Gallipoli (1981)

Simply A Masterpiece

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

In 1915, the Gallipoli campaign was commenced. Dictating the Australian version, two young runners, Frank and Archy, enroll in the Australian army, and, as a result, are sent to fight in Gallipoli.The emotional aspect of this film is incredible, due to a great script and performances by Mark Lee and Mel Gibson, who play the two protagonists. With more historical accuracies than inaccuracies, "Gallipoli" is an emotionally heartfelt film, bound to bring a tear to your eye and pull your toughest heart-strings. Mel Gibson is particularly spectacular, as the reluctant youngster soon succumbing to peer pressure.It is debatable whether this is considered a war film to some, as the movie is about Frank and Archy in Gallipoli, and how they are effected by the war, instead of Gallipoli, with many random characters involved. For example, "Gallipoli" is a character film set in the war, whereas "Dunkirk" is a war film with characters.

Well, being that yesterday was ANZAC Day, a day where Australians everywhere look back on the Australian soldiers who fought and died for the state I decided to watch Gallipoli. While this is considered a cultural classic and all, I do think I should talk about this movie from a rather universal point of view rather then just an Australian one. This movie is good, I'd say it's worth watching but I am going to stick some warning labels on it.The plot is that 2 sprinters befriend one another and decide to enlist and fight in World War 1 because they have the perspective of "It's 1915 Australian Outback, what the hell else am I going to do?" so they go off and join up despite being under-aged and one thing leads to another and they part-take in a tactical plan done by the British that's so terrible that the mere mention of the location where it took place will have Australians instantly think of what happened.I'll say if there's anything that I would say hurts the film as a whole, it's the soundtrack. Okay, the string piece at the beginning and when they're about to go over the top is good and really sets up the mood but when they start running and there's an obviously 80's synthesizer playing it's so distracting. I'll also say that if you're looking for a movie that mostly deals with the front line then they don't get to Gallipoli for over an hour then after a half hour or more, the movie's over, I'll defend this though by saying this builds up character development so I'm not unhappy with doing that. I'll also stick a warning label on British watchers, outside of the undeniable fact that the British were tactical morons in real life. The movie for the most part portrays them as uptight, snobby and repeatedly saying the words "I say!" I know not everyone would be as sensitive towards being portrayed like that but I do feel I should in case.Aside from that this movie is a beautifully shot, well acted appropriately dark and grim war movie. The fact this director went on to do bigger things in Hollywood is of no surprise to me whatsoever. The acting here is something I'll continue to mention in the sense that Mel Gibson by my count seems to be the only one that went anywhere until his controversial spats but I digress (I may also put Bill Hunter under that category but I'm sure if I go abroad people unfortunately won't know who I mean) and that really is not fair, there are scenes like when Jack tells his uncle he's joining up and his uncle can't stop him, that scene is acted so well and with so much subtleties going on. I also was shocked at them actually shooting at a place like Egypt for a bit of it.All in all, I would say that this is worth watching if you're into this sort of movie. If you're Australian and haven't seen it I highly recommend doing so. I already mentioned my only warning label for other cultures but even then if you're willing to overlook it I'll still recommend this to fans of war movies.

Superb war drama.It is mid-1915. War is raging in Europe and Australian forces have landed in Gallipoli, Turkey. Two friends from Western Australia join up but nothing can prepare them for the horrors that await them in Gallipoli...An excellent study of World War 1, from Australia's point-of-view. Shows well the camaraderie of men in a fighting unit and the larrikinism of the average Australian soldier. Shows too the futility and wastefulness of war, the folly and incompetence of high command and the horrors that make war distinctly unglamourous. Great work from Mel Gibson (in one of his earliest roles) and Mark Lee in the lead roles. Bill Hunter also appears, and puts in a solid performance, as Major Barton.

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.