The movie ist disrespectful against the Greeks and Armenians . The story is full of shit. It's based on lies. The turks killed millions of Christians between 1914-1920 and somehow they are here represented as the good guys. It was released in the same week of Armenian genocide memorial. This film is a prove how money can buy everyone and even change history. people will believe everything they watch. I once respected Russel crow but not anymore. Overall this movie is disrespectfull to Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians and all the Christians that were killed by the barbarian turks. Shame!

One cannot watch this movie without experiencing mixed emotions.This is a well-meaning and earnest film which flaws are the consequence of poorly considered and unbalanced writing and character construction, as well as somewhat simplistic stereotypes.it is not an issue that only 3 women feature in substantial roles in the film; my issue is the positioning of these women. The first is Connor's wife, the mother of his sons, and crucial to the motivation of the plot; we can't expect much of her, given that all we need to know is that the loss of her children understandably induces the loss of her sanity. It is tragic but brief; She rarely features even in flashbacks. The second, Olga Kurylenko's character, is a strong-willed but socially subjugated widow obsessed with her MIA husband; the entirety of her screen time is expended either discussing her missing spouse, the pressure to marry her brother- in-law, her obligations to her son and flirting with Connor; while her character contributes to the story by providing a window into Ottoman Turkish household culture, she really is little more than a love interest for Russel Crowe; the third character is the inn's resident Circassian prostitute - need i say more. It possibly sounds worse than it is. While the female characters are far from purely objectified, they seem to provide little more than support to an otherwise predominantly male film. While failing the Bechdel test, it still manages to be sensitive and relatively respectful, at least at a tertiary level.like almost all Australian films that feature British characters, practically every Briton in this film is a cartoon-like, two-dimensional stereotype; the most prominent of which is of course the absolute favourite of Aussie filmmakers: the stuffy, pompous, and insensitive martinet army officer. The only broadly sympathetic British character is a junior naval officer about the right age for a midshipman, but who is bizarrely addressed as a lieutenant, which is very weird. Perhaps predictably for an Australian film about Gallipoli, the real enemy is the Pommie. This adds a two-dimensional and callow aspect to a story which attempts to address a particularly complex period of history; there is absolutely no consideration for depth in relation to any of the British characters whatsoever. -the treatment of the Turkish characters, and Turkish history in this period, is probably the biggest issue,with this film. Australian historiography relating to the Turks at Gallipoli tends towards the respectful and the positive, which may explain the political position of the film, and which by itself is not a problem; but it is the treatment of the Turkish political position in the post-war period that becomes galling; without exception, the Turks are portrayed as the innocent victims of foreign imperialism and aggression; simple, decent and patriotic; every Turkish soldier, for example, is noble and honourable. They are shown as the victim of atrocities committed by the invading Greeks, who feature only sufficiently to identify them as bloodthirsty and murderous monsters bent on genocide and rapine; no mention whatsoever is made of Turkish atrocities against the Greeks, or the Armenians, or anyone else. I don't mean to detract from the quantity of undoubtedly upstanding and decent Turkish men who served their country at this time, but neither do i think that this film's portrayal represents anything like a well- rounded perspective of the period. As a comparison, it would literally be impossible to find a contemporary German film about ww2 which did not feature at least one Character who was a Nazi.For all its faults, it still manages to project a sense of charm, even while featuring anything as dubious as water-divining. The photography is generally appropriately attractive, the scenery is often enchanting, and the standard of acting is relatively high. The Turkish landscape is wonderfully showcased and the Turkish actors are all competent if not outstanding. If Crowe intends a transition into directing, then this is a strong, albeit flawed, starting point.

An Australian water diviner, Russell Crowe, loses three sons at Gallipoli in Turkey and after the war travels to the battlefield to retrieve their corpses. I know. It sound lugubrious -- a heavenly choir, the vanquishing of red tape by empathy, as the water diviner divines the skeletons of his sons, one by drawn-out one, and schleps them back home to Australia, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.Actually, it has plenty of color and dash and it doesn't turn out as expected. Shot in Australia and Turkey, there are some marvelous location shots as we're introduced not just to the battlefield but to Ottoman culture. A stunning shot of the interior of the blue mosque.Among the Ottoman artifacts is Olga Kurylenko. Somewhere, a religious cult should be established in her honor, its symbol her sternoclavicular notch. What a dish. Body by Bernini, neck by Modigliani. Suddenly, that line from "Dr. Strangelove" -- "toe to toe with the Russkies" -- doesn't sound like such a bad idea.The romance is subdued, as is Russell Crowe's performance. He's gained weight and lost definition since "L.A. Confidential" and his bulk now resembles that of John Wayne, a kind of massive heft that his brain orders about. He's quite professional as a director too, fond of overhead shots, but not too fond.The editor should be fired. Sometimes it was easy to get lost. There are flash forwards of whirling dervishes only you don't know they're flash forwards. The whirling dervishes are the decorous public kind, clean and dazed looking, not the Dionysian wild men of the tribal areas. I don't know how they can do it without falling down after the first few minutes.The film is more sympathetic to some of the Turkish soldiers now occupying the battlefield than it is with the British and Australian graves unit. The villains are Greeks, and there are scenes of battle resembling the perforated train sequence in "Lawrence of Arabia" and one or two echoes of "Young Churchill." The bloody combat scenes are disturbing in that they cause you to worry somewhat about just what the solution to the Middle East is.

Joshua Connor (Russell Crowe) is an Australian farmer who lost his three sons in the Battle of Gallipoli. Four years later, his wife Eliza dies and he vows to bring his sons home to be buried next to their mother. In Istanbul, he rents a room from war widow Ayshe (Olga Kurylenko) who is under pressure. Connor sneaks into Gallipoli despite the British military. Major Hasan commanded Turkish troops during the battle and decides to help Connor find his dead sons.There is a sense of the great epic. I really like the movie going to Gallipoli. However, it goes on a little too long with a few twist that is less believable. It would be better to not have those turns. It also tries to make the Turks victims and the Greeks villains which doesn't necessarily sit well. I do have a few problems with the story in the second half. It's Russell Crowe's theatrical directing debut and his visual efforts are impressive. He is able to keep flow of the story and shows some solid skills as a director.