Gallipoli (1981) User Reviews

How fast can you run?

[FrenchEddieFelson · 7/10 · 30 April 2019]

Filmed in a period of cinematographic transition, between, on the first hand, the old Hollywood productions like The Longest Day (Ken Annakin and 4 others, 1962), A Bridge Too Far (Richard Attenborough, 1977) or The Great Escape (John Sturges, 1963) sometimes completely disconnected from the reality and the atrocities perpetrated on the battlefield by both sides and, on the other hand, darker and immeasurably more realistic productions from the late 70s, such as Come and See (Elem Klimov, 1985), The Deer Hunter (Michael Cimino, 1978), Das Boot (Wolfgang Petersen, 1981) and Le vieux fusil (Robert Enrico, 1975).

Indeed, if the first part of this movie is of a distressing insouciance, the two main protagonists striving to leave Australia to join the peninsula of Gallipoli, Turkey, like two children expecting their next summer camp, the second part is cold and raw, unbridled and cruel. In this respect, the film is appropriately lulled by the album Oxygène (Jean-Michel Jarre, 1976) for the sequences full of hope and carefree, camaraderie and friendship and the adagio of Albinoni (Remo Giazotto, 1945) for the poignant sequences of courage and sacrifice.

A moving film with a neat realization and an excellent cast.

Nearly flawless

[Boyo-2 · 8/10 · 30 July 2001]

There is not a lot wrong with this movie. The entire thing seems authentic - meaning you feel like you're in Australia in 1915. You are living on a farm, running in a race and ultimately in a war.

What is also very extraordinary is that there is not really a lot that happens, there is barely a plot. But it doesn't matter, because Peter Weir is a master storyteller. The actors are all superb and your heart may hurt at the climax - mine did.

Unforgettable, like all great movies.

A great anti-war film

[MovieAddict2016 · 8/10 · 22 September 2005]

Peter Weir has long been one of my favorite directors, and he has had a career consumed by subtle, quiet, lingering films. He can make the most banal concept seem thrilling and suspenseful; a perfect example is the Harrison Ford film "Witness." It could have easily become a stupid, insulting, exploitative "thriller." The ending is, in retrospect, quite ridiculous. But Weir has a strange ability to make anything seem realistic.

"Gallipoli" is one of his older films, from 1981, and it stars a huge cast of names - most famous today, of course, Mel Gibson...whose name is now splattered across the front of the DVD case.

The story is a true one and follows a group of young Australian men who join the ANZACs in World War I. They are sent to Gallipoli, and amidst personal and emotional turmoil they must learn to band together and fight the Turkish Army.

The movie is long, as another reviewer on the site points out. But all of Weir's films are. What I didn't like about his most recent - "Master & Commander" - is that it used special effects (exteriors of ships, etc.) and action sequences (raging storms) to compensate for the slow bits... and came across (to me anyway) as quite dull and down-trodden.

"Gallipoli" is a great film - slow, subtle, low-key. It's a bit like an Australian version of "All Quiet on the Western Front." I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys slower films and can appreciate character-driven dramas. Don't go near it if your attention span was dimming during "xXx2."

Loved it as a Turk

[ddilara · 9/10 · 20 June 2020]

A "Johnny Turk" here, as they say in the movie, just watched the movie and I am very much under the effect of it. I loved the movie, I think they portrayed the senselessness of the war very effectively without making any side the villain. As obvious to anyone watching the movie, the Australians were the victims in the truest sense of the word. They died so needlessly for a cause that was not their own. When I was a kid my mother would always tell me that they were tricked into joining the war thinking they would get to see Europe. So the sentiment in Turkey about Australians and New Zealanders has been favoring them. It was never "what were they doing here!!!! :@" but it was "what were they doing here :(((((" and we love it that Australians still care so much that they come back to visit the land every year in scores whereas I am ashamed to say I haven't been to Gallipoli yet. One thing not so obvious from the movie is that just as it was not the Australians' war to fight, it was not the Turks' war to fight either. In the movie they keep referring to the Ottoman Empire as Turkey. It may seem small but it is a crucial difference because the very reason that Turks took part in the war was because some blind ottoman officers could not face the truth, couldn't see that Ottoman Empire was living its final days and they were blinded by the prospect of the "good old days" that they had to drag the country down with their grandiosity complex.

Ataturk was in Gallipoli. After everything he said these words that have been embraced by the Turks towards our Anzac brothers: "Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives... you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore, rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours... You, the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land, they have become our sons as well."

One of the great war films

[BillThierfelder · 7 April 2003]

Once again, I've had the pleasure of showing this film to one of my College literature classes; we're studying the World War One poets of England, and this film shows my students in vivid detail what made this war so different from anything that had come before it. The world lost its innocence with "The Great War," and we are still reeling from the consequences a century later. Peter Weir's magnificent film follows the story of two best "mates" from the Australian outback and their sudden thrust into the realities of a new world order. Mel Gibson, Mark Lee, and a fine cast create the sense of brotherhood and horror that makes this film so profoundly moving. The last 20 minutes spares the audience no detail, and while more recent films like "Black Hawk Down" and "Saving Private Ryan" are perhaps more graphic, "Gallipoli" immerses us in the human loss more fully. In "Gallipoli" we get to know these friends in intimate detail, making the losses they suffer in the end truly gut wrenching. Five stars out of five stars.

An engrossing movie with one of the best endings in cinema.

[seger_now · 9/10 · 3 December 2003]

'Gallipoli' is the story of two young sprinters who join the war effort in Turkey during World War I. There have been countless war films in cinema history covering the different wars, the horrors of war, etc. What is unique about this story is its probing of two young friends and their journey into the military effort--unlike other war films, which deal directly with the war, 90% of this film follows the journey of these two young men before they transfer over to the war. The special quality of this is that the viewer gets to know these two protagonists very well and their humble lives in Australia--which makes the tragic ending all the more devastating. The last 20 or 30 minutes of the film is spent at the Gallipoli peninsula, inside the war trenches. The generals vainly send men running toward the enemy and they are swiftly slaughtered. These scenes demonstrate the horrible truth of war, that healthy young men with lives ahead of them are destroyed forever in a single, pointless instance.

The final minute of the film is truly heartbreaking, as a tragedy occurs between the two young friends. The very last shot of the film is stunning, as a horrible image is frozen on screen. Director Weir could have fallen into the sentimentality trap, but he was smart: the tragedy occurs, and the moment it does, the movie ends RIGHT THERE, leaving you with a haunting final image.

A landmark war film, highly recommended.

Should Check This Out On Widescreen

[ccthemovieman-1 · 6/10 · 6 June 2006]

Perhaps the most interesting feature of this film, if you have never seen it, is to see Mel Gibson at such a young age. He was still pretty unknown - at least outside Australia - at the time this movie was released.

Actually, Mark Lee, not Gibson, is the star of this anti-war film about a maniacal Australian officer sending his troops off to a needless death. Lee and Gibson are "runners" who become friends in this World War I battle in Turkey.

The photography is decent in here, with an excellent director at the helm in Peter Weir, and I wouldn't mind seeing it on a 2.35 widescreen DVD format, since that is now available. I saw it on tape a number of years ago.

A shameful waste of life

[iamtherobotman · 9/10 · 5 December 2018]

I first watched this film back in the mid 1980's when it was shown on UK television and although being just a young boy had a certain knowledge of WWI and particularly the ill fated Gallipoli campaign. This film moved me to tears back then and in truth, still does now all these years later. The pacing is excellent, at no point does the film stay still. We feel a connection with the characters, an empathy, they practically become our friends through the telling of the story, and what a story it is. We see our two protagonists meet by chance and witness their friendship blossom before our eyes. The contrast in the pair is stark. Young Archy is full of adventure, desperate to do his part in the great war. Frank, the elder of the pair is far more cynical and far less keen to join what he refers to as an 'English war'. Soon enough, they both find their way to the Turkish peninsula and events quickly lead to a tragic end. This is a must for fans of war films and particularly those with an interest in WWI, and absolute masterpiece which has aged incredibly well ( as all great films do).

Good anti-war film that's a little too anti-British

[DjSmitty20 · 7/10 · 19 July 2002]

Gallipoli is a great anti-war film. Not so much that it is against wars in general, but it portrays the brutality that occurred in the Great War. Officers did relentlessly order their men to charge at machine guns and Gallipoli was a prime example of throwing lives away in the First World War.

However, there is an anti-British sentiment in this movie that is a little too obvious for my likes. The movie makes the battle at Gallipoli out to be Australians being used as cannon fodder at the whim of British officers. That is totally untrue. There were more British soldiers who fought and died at Gallipoli than ANZACs. Australia had one great massacre in the Great War which was Gallipoli. The Brits had dozens, so Peter Weir becomes a little too self-indulgent in portraying the "Australian sacrifice". Every Commonwealth nation, including Canada I might add, suffered grievous casualties in WW1, along with Britain. There is a line in the movie where one Aussie asks what the Brits are doing during the battle. Another Aussie replys "they're on the beach drinking tea". That is just an insult to the British soldiers who fought and died there. As I have said, the British dead outnumbered the ANZAC dead by several thousands...look it up. Not to mention the British and French forces were suffereing heavy casualties EVERY DAY on the Western Front. My great Grandfather's brother in law was a British leftenant and he died at Gallipoli on the second day. So much for "drinking tea on the beach" eh? The whole incident was Winston Churchill's fault anyway, but the officers on both sides of the war were all responsible for the unnecessary deaths. Aussies who say WW1 was the British high class throwing "the lower Aussie class" at the machine guns are right, but remember that the British working classes went up against them too, even moreso.

I encourage Australia to promote their independence. They've had it for almost a 100 years and nobody is trying to take it away from them, but they shouldn't bite off the hand that fed them so to speak. Australia and New Zealand WERE BRITISH COLONIES after all.

Regardless of the political statements, however, Gallipoli is a good tale of sacrifice and war. The acting is excellent all around, including Mel Gibson, who, despite his very strange affinity with appearing in movies that are decisively anti-English (Braveheart, Patriot), always turns in a great performance.

7.5/10 (slow beginning, often boring until midway through)

Not in top 250??

[SpringsNoir · 9/10 · 26 September 2006]

I taught HS history and used very few commercial movies in teaching...the exceptions included GALLIPOLI and PATHS OF GLORY and the newer remake of ALL QUIET. I've never watched a film that builds plot, mood and theme any better than Gallipoli. While there are many light-hearted and humorous forays which add to character development, the ongoing drum-beat of the film is war, war, war--attack, attack, attack. I can't imagine any better musical score or musical editing:the juxtaposition of elegant Strauss waltzes the night before debarkation with the funereal Adagio as the troops cross the water is genius. I'm surprised that we haven't seen more of Marc Lee-the idealistic Archie. He does a wonderful job along with a VERY young Mel Gibson. When I showed the movie to my classes I was careful to watch THE STUDENTS as the final scenes arrived rather than the film. Now THAT was telling! I absolutely commend this film to all! (ADDED)BTW...Brits---try not to take the criticism of the military operation as criticism of YOU...I think the entire film was meant to be an indictment of war as an instrument of national policy. Your very own John Keegan observed that once wars begin, they have a way of creating their own momentum and justification. It's for this reason that Herodotus said that "all wars are popular in their inception". The film, as I viewed it, was about the futility of war, the fixation of military commanders to fix the "previous war" and the price we pay for stupidity. The lesson should not be lost on the US in Iraq either.

The Peter Weir War Film

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 14 May 2015]

Two Australian sprinters face the brutal realities of war when they are sent to fight in the Gallipoli campaign in Turkey during World War I.

Peter Weir has made some great films and has been the key contributor to Australian cinema. In fact, it is hard to imagine anyone who has done more. Nicolas Roeg may have helped, and Peter Jackson has pushed New Zealand (which probably overflows to Australia), but Weir seems to be largely the sole force.

Mel Gibson appears in the film, more or less before he went big. Definitely before he reclaimed his American status (something he is still trying to do today, actually). Not his finest role, and certainly not his most memorable, but oh well. This is also, by the way, not among Weir's best films. But even a bad Weir is a good film.

Magnificent!

[adventure-21903 · 10/10 · 6 August 2019]

This is movie making at its finest. Splendidly acted and Directed, this is a magnificent movie. Mel Gibson is tremendous and no wonder why Gibson became a great Star, and later on a recognized talent for film making. I am a combat veteran of the great U S Army and the finale of this stunning film made me weep.

Life in the trenches with Mel Gibson

[ironhorse_iv · 7/10 · 14 October 2012]

Gallipoli is the story of two lives during World War 1, Australian soldiers who fought in the Battles of Gallipoli. Directed by Peter Weir, Mel Gibson and Mark Lee stars as two patriotic fast runners young men enlisted for the campaign in Turkey. The story is little about the Battle of Gallipoli and more of the story of these two fellows. It's not an war film, but a movie with a war as a backdrop. It does takes the story nearly ¾ in the film until we get to even talking about the battle. The first half of the film documents the lives of the young men in Australia, detailing their personalities and beliefs. It's the beginning of a coming of age story. The second half of the movie, their lives turn to training in Egypt… and in the last bite of the movie: it's about Gallipoli. --For a movie call Gallipoli, there barely any Gallipoli in it. Still, there isn't much of a battle at first, as both men are just a few shorelines away from the horrible of trench warfare. – Surprising the violence in the movie isn't that horrible, I can understand that being the reason why it is PG….but for a PG, there is a lot of nudity for a film that PG. It had a scene in a brothel, no less. There is also a few historical criticism in the film which is not that bothersome much. One of the weirdest part of the movie is the background music that they use in key scenes. The music sounds more fitly for a sci-fiction than a war movie. It sounds like new wave 80s synth music. It felt bogged down the feel and made it seem tacky. All other music in the film was great. It didn't fit the movie at all. Without giving much away—the last few scenes in the movie is very touching and it's a race against time… as Mel Gibson and Mark Lee's characters journey through life and death to discovery themselves in Gallipoli.

Not bad, but incredibly conventional

[PenOutOfTime · 5/10 · 31 October 2009]

By now, most film-goers know what constitutes a war movie, and this film could be complemented, or criticized as being, really the 'Mother' of all of them. Mingling patriotism and tragedy, this film can make a case for every archetype and trope that we groan over in other films, and for that reason, is a really fine movie.

There is nothing more however, no plot element or characterization that would make the viewer even blink twice. The performances are basically excellent, for what they are, and unlike many a conventional film, the actors do not fall into self parody, but these performances are not really captivating either.

If there is a flaw, it is in the pacing. Rather than a beginning, middle and end,there seems to be a beginning and a middle cut short, but this might also be considered the strongest creative choice in the film, in demonstrating the tragedy of war through life cut short. It just depends on how you want to take it.

The reason that I do not give it kudos, for what it is, is that this film is significantly historically incorrect, relying on faux British mistakes to avoid implying too strongly that the war was an inherent tragedy, and to enhance the Australian sacrifice, without implying additional Australian responsibility, at British expense. You could still draw that conclusion (that the war was simply a tragedy) from this film, and there was plenty of callous wastage of life, and plenty of mistakes, and errors of judgment in the real war to be sure, but this film prefers to fictionalize the story, and so I rank it as no better, and no worse than most films. People who really like war movies should like it, and people that don't, should be forewarned.

A devastating portrayal of individuals lost as many.

[PlushZombie1 · 10/10 · 29 April 2005]

All of our characters spend the entire first half of this movie developing their personalities, and letting the audience get to know them. The cast signs up for war, considering it to be just the sport that it had been in past days. Instead, all of them, with their individual phrases, look, and persona, join a cannon-fodder army which could indeed be compared to hell itself.

One of the particular themes that shows in this movie is the replacement of conventional weapons. No longer are the glory days when a man could be shot, shake hands with his foe, and call it a day. Instead, we watch many of our innocent, sporty youths run up to "fight the turks," and barely take one step before the loud rattling of a machine gun renders him mutilated beyond all recognition. Indeed, the heroes barely comprehend the concept of death, as one of the most harrowing lines states: "Barney. He's dead. He was standin' right beside me, and I- and I though' he jus' tripped and fell. Y'know, B-barney's like that. He's- He...Was always clumsy."

Another is the use of your allies and soldiers as cannon fodder. To supposedly "let the British advance into the peninsula," the Australian troops, including our youths, are forced to run directly into the no-mans' land, being shredded into kindling while their superiors question their ability as soldiers. "Why aren't we advancing?" "But sir, all of our men, they barely get out of the holes and they die!" "I don't care. We won't win until we advance. The fight must go on."

A movie that easily sheds tears (well, I cried), Gallipoli is not necessarily a film to enjoy, but instead to reveal the dark side of the "modernized" Western World.

Sad but true story

[fred-houpt · 8/10 · 19 January 2005]

Terrific film that so succinctly sums up the passion and the innocence of the Aussie soldiers as they gave their lives up for a cause not their own, believing to the end that duty demanded that they make a good showing of themselves. This story is based in historical fact and is still discussed today as one of the most terrible follies foisted upon young men by totally incompetent military leaders. There are even worse stories that are told about the wars outcome in France and Belgium but this film captures enough of the tragedy to drive home the point of how mad all wars are.

The very young and handsome and Aussie sounding Mel Gibson is very convincing as are the entire cast. Peter Weir crafted a heart wrenching film which ends with a moment that you just can not shake from your mind. Great film and very moving.

Atypical movie from Weir on war.

[rmax304823 · 21 April 2004]

A lot male bonding goes on in Australia although men don't talk about it as such. The word "mate" can mean anything from "casual acquaintance" to "close friend," and is slung about freely. That word -- and the shared interest in friendly competition, sports, and beer -- are about the only ways this bonding is expressed. And it's all done in a lighthearted way, joking and grabass, not the deadly serious way it shows up in some male groups -- "Women have no place in this business," that sort of thing. How male solidarity develops, nobody knows, but in the case of Australia it may have something to do with the founder effect. The continent was after all settled by outcasts who had nothing in common except their marginal status. And aboriginal Australia was always a bastion of male solidarity, with lots of secret societies from whose rituals women and kids were excluded.

That male bonding is basically what this movie is about, not war. We get to know two mates -- Mark Lee and Mel Gibson -- and through them, a number of others. There's hardly a woman in the picture, even before the men join the army. If it's a war picture, it's a mighty odd one. It's an odd movie for Peter Weir too. His specialty is the projection of a mood of ominous languor, and this is his most raucous work. Not that he's lost his taste for portents of doom. The men play a rough game of football and then Weir gives us a long look at the broken face of the Sphynx and has one of the men say that the Egyptians were the first people to try to beat death.

Gibson and Lee are speedy runners, and Gibson is given the job of beating death by human effort and he fails. The Australians launch wave after wave of bayonet attacks against a well-fortified Turkish position and are mowed down uselessly. (Their attack was supposed to be a diversion and turns out to have been unnecessary.) What a waste. Winston Churchill was partly responsible and the failure of his plan may have influenced the caution he showed during World War II. His attitude towards the Americans' eagerness to attack quickly and directly could be summed up as, "You don't know what it's like."

The acting is good. When I first saw this I thought Mark Lee might become a bankable star because he seemed the more handsome of the two. On an additional viewing, he comes across as, not effeminate, but pretty, and his voice is high which seems to sap him of strength. Gibson is darker and more of a wisecracking opportunist, and the better actor of the two.

Everything leads up to the climactic charge. There isn't really very much action. What there is, is violent and quick. The most gripping scene in the film is the final one, just before the third useless wave goes over the top to its death, the wave that Lee is part of. And we see soldiers stripping themselves of their wedding rings and other sentimental objects, writing final notes to loved ones, hanging their pitiful effects from bayonets stuck into the sandbags. The scene isn't wrung for artificial tears. It doesn't have to be.

Of all the wars of the last century, World War I, which used to be called "The Great War", was probably the most mismanaged. The aristocratic officer corps was out of touch with its men and often treated them as expendable material. Sometimes it was okay to lose 10,000 of your troops if it meant the enemy would lose 11,000 of his.

It ought to be mentioned that the use of Albinoni and other composers is apt but there is an underscore of electronic pops and ricochets that doesn't fit at all.

This is an atypical movie, one well worth watching.

Very good. But not art.

[Quicksand · 7/10 · 31 July 1999]

Everyone seems to be tripping over themselves to speak of the beauty of this film. After watching it with an open mind, I can't give it any more than a 7 out of 10.

The film does not operate on the sublime, intellectual "art" level that some films, such as "Dead Poet's Society" seem to fit into nicely. You know, films that keep your mind moving from start to finish... as opposed to films that put everything before you and contain no subtext, no visual style, and no clear emotional tone or overall message. If it was art, I would be left thinking deeply and profoundly about all that I had seen. Instead I'm left with a little historical knowledge, and nothing else.

Archy (Mark Lee) is the only character with any depth. We don't understand the motivations of the other characters, or why they act the way they do. They are all automatons, whether their motivation comes from within (Frank Dunne), or from some Australian war propaganda (everyone else in the film).

The anti-war message is clear. However, whatever message was being put forth about the idividual young men in the army was completely lost on me.

A good, emotional film, but the ending isn't the big emotional punctuation mark everyone makes it out to be. Maybe I've seen too many war movies (or not enough), but while this movie is certainly above average among scale, writing and acting, it wasn't very exciting till the last few minutes, and even then there is such a sense of inevitability that I just had to laugh at the stupidity of those men who were giving orders, and the idiocy of the people following them.

But then, maybe that was the point.

Two runners become friends during World War One.

[MrNoahTall · 10/10 · 15 December 1998]

This is a great, early Peter Weir classic. Two runners become friends in Australia early this century. Archy loves family, god and country, and yearns to serve his country in the Great War. Frank covers his painful youth with love of self, yet finds himself following Archy to war. A great tale of honor and sacrifice set in the context of one of Australia's great and tragic campaigns of the first World War. A must-see for any serious movie aficionado.

Over and out

[paul2001sw-1 · 7/10 · 26 January 2014]

World War One was an exceptionally brutal conflict; what seems most incomprehensible to us today is the way that the generals kept sending young men over the top to be mown down by machine guns, even as the evidence accumulated that this tactic simply didn't work: it wasn't that victory came at a high price, but that lives were wasted with no chance of success. Peter Weir's film 'Gallipoli' tells the story of a pair of Australian sprinters who sign up to fight in the trenches: there's a lengthy study of their lives, in Australia and in training, before the inevitable brutal ending. There's a certain amount of anti-English sentiment in the movie (brave Aussie kids being effectively murdered by the heartless colonial power), and a classical soundtrack (Albinoni) that doesn't exactly add to the film's subtlety. But the conclusion is still heart-rending, made even more tragic by the knowledge that the story told here is just a microcosm for four long years of Europe-wide carnage.

One of my favorites.

[vptone · 10/10 · 25 April 1999]

Lee, Gibson & the rest of the mates portray all the best qualities in young men/soldiers. I thought the sound track was perfect. Consider it while Mark Lee races the horse back to the station headquarters. Any man with an interest in military history will find this movie informative as well as great entertainment.

Powerful tale concludes with the horror and futility of trench warfare in WWI...

[Doylenf · 7/10 · 20 November 2010]

Two Australian sprinters face the brutal realities of war when they are sent to fight in the Gallipoli campaign in Turkey during World War I.

The Australian sprinters from the outback are played persuasively by MEL Gibson and MARK LEE, both young and enthusiastic as the runners who form a close bond despite the fact that Gibson's character is not anxious to fight with the troops in a war far removed from his homeland.

The story is a bit ponderous for the first half, gradually building up the relationship of two youths who become the best of mates once they both enter the armed forces. But the buildup has enough holding power to keep the viewer watching until the climactic battle scenes, obviously designed to show the futility and horrors of trench warfare in 1914. The final freeze shot of Lee's character emphasizes the tragedy of it all--what with missed communications causing the war to continue instead of coming to a halt when Gibson's message arrives too late to save a futile situation with men being slaughtered.

Gorgeous color photography of bleak landscapes and battle scenes and colorful Turkish scenes of soldiers on liberty is stunning to behold. Mark Lee is astonishing as Archy and Mel Gibson equally good as his cocky "mate." It's easy to see why Gibson's star went on the rise after this film, but hard to tell why Mark Lee never reached the same heights despite a successful career abroad.

Well worth viewing.

Why "War on Terror" is an impossible contradiction

[lawofthebicycle · 10/10 · 19 January 2004]

A lesson still sadly unlearned by today's great "Empire" - this film builds perfectly to show that war IS terror. In 1915, as today, it is not the ruling elites that ultimately face that terror, but everyday people full of precious dreams and yet-to-be-fulfilled promise. "Gallipoli" follows the adventure of two Australian mates fighting for the British Empire in a badly-managed attack in Turkey during WW1. The deckchairs have been somewhat rearranged these days, but the message is as relevant, as chilling and as powerful as ever. A true classic.

A good if just shy of great intimate Epic on the horror of war

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 6 October 2021]

This is a phenomenally handsomely shot and designed picture, where director Peter Weir, cinematographer Russel Boyd and his team (including none less than John Seale) manage to make so many scenes pop like these shiny memories encapsulated into an epic that is really about how human beings failed in a massive way through no fault of the young grunts who were eager to do right for their country. It's anti-war by design as well, which makes the forty five minutes of the film where characters are becoming closer by just screwing about with the locals in an Egyptian city equally involving and frustrating.

Of course there shouldn't be much more to these young guys, that's the point, and there is personality to go around... except that this, far more than even the first Mad Max, is Gibson's star making turn and he is so confident and yet relaxed and amused and bemused and full of all that piss and vinegar hiding total fear, that it kind of overshadows others including his co-lead Mark Lee, a perfectly sevicable actor who has the poor luck of having Gibson by his side. And it's not that Lee should pop more than his costar, but he is very good at one thing on screen which is seeming very high spirited and naive. That can work in spurts but only for so long, and indeed his character is gone for a long stretch until the two blokes run into each other in a training exercise scene.

What stands out to me when it's all over are those passages where not a lot or little is said and the visual grammar carries the day, like when the two young men are going through that desert and can't even have a fight because it's too hot out, or that one scene where the uncle is reading Kipling to the kids. There is bountiful ambition to behold, and in that last section a whole lot of "oh no, this stupid Face it All and You Will GO" s*** that also made a similar film about the horror of not simply being shot but being ordered to be shot in the face of total despair and ruin in WW1, Paths of Glory, so unforgettable Weir finds the tragic meat that we haven't been seeing till now.

I think... it's tough because I don't want to be like a few other critics I've read who say that the film isn't angry enough - not everything has to be Platoon or Full Metal Jacket - on the other hand, the PG rating and the intentions to make it fairly, well, tastefully depicted to a point means that the horror these people experience is kept at a slight distance. In order to critique something you have to show it, and there is only so much to show here as far as devastation (though the faces, those closeups, are tremendous in that sense of tight-lipped insanity and despair). Gallipoli is a good movie that I only wish went further.

Far to biased

[Caz1964 · 2/10 · 7 October 2006]

Firstly i have no disrespect for the Anzacs who died at Galipoli,they were another in a long line of tragic soldiers who lost their lives in WW1.Every country has similar stories. with this film Peter Weir should have just stuck to telling the story of the Anzacs as it would have been better not to portray British soldiers at all rather than portray them in such a bad light,which is an insult to those who died.He makes this film blatantly obvious in what he has set out to do,and it sickens me that people have been sucked in by this. Now where he has been really sneaky--is that he knew that back in the early eighties most British people knew very little about our part in Galipoli,it wasn't widely known about,mainly due to the fact it was a big mistake by Winston Churchill who at the time was first Lord Of The Admiralty he wanted a combined assault from The Royal Navy and the British Army,it went badly wrong,on two of the beaches the Turks could see us landing and mowed our soldiers down as soon as they got off their ship.They had even placed barbed wire in the water which cut one battalion of Lancashire Fusiliers to pieces.The sea ran red with blood,some of the barbed wire can still be seen today. Now this was only the beginning of what was to become a disastrous campaign for all involved.The whole campaign was eventually called off,big mistake no more said. A year later the battle of the Somme took place where there was even more appalling loses,so British loses in Galipoli was swept under the carpet,even though we had lost over 21,000 men there, mainly Lancashire fusiliers.Hardly looks like they were drinking tea. My own great uncle a Salford lad served in The Royal Navy on a light Battle cruiser HMS Dublin,the ship was withdrawn from Galipoli and sent to Brindisi where they were guarding the lighthouses,the ship was struck by a torpedo fired from an Austrian submarine,he was one of the 13 killed.I often wonder what he would have witnessed the last two months of his life when he was at Galipoli.He was just 20 years old. Luckily the navy records still exist,as they were kept at Plymouth unlike the army records which were kept at Kew Gardens and were destroyed by the Luftwaffe in WW2,So nearly all the British soldiers who were killed at Galipoli have no records,the only way you can find out if a relative served in the British army in WW1 is by looking at the medal role,which will have a date of their enlistment,and then its guess work from there.My grandfather a Lancashire soldier enlisted 1917 where he served?Ypres? The good thing now is that Brits can readily read about their involvement in Galipoli as there are many websites with all the facts and there has been some good documentaries on events some have been Australian and have done the Lancashire fusiliers and other British soldiers justice, which has been long over due.Not many British people knew our involvement in Galipoli let alone that we lost 21,000.So it seems to me that Peter Wiers film is now very out of date,now that the true facts are becoming widely known,he just makes the film look like an excuse for Brit or particularly English bashing,rather than try to be educational for the younger generation.Which is a shame,because Galipoli was a lesson to be learnt,but where facts have been distorted it just leads to a growing resentment from young British researchers and modern day historians.A waisted opportunity.