Fetih 1453 (2012) Reviews

• An insult to Turks, an insult to filmmaking

  picaresk2012-03-10

  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.

  More

• One word ; disappointment!

  tolgaelverdi2012-08-06

  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.

  More

• The Fall of Constantinople...and the "Fall" of Truth

  tripolis292012-10-06

  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.

  More

• fake kingdom of heaven, lead actor fake aragorn

  abdullahkesgin-296-8341672012-03-09

  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.

  More

• Historically inaccurate, but more importantly bad as a movie

  sithocan2012-09-13

  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.

  More