totally failed the great opportunity..." Im great fan of history and i was waiting for opportunity to watch this perspectively awesome movie, but ... I've just wasted 2h30m of my time.

1. Those two Ottoman spies - really? I think director watched too much of James Bond series. They just like two superheroes who could defeat whole army. Really stupid move. 2. Much more fantasy then history. Nothing to add. 3. Absolutely Turkish -not for foreigners eyes. I guess director find out who were those lost people of Atlantis - definitely Ottoman people. 4. Why Romans (Byzantines) shown as inbred imbeciles? Sad move by director.
176 out of 289 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A proof that not every rating on IMDb is reasonable or understandable.
steven-langer17 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Well, after Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven", which was not historically accurate either, the Turks even exceed my expectations on history-falsifying.

Short insight about KoH. If the crusaders really killed every Muslim in Jerusalem when they reconquered - not invaded - it, why did they leave the mosque intact? Why did they allow Muslims to live there afterwards?

Further Saladin did not grant every Christian save contact to Christian land. Only those, who could pay for it. The rest was enslaved as it is usually done with dhimmis and kaffir. He was no benevolent soul, either.

Now about this movie here, it's even more amusing. In what lies the bravery of besieging a city with 130,000 Ottoman fighters....against only 7,000 Christian city guards and knights?

It is also very interesting that this movie does not show, what the Ottomans did to Christian settlements and villages, which they encountered on their way to Constantinople. Exaclty the same they did with those settlements in Hungary, Austria, Romania, etc...I guess. Which is plundering, enslaving of women and children, while beheading the male inhabitants. But this is what does not fit into the concept of Islam, where the Muslim is always free of guilt.

I guess that the majority of those who rated this movie are Turks, because the West is not really interested in this movie. And if more western people, who have an idea of what really happened back in these days would vote, this rating would immediately fall.

The choreography and acting is nothing to write home about, but still better than in most Turkish productions so far. This and the nice animated and filmed landscapes and OK scenery prevented me from rating this movie with 1.

A final word to both, Ridley Scott and especially Farun Aksoy. (Self-)Critizism and Reflection is nothing, which should only lie on one side, in this case western society. Especially the Turks could use a lot of it.
49 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Had great potential but failed
gok-302-59839926 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie arguably has the best cinematic concept and special effects in Turkish cinema. Because Turkish cinema has no experience in historical or action movies, it would be wrong to expect a Hollywood quality production. Still it has better combat scenes than I expected.

While these properties can be overlooked, I am very disappointed how the movie turned out. I will be listing these in the order of importance:

1.The movie doesn't reflect or promote the Ottoman Empire and culture the way it should. If I watched this movie in another language I would have thought this is just another European kingdom. Only %10 percent of the movie has Ottoman Culture (praying, war camps, janissaries)

2.Music.. Seriously it couldn't be worse.. There are dozens of awesome Ottoman marches. "How come they are not included?" is not enough, "HOW DARE THEY NOT INCLUDE THESE MARCHES???"

3.The scenario is really bad. Scenario is what people look at this type of movies and the execution of the events is just facepalm level bad. Even though I know the whole story I had a hard time understanding, where we are, what time is it, who are these people, what are these people doing here? They payed to much attention to the cannon but no attention to the ships being pulled to Haliç, which was clearly the main reason the siege succeeded. They should have at least made a 1 minute scene where Mehmed was offering this brilliant idea. The movie is probably really confusing to people who have no knowledge about the history of this battle. This battle changed the era of world and we should have been given more info about why Istanbul is so important why Mehmed wants it so bad. In the movie it just seems like a purposeless childish desire.

4.Giovanni vs Hasan. The fighting scenes are great yeah but why do they look like twins? Why do they look like some random bandits wandering around the battlefield? They are the commanders and best warriors in the battlefield! Surely they should wear an armor and a uniform instead of running around in combat with bare arms like Hercules. Mehmed should have been the main hero in the story not Hasan..

5.The Mehmed we should see in the movie is around 17-22 age. However the actor Devrim Evin is 30 years old and looks 35! They should have picked a charismatic and younger actor. Btw he is the Sultan he should have the best outfit in the empire but even his viziers have better outfits.

6.Troops are not promoted properly. Janissaries? They are not shown as much as they should. And where are their guns? Hand-held rifles probably haven't been invented yet but I am pretty sure they had rifles that had to be set to ground before firing.

7.Where is Deliler(Crazy) Unit? They are known for being the first troops in battle and using Ottoman slapping technique that can knock out enemy knights and horses in armor, when the enemy sees Deliler in front lines they feel depressed cause those dudes kill people by only slapping! How can this awesome stuff not be included in a movie?

8.The leader of 2 sides just don't meet and chat in the middle of the battlefield before war starts. They will be assassinated at first sight.

Yeah they did the battle effects and action parts but they messed up all the other parts big time! How can you have a budget this size and fail this much? The stuff I listed aren't that hard to include in a movie. They just had to think of it instead of making useless action scenes. We aren't here to watch the 1v1 battle of heroes or awesome arrow shower etc.. We are here for the history, for the logic, for the heroic and brilliant moments which weren't even thought of by the producers..

I am sorry but 12 year old kids and illiterate people may find this movie great but in reality this actually had a great potential but is totally failed the great opportunity..

In my opinion the TV series about Sultan Suleyman, The Magnificent Century is better in all the aspects except action and special effects. Yeah it has some lame love scenes but the overall environment is simply better.
58 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
History without depth - filmwork without honesty, but pretty nevertheless
BeholdTheRiversofBlood16 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The movie is supposed to tell the story of how Mehmet II conquered Constantinople. So far so good, it could be a good story, given the right conditions.

However, it ends up being a whole lot of bad. Except for most parts of the visual aspects of the movie, which look great to the human eye.

Now, from the start we are introduced to Mehmet and how it's his destiny to conquer Constantinople. Good, but why is he portrayed as a man with no flaws? Clearly, he was a great and inspiring man when he lived, but he was just as human as all others of the species who have lived. Bring some depth to the characters when writing your script, please. I shed a tear when I saw the death scene with his father almost at the start of the movie, but no other psychological elements where ever expanded upon.

The worst part of the movie is not the portrayal of the conquest itself, no, it's the build-up to that. There's just too many inaccuracies. Sure, if you watch this movie purely from a pro-Turkish point of view, those "details" might not matter, but no matter how you put it you are being deceitful to your viewers about the other "sides".

1) There exists two languages in this movie: Turkish and Arabic.

2) There exists a standardized uniform for European Crusaders (11th century mail tabards), Latin Auxiliaries (Clunky over-sized immobilizing chainmail or cloth-like leather) Byzantine Soldiers (Grey scale armour), and the Turkish army (Red vests with all with the same fluted Ottoman helmet). Of course, these things are historically based and fit in some kind of time period, but variation is important too. To add to this, the two lieutenants of the movie are again wearing some sort of fantasy leather armour no one with money at the time would have worn. Where's the plate armour for the Genoese? 3) There exists three ways of melee-combat: 1: Slowly move around and wait to die (All others but the Turks). 2: Thrust and slash hard with your weapon to kill your opponent or die trying (the Turks). 3: One-hit kill people with agile and fast movement (supporting characters/heroes).

4): Apparently, no sack had ever happened in 1204 and Constantinople still stood as the towering beacon of Antiquity and Medievality combined, looking better than ever imagined. I know this is computer graphics, but again this is dishonesty.

5): The Greeks (who thought it wise to speak Turkish, of course) are naive gluttons who think they can puppeteer with the superpower of their time. In fact, at this point, they were nothing more than a vassal state who where sitting and hoping for a rescue or having already given up hope (most people having already emigrated to start the renaissance). This political reality could of course be less melodramatic to portray, but again, why not give the characters some depths? This brings me to my next point.

6) Constantine XI is portrayed as a raving madman who is spoiled and possesses no diplomatic skills whatsoever. It's bad enough that his beard is so clearly fake and that he speaks in Turkish and seems oblivious to the events around him: He also has to be the "evil" guy who hates the Turks. Kudos to whoever did the costume design, but his character is nothing more than a caricature, and while that could have it's place in a comedy, it shouldn't have any place in a serious historical war movie. I won't go into detail with his courtiers as they are even bigger stereotypes and imbeciles than he is betrayed to be, but with this kind of black/white relationship it's clear just how biased this film is.

7) No conqueror is all kind and loving. Mehmet's outward appearance holds only the authority the script writers gave him, there's nothing natural about it. Kingdom of Heaven had a similar setup, but there was at least a few character developments between Saladin and de Ibelin. As said here this is just the case of:

All-loving energetic smiling conqueror who loves women and children

vs.

Megalomaniac miniature-Emperor with a Napoleon-complex who holds the world record in cynicism and failed attempts of political spin

Where is the Devşirme recruitment system and the Kapikulu? Where is the Jizya tax? Of course these things never happened, as we all know.

8) Where is the awesome Ottoman military music? Also, the lack of any Greek in this movie prevents it from having any Byzantine Chant.

9) The Women in this movie act just as terribly as the men (or as the script decreed, quite possibly). Also, thumbs down for no real Harem of course :-).

My recommendation:

Watch Tirante El Blanco if you want more on the demise of the defunct Byzantine Empire. As for a movie finally worthy of the great statesman Mehmet II, I guess we'll all just have to wait.

As for the movie: 4/10 for visual effects, the construction of Rumelihisarı, the awesome Ottoman turbans the first charge and the entrance to the city where Mehmet is truthful to the quasi-historical picture. The rest is bad.
24 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
characters all wrong
andy-akdeniz26 May 2015
I started watching this movie last night and only watched the first hour. As far as I've seen the actors do not fit the historical characters mostly. The main character "Fatih Sultan Mehmet" gives a feeling of a weak man determined to destroy the Byzantium empire. He is reflected as a sick minded, obsessive person with no human feelings. If you can recall the Turkish TV series "Sultan Murad the 4th" with Cihan Unal starring as the sultan , compared to him , Sultan Mehmed character is a weakling. I think that is an insult to the actual person who is considered as one of the most heroic sultans in the Ottoman lineage. Most of the other characters also seem like they can't reflect the persona of a 15th century historical figure. They play their parts as if they are in a contemporary movie. It seems to me that the producers didn't employ serious historical consultants in the making, but they just made up stuff as they wished. If you compare the characters in this movie to a real good historical movie such as "mission" with Robert de Niro, you can see what I mean.

I think the reason behind the bad casting is in the politics in Turkey. The financiers were probably from one conservative group, the production crew an the cast were from modernists, and as a result, they didn't cast some of the actors in Turkey who would fit to some of the roles perfectly because they were affiliated with other groups. It's a pity that political wars in Turkey weakens everything from economy to film industry.

Other than these, this movie deserves praise for some good action scenes, computer generated graphics and visual effects, costumes, and set designs.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The best cinematographic spectacle by Turkish film industry n one of the best epic war film.
Fella_shibby8 October 2017
Saw this on a rented DVD in 2012. The poster raised my curiosity n the trailer blew me away. Revisted it recently on a Blu ray which i own. This film is the best cinematographic spectacle by Turkish film industry. Haven't seen much of Turkish cinema but this film n Valley of the wolves made me a fan of their movies. Both r solid action entertainment. Hands down, this film is one of best epic action film of sword, saddle, bow & arrow. Fans of the genre will be pleased. The film looks pretty, its well directed, the acting is fine and the fights n action sequences are really spectacular. The battle scenes are pleasing to look at and astonishing in their scope. It is an entertainment at grand level. Two actors who really stood out r the hunky Ibrahim Celikkol n Dilek Serbest. Director Faruk Aksoy divides his nearly three-hour movie among battle sequences, the love story and the various strategy n drama. The cinematography is awesome. Every item of clothing and weaponry has been meticulously researched and hand-crafted. The camera shots are rich and engrossing. There is a certain scale that's inevitable in films of this sort (Troy, Kingdom of heaven, Gladiator, Red cliff, etc.) and Fetih 1453 doesn't disappoint.
15 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Unless you're into watching 3 hours of propaganda, stay clear
andras-gerlits28 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I come from an Eastern-European background. Movies during my childhood were chosen and censored by bureaucrats, financed by the party in everything but name and it was generally frowned upon to say anything bad about the party.

However.

Not even between Stalin's death and the late 80's have such movies come out from those countries like this one. I mostly kept watching because I couldn't believe what I was seeing: A 3 hour-long, propaganda-piece depicting a struggle between the righteous against evil. No thought was put into establishing the motives or the backgrounds of the characters, they are all as one-dimensional as Thomas the tank-engine (no offence).

8.1 (the score of the movie now) implies that the movie has artistic qualities. I personally feel that artistic qualities are measured by the number of times a movie makes me think/wonder/happy or any other feeling except for anger, felt towards the people who made the actual film.

I strongly suspect that the reason this film is so bad is because it was financed by the Turkish political elite who were looking for a drum to beat.

Why anyone with more than a passing appreciation for movie-making would watch it is beyond me.
61 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Good film but with big historic mistakes
vakalo23 August 2012
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
86 out of 161 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Cecil B DE Mille meets mid-nineties CGI with an all-Turkish cast.
massihians18 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The good: Genuine interest for producing an epic. Gorgeous Turkish women untouched by scalpel. Muslim perspective. Reasonably well-choreographed heavy sword fighting in some scenes. Nice rendering of Basilica Cannon.

The bad: Non credible CGI. Unconvincing acting. Unrefined scene transition. All-Turkish cast is unconvincing for occidental characters. Epic screenplay shows inexperience in this type of movies. Doubtful historical facts. Outrageously mild and tolerant end-scene of Sultan Mehmet II embracing and kissing one of the captured civilians' infants.

Conclusion: Watch it once to see Turkish side of the story and never watch it again.
24 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Religious fanaticism and Islam propaganda
Serg31422 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Here a few "facts" that can be learned from the movie:

  • The Fall of Constantinople was predicted and even ordered by the prophet Mohamed himself some 1000 years before it happened!


  • After desperate failures to conquer the city, it's the dream of some holy man that made the last battle successful.


  • The first suicide bombing with happened there. Committed by athlete heroes while shouting "Allah Akbar".


  • The Mehmed II himself, and his army are all glorious heroes while the defenders are ugly cowards.


  • The words "Allah Akbar" can inspire anyone, anywhere, and for doing absolutely anything.


The good thing about this movie is that it encourages to learn from other sources about the Fall of Constantinople. Here is what I've learned from wikipedia:

  • Thousands of civilians executed or enslaved during and after this battle.


  • Impalement was one of the favorite types of killing prisoners by the Ottomans.


  • The army defending Constantinople was about 7,000 men, 2,000 of whom were foreigners.


  • At the onset of the siege probably 50,000 people were living within the walls.


  • The Ottomans' army totalled about 100,000 men


  • They built a huge cannon that weighted 32 tons, and required 700 men to operate. Although ridiculous, it actually worked, and probably was the thing that made this siege successful (not the prediction of their prophet or a dream of a true believer).


Personally, I don't care much about who wins in religious wars (and this movie insists it was such), and I don't care to whom the Constantinople belongs. But I wonder how people in 21-st century can make such propaganda, and how others can like it.

The authors didn't forget to put an awfully sentimental love story in this film. Is this what what made this film international?

Update (after watching the last 20 minutes of the movie).

The survived civilians were very happy to meet their conqueror Mehmed II in the city. They smile and admire the great Sultan. To leverage the effect, the last minute of the film shows a beautiful little girl, playing with his fake beard in a grotesque North Korea style. This scene is supposed to make your eyes wet.

The Byzantine Emperor died while fighting among the soldiers, but the film tells nothing about the circumstances of his death. However, it tells that the Sultan generously allows to bury the Emperor according to local traditions. Well, this is almost true, ~93% truth. Because only the body was buried. The head of the Emperor was placed separately, in a public place, probably the local hippodrome.
58 out of 109 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great history, great movie.
kngtr18 February 2012
I think everyone must watch this film, because there is a great history, great actions and great war... 1453, The conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans signaled the end of the Byzantine empire; the Battle of Castillon concluded the Hundred Years' War... The Fall of Constantinople was the capture of the capital of the Byzantine Empire, which occurred after a siege by the Ottoman Empire, under the command of 21-year-old Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, against the defending army commanded by Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI. The siege lasted from Friday, 6 April 1453 until Tuesday, 29 May 1453, when the city was conquered by the Ottomans.
171 out of 349 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Very bad effects and too much inspiration!
oraygungor22 February 2012
It is like a mix of Lord of the Rings, Troy, 300, Scorpion King etc... Every moment when I was watching this movie was taking me to another movie. It is too much inspiration!

There isn't a slight effect that is different than these movies, and the story and everything is exaggerated too much!

The most important part where the humans carry the ships onshore only takes 1 min in the whole movie! This event is the most important historical event and it takes only one min!

If you are planning to watch this, you should be aware that; the history is not covered correctly and too much exaggeration, the most important parts only takes a few min (ship being carried by many people onshore), It is totally the same effect for other movies that we have known, maybe taken from these movies directly, I don't know and the end was so poor.

I cant believe I paid 15 TL for this movie!

I would not pay any penny for this movie if I knew these!
68 out of 131 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Do not see
akisverillis23 August 2012
Unfortunately another movie which is trying to change history and which tries to make us think that the Turks are heroes, good lords and that the did not kill, rape, destroy when they conquered Constantinople. Not worth to see, if you are not Turk. Apart from history as for the movie, the effects are premature, the direction is at least bad, there is no script and the performance of the actors and especially from the leading actor is so awful, that if the movie was an American production he would be nominated for a golden razzie. Even if it is a commercial success in Turkey, it is still a tragic movie. Fortunately, there are some good movies from this country, like Honey and Once upon a time in Anatolia, which declare that the Turkish cinema has something good to give apart from garbage.
101 out of 201 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Perfect production
mutaydin19 February 2012
Is is a perfect production by Faith Aksoy with a true historical approach. Watched it with English subtitle. There are amazing messages. Also added to my best movies. I suggest everyone to watch this movie without any bias.

I think everyone must watch this film, because there is a great history, great actions and great war... 1453, The conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans signaled the end of the Byzantine empire; the Battle of Castillon concluded the Hundred Years' War... The Fall of Constantinople was the capture of the capital of the Byzantine Empire, which occurred after a siege by the Ottoman Empire, under the command of 21-year-old Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, against the defending army commanded by Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI. The siege lasted from Friday, 6 April 1453 until Tuesday, 29 May 1453, when the city was conquered by the Ottomans.
109 out of 225 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Great Disappointment
petra-axolotl7 December 2012
Being a non-Muslim, I can't really be moved by anything heroic or romantic depicted in this film. I wonder whether this film can be loved by anyone who is neither Muslim nor Turkish.

I am not a historian so I don't know for sure how historically accurate it is. But it looks like propaganda. Especially the ending scene seems so fake. Mehmet is depicted as a savior/saint instead of someone who simply wants more power or glory.

The film is also very predictable. The duel between the two men who loved the same woman, the changing of banner on the high tower. The only thought when I watched these parts was "Come on. Be serious!"
32 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't trust the high ratings
nainasupa00730 September 2012
Its not an English movie and most probably wont be watched by a high number of English viewers . Its obviously the number of Turkish viewers that have given it a 10 on 10 rating. Im sure there are NOT a lot of Turkish movies being made with such a high budget . But for international standards its not even close. Acting is amateur, directing is just plain awful. And the story and script seem to target the Christians in a very negative way . Such movies hamper peace in our day and age . What's the reason for making such a movie ? Its ridiculous - this is considered a very sensitive topic which should not be spoken as it can fuel hatred by both sides. And that too the war of crusades had taken places 1000 years back . Why bring the whole story back again, at a time when we are trying to bring peace among the west and Muslim country's
36 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not enough
mkiritici19 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I think these kind of historical movies have to be done by the ones who know the history. Lets say nothing about the script, acting and costumes.. But one of the most important thing about the Ottoman culture was forgotten. Where is the Mehteran ? ( the Ottoman war band). I was hoping to hear the encouraging attack song at the battlefield, we just heard the European neoclassic ambient songs instead. Just awful. Disappointing. Someone should make an another film about the conquest which had closed an age in order to make us forgot this incapability. Turkish people are waiting this film for decades, the answer should not be this. This should be a kidding i think, if not i am wondering also supposing that the producer should have thought that Turkish people just deserve this, nothing more. I got so angry.
36 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Faith Sultan Mehmet Conquest of İstanbul
isa_turan17 February 2012
Best movie made in TURKEY about history of Ottoman Empire Sultan Faith Mehmet Conquest of İstanbul. Dreams realized film. May be turning point for Turkish cinema. Just focus on the advantage that the Conquest of Istanbul. Special effort was spent for each sequence.

Faruk Aksoy's "Conquest 1453", historical-epic Hollywood does not conform to modern examples. However the Turkish cinema belonging to this area are accustomed to give B-class function works by transforming a class of cheap transfers. Conquest of the New Age of Istanbul, Faith Sultan Mehmet and Ulubatli Hasan started focusing on the stories that brought the nationalist outlook, as well as '70s Hollywood often makes dreams come alive on screen. The essence of story about the project to produce this important historical event in Hollywood who strut "Conquest 1453", can be considered as one of the turning point of the popular Turkish cinema.
109 out of 229 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A touchstone for the Turkish film industry...
muratnarar19 February 2012
First of all, the movie is definitely worth watching. Although it is not perfect in terms of the script and the digital effects, we must admit that the effort is worthy of commendation. It is a significant step for the Turkish film industry with its $17M budget and more importantly, its bravery to make the movie of the conquest of Istanbul, a great historical event that is divine for not only the Turks but also the entire Muslim world. Of course we need to criticize, but the critics should be as supportive as possible in order not to discourage people. By the way, even though it is a $17M budget movie, it is not fair to compare this movie with Hollywood productions since the budgets of similar Hollywood productions are more than $100M. For all these reasons, it is a great production, definitely worth to watch, and everyone should be supportive about it to make the Turkish film industry better.
78 out of 161 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed