Conquest 1453 (2012)

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

At all times, the victor country rewrites history and nothing can be done about it. 7,000-10,000 Byzantines vs 100,000-200,000 ottomans - can this be a heroic victory for ottomans? The film also does not show that in those days Constantinople was already in decline. In 1453, Constantinople was not already a great city, but was only a symbol of the former might of the empire. Basically, this film is designed for the Turks. An educated and literate person will not watch a false historical film. It would be better for the Turks to make a film about how their ancestors - Seljuks, came from Central Asia and occupied the lands of Byzantium, Armenia, Greece and Persia)

So I finally got around to watching this film after having it on my list for quite some time. I have almost no historical knowledge of the Ottoman/Byzantine empire from this time period; I went into this film looking to be entertained, to watch a pseudo-historical period piece similar to something like "300" (expecting less action) and that's exactly what I got. The cinematography, sets, landscapes, and costumes were all very beautiful. There was a surprising amount of military-related action, and while there were a few slower moments involving politics and character relationships, overall I was entertained and didn't really find the film boring at all despite the 2 hour 40 minute run time.I see a lot of criticism on this forum regarding the historical inaccuracies and the possible vote-manipulation but I really can't understand why. The film doesn't market itself as a documentary, it's as historically accurate as 300 or Gladiator. The film stands on it's own if you go into it with an open mind without any expectations other than being entertained. As for the vote-manipulation by Turkish people, I myself am not Turkish, I'm Canadian (english/german ancestry) and in fact don't even know a single Turkish person. I easily rate this film 7/10 based on the quality and entertainment value and have already recommended it to several friends who all enjoyed it as much or more than I have.Ignore the naysayers! If you enjoy a beautiful and well-made film with a touch of political intrigue and big-scale siege warfare you will enjoy Fetih 1453 (Conquest 1453)

Where should we begin? The movie itself is not bad: decent acting, lots of action, exciting battle scenes. However, one should just watch it just as an action/war flick, because from a historical point of view, this is nothing but a pathetic, biased, and intellectually dishonest attempt to distort the FACTS. The Turkish director and producers tripped over themselves to portray Sultan Mehemet II as an archetypal hero, ferocious in battle and magnanimous in victory. I will just limit myself to point out the following gross omissions and distortions: 1) In the movie we see the sinking of some Venetian ships that tried to force their way past the Turkish blockade. However, nothing is said about the fate of the captain of one of these ships, Antonio Rizzo (look it up, folks!), who along his captured crew was impaled for daring such a feat. 2) The Turkish admiral Balthogu (look it up, folks!) in the movie, was slapped by Mehemet for failing to sink the Venetian fleet, which sailed safely into Constantinople's harbor. In reality Balthogu was almost put to death, had not some of his soldiers defended him to the Sultan: he was beaten to a pulp, stripped of his titles and property and sent into exile. Magnanimous Mehemet, eh? 3) At some point we see the "evil" defenders of Constantinople hanging some brave Turkish prisoners on the walls of the city, in full view of the besieging Turkish army. No mention is made of the FACT that this was IN RESPONSE to the Turks first beheading 125 Christian prisoners before the city walls. One more: my favorite distortion: 4) Mehemet walks into the main church of Consatntinople Haghia Sophia, promising peace and protection to the terrified civilians who found refuge there. Ehem, small detail: Constantinople was sacked for THREE full days: rape, pillage, murder, robbery galore!!! Look it up folks! Conclusion: shame on the director and producers of this movie for their corrupted, stupid, insulting portrayal of history. This is ONE MORE reason for distancing ourselves from anything that has a "made in Islam" tag attached to it......

Spoiler Alert- Turks take Constantinople.Beard vs. Beard; many steely glances; the movie-phone guy doing the voice-over narration; and the most over the top heroic death scene this side of Tae Guk Gi, yes this movie has a lot of flaws. But surprise surprise, this movie is rather enjoyable. A good amount of the flaws could be solved by better narration and subtitles, so I decided not to gig it for that. The overly heroic style actually has a kind of charm to it. They swung for the fences on the action, and mostly succeeded, better than a great many over-bloated Hollywood movies. Most of all I liked the characters, Hollywood should recruit some of these actors.Some of the reviews complain about the Turks being the heroes, which I scratch my head at, seeing that it is a Turkish movie about the defining moment of the Ottoman Empire, of course they are the heroes. Indeed there is a whole lot of whining about historical accuracy, from people who don't seem to realize that this is a movie and judging from their comments, could use a great deal of historical lessons themselves. Other than it being the kindest, most fuzziest sacking of a city in all of history, the rest of the historical account was not that far off. Of course the Ottomans could be extremely cruel, so could the Byzantines, and definitely the Crusaders also. If the movie was merely a history lesson, it could have also shown the Cruaders sacking Constantinople, instead of merely a few villages, and ultimately being responsible for the fall of the Byzantine Empire. But it's a movie, and one that they tried to ratchet up the dramatic tension, at expense to a few facts such as the size of the Byzantine army. As the actual taking of the city was rather difficult I can forgive the dramatic license. You just have to take the movie for what it is. A movie about the dawn of a new and bright civilization, and which for good or bad, glosses over many of the injustices committed by both sides. Mehmed the Great was the quintessential Ottoman, not somebody to defy, but he was also tolerant and a great believer in law, and established a pattern of affording more religious freedoms to conquered peoples than any other empire in history. Istanbul flourished for centuries after the capture and remains one the greatest cities in the world. It wouldn't hurt if a few more Westerner's learned even a glossed over history of him.It's not a great movie, but it could have been, and I liked it and if you like historical actioners, you should check it out too.