Sorry, this movie sucks

Not even bad in a good way

A Disappointing Continuation

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

GALLIPOLLI is an Australian coming-of-age drama with one of the darkest outcomes I can remember seeing in a film. Part CHARIOTS OF FIRE, part harrowing war flick, it follows the fortunes of a couple of gauche young men as they enlist in the ANZAC forces and head over to Turkey to fight, with the expected outcome. For the most part this is a slow and beautifully shot human drama, featuring a youthful Mel Gibson acting well alongside the unknown Mark Lee. The performances are naturalistic and there's a lot of Aussie humour to make things flow along endlessly. Inevitably it becomes an anti-war film towards the end of the running time, ending on one of the most poignant climaxes you'll ever see.

Gallipoli ? A metonym that can be used for the futility of war . The Gallipoli campaign started off as a well meaning campaign by Britain and France to knock out the Central Power of the Ottoman Empire from the first world war or at the very least keep open the supply route of the Black Sea . Unfortunately the campaign quickly fell apart as the Allied force managed to capture the shoreline of the peninsula but found themselves trapped by Turks holding the high ground . After eight months of heavy fighting each side suffered 250,000 killed . wounded , sick or captured and the allied force evacuated in January with the evacuation being the only thing that could be described as any type of success . This film tells the story of the early stages of that campaign .It's an Australian movie directed by Peter Weir who rallies to his country's flag by leaving Hollywood where he had a successful career and making an epic film the likes of which had never been seen before . Gallipoli is often used as a stick by more nationalistic historians such as John Laffin to beat Britain with and has become part of the mainstream Australian psyche and the campaign is remembered far more in Australia and New Zealand than Britain and France , so much so that it's erroneously perceived that the campaign was mainly an ANZAC campaign . The truth is France actually had more troops on the peninsula . That's not to denigrate anyone . merely to point out that there's a creeping myth of revisionary history creeping in and unfortunately GALLIPOLI does play up to a few myths . Like nearly every story you read about the First World War a major character must sign up and take the King's shilling while underage and in this case it's young Archy Hamilton who signs on aged 18 . The film gets an important fact wrong when it says 21 is the minimum age for serving in the ANZACs when in fact 18 was the minimum age and the film does get a few other factual error songs and you can't help thinking Mel Gibson's Anglo-phobia might stem from appearing in this movie That said it is only a movie and if you want truth try reading a wide variety of books on a topic . As a film GALLIPOLI hits the target very often and it's not often you see an English language film from outside America or Britain that tries to capture the epicness of a David Lean type historical movie . The cast are very good and it's easy to see why Mel Gibson became a star via his likable cheeky chappie type of role which he plays here

One of those Paradoxes. A Beautiful War Film. But of course the Movie is much more than a War Movie. It is about Male Bonding, Friendship, Sacrifice, Patriotism and most of All the Futility that was World War One. Along with such Great Films as All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) and Paths of Glory (1957) this is Another Example of what can Only be Described as the Fog of War Blinding the Commanders and Removing any Sense that is Common in Everyday Thought.The Film's Finale Portrays this Trench Warfare in a Gripping Third Act that Punctuates the Poetry Displayed in the First Two Thirds with its Excellent Cinematography and Lush Warm Colors. It is Deliberately Paced and Unfolds as Character Studies of Australian Youth Plucked from Their Prime and Placed in a Hell-Hole on the other side of the World.There may be a Misstep or Two like an Occasional Synthesizer Intruding on the Organic Beauty of the Film, or a Lopsided, Misplaced Nationalistic Conceit at the End (that the Director now acknowledges), but Overall this is Fine Filmmaking and is also Footnoted as an Early Career Starter for Director Weir and a Virtually Unknown Mel Gibson.The On Location Scenes in Egypt also Add a Layer on Top of this Already Well Textured Film that is a Fine Production All Around.

I watched an interesting documentary on the Gallipoli landing. Some of the myths of the landing were addressed: the ANZACS landed on the correct beach, the landing was done under the cover of darkness with few casualties. The British landing was horrible by comparison.I watched the movie Gallipoli, which I enjoyed and have given it a rating of 9.I see that the film been criticized for anti- British bias, depicting that slaughter of Australians being sent over the top against impossible odds, with the British command complicit in continuing the offensive.Despite the conclusions of the narrator of this documentary, that the loss of ANZACS was somehow only minor, and the British copped it worse, I can see how this myth may have developed. Apparently very early in the campaign Australian commanders recommended evacuation, the hills could be not be taken.However, the British commander Hamilton said no to this, and for troops to dig in. ANZAC troops were not evacuated for another 6 months at loss of 8,000 lives. So in that way many ANZACS, and British and French troops were lead to the slaughter and sacrificed unnecessarily in a campaign that was lost not long after the landing at Z beach and elsewhere on the Gallipoli peninsula, on a decision made by British commanders.