Sorry, this movie sucks

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Despite its subject matter, "Gallipoli" is a stunningly beautiful film, even viewed a third of a century after its production. Many films from the eighties now seem quite dated, with poor color saturation, static shots and clumsy editing, but this one has aged quite well. However, it does seem a bit slow by contemporary standards. At 110 minutes it is overly long and it takes a full 75 minutes before they actually arrive at Gallipoli and another fifteen before the battle begins. We spend a lot of time getting to know the half dozen young recruits. We see their pride, patriotism, fear, hopes, camaraderie, petty jealousies and other aspects of their lives. By the time the battle begins, we know them quite well and care about them. At 25, Mel Gibson is already displaying star potential. Mark Lee, the protagonist, does equally well, although his career has been eclipsed by Mel's. Sets, costumes, props and other production elements are also top notch. Some films are quite heavy-handed in trying to make a political statement. Films like "The Life of David Gale" and "The Star Chamber" employed hopelessly convoluted plots and characters with nonsensical motivations to make sophomoric statements. "Supersize Me" distorted and controverted journalistic principles. Other films attempt to present multiple perspectives of complex issues in a reasonably objective fashion, although one perspective may be presented more sympathetically. "Lions for Lambs," "Lone Star" and "JFK" come to mind. "Gallipoli" deals with politically charged issues and seems to want to make a statement of some sort, but seems muddled in its execution. Okay, there's the obvious. War is hell. Many young men are killed in their primes. But the film seems to lose focus regarding the why. There are quite a few elements. Australia is fighting to support Britain, not its own agenda. There are mistakes. Poor communications. Misguided acts of patriotism. Blind determination to follow orders despite changing circumstances. But in the end, the film doesn't offer an answer to the question of why or a set of possible answers to debate or consider. Considerable attention is devoted to an early scene involving a foot race and a horse race. One expects this to be some sort of allegory to Australia's involvement in the war. There are some parallels. The protagonist is cowered by a more imposing character. Both are handicapped. Pride impels the characters to foolish choices. The outcome doesn't seem to have any consequence, but does impact future events. But the allegory isn't as clear or relevant as one might hope or expect. Overall, it's a beautifully photographed, produced and performed film that could have been trimmed to about eighty minutes and seems to want to convey something profound, but can't quite condense its ideas into a simple declarative statement.

I remember being excited about watching this film before I actually sat through it, and when the end credits finally appeared, I knew I had been conned! 'Birth of a Nation' it was not, and even the totally rubbish 'Objective Burma', would have given it a run for its money! Just the title 'Gallipoli' promised so much and delivered so little, but that is just one failing in this bargain basement, Brit bashing, Fenian-friendly, pile of steaming horse manure! In a campaign in which the overwhelming majority of casualties were British, this film denigrates their role to the basest level, featuring them as fools and manipulators who are eager to sacrifice the flower of Australian youth. The tired old cliché of Anglophobia in Australian cinema has not dated well. We know much more about the Gallipoli landings now, and this film only makes a cringing, sentimental nonsense of what was, no more than a military failure! To watch this film on the centenary year of the Dardanelles operation makes the sneering and petty minded direction seem all the more insulting, not only to the British, but also the Indian, French, NZ and African troops who also died in great numbers. In reality the ANZAC troops were often as not, born in Britain and were eager to fight for King and Empire, but as usual the truth is substituted for a wishy-washy tale of a poor little Irish Catholic boy, who has an inbuilt hatred for the 'evil' English. The commanders - (all portrayed as chinless Brits in this film), may have been ill suited for purpose, but they were no worse than any other allied General's of the time (remembering this type of warfare had never been experienced previously). The film's epic-like title betrays the viewer's expectations in a unforgivable act of deception!...8 months, 10 Nations, and 570,000 men, whittled down to 15 minutes, 1 Nation and 40 men! The scope of the film is limited to an Australian desert location which stands in for a fake Egypt (complete with hardboard pyramids) and an unconvincing Turkey.There are no portrayal's of the landings or anything much to do with the events other than a cheap series of trench discussions and a paltry battle scene involving maybe 40 people (including 5 Turks/blacked up Auzzies). This type of budget warfare pays no tribute to any of the combatants, including the 'heroic martyrs' of Oz! In my opinion the only film to make me want to vomit more, is the appalling Canadian movie 'Passchendaele' which makes a similar mockery of the dead! Mel Gibson's acting is - as usual, pretty bad and the other characters don't have much meat to chew on, which takes away any empathy you may want to feel. Overall Gallipoli should be watched as a piece of propaganda and no more!

Don't continue reading if you do not want to know how movie ends. I was drawn to this movie for the sound track, Mel Gibson and the historical significance. It was entertaining for cinematic reasons, but movie was weak because the characters lacked intelligence. Particularly the 18 year old who stated his excitement at the eventual combat he would engage in at Gallipoli. He stated that it was an 'adventure' as he wrote his letter home. What adventure? He had already trekked across Australia and seen the Pyramids, culture in Egypt. The only thing waiting for him in combat was a bullet. That is exactly what he got. He gives himself a pep talk before he runs into the 3rd and final wave of attack on an enemy that had already wiped out two waves of Australians completely with machine guns. He even dropped his gun so he could run faster to the enemy. What was he expecting when he got there? A kiss? Mel Gibson's character wasn't any smarter. If i ever watch this again it will be the music playing and the video blacked out.

"Gallipoli" is a film that has been part of my teaching life. I saw it and was thrilled by it the day before I went into my first class as a student teacher. Over the next 30 years it is probably the films I have shown most often to students studying Australian history.There are so many scenes that have stayed with me such as the attack on The Nek and the final freeze frame but I want to point out three others that live on in my mind. Geoff Parry's speech to the troops prior to them being allowed to explore Cairo was a gem. Great writing and the delivery had a deliciously sarcastic tone.The cameo from Diane Chamberlain as Major Barton's wife was heartbreaking. The look on her face as she turns away after imploring her husband to, "Please come home" tells all about what wives and mothers went through.Lastly, Bill Hunter as he drinks a toast on his wedding anniversary as he listens to an aria from an opera and attempts to whistle along with it. He is aware of what is to come the next day but the young troops who look in on him are not. They smile almost patronisingly. Awareness and unawareness has never been more brilliantly portrayed. There are many more great scenes and moments in what is a brilliant film.