Reviews

2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Conquest 1453 (2012)
3/10
Historically inaccurate, but more importantly bad as a movie
13 September 2012
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.
112 out of 172 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
It's not a blockbuster sequel, it's a B-movie.
7 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
First thing first, if you want to avoid sparing your time by reading below, the point is: don't watch it. If you still want some opinion, then go on and learn why. I haven't watched this movie in theaters, thank god I haven't. It seems it just borrowed the title from the original. The scientific assumptions on which the first movie was based are omitted here. In the original we learned that T-Rex have a poor sense of sight, it only recognizes motion. In this movie, let alone seeing motionless things, T-Rex have a capacity to investigate through a caravan's window. Apart from that, in the movie female protagonist claims that carnivores look after their child which is against scientific common view. Whereas bad guys see the baby Rex in his nest and says his parents shouldn't be far as it is a common knowledge. Also, female scientist always warns other for not interfere with life yet she bring the injured baby Rex to trailer to cure. As far as I know, even today, wildlife researchers and societies do not interfere with wildlife in any condition. Because in nature an injured animal dies, and any rescue attempt is regarded as interference with nature's law. In another scene, after Rex family gets their baby, they suddenly return and push the vehicle into the cliff. But they just push half of it then suddenly disappear. Any logic? No. And while another scientist tries to rescue them, Rex family appears again. Why did they return after taking their baby? Accordinbg to producers, to take revenge. Then why did they leave before completing their revenge? Did they forgot the oven fire open? And once gone, why did they return once more? To check? Then the trailer falls, scientists hanging on a rope through trailer slides uninjured with a one millionth chance, then T-Rex disappears again. And just 30 seconds after that the area is filled with hundreds. Nor Rex, nor them have seen each other. And how can a dozen small dino kill a person. They bite, yes, it hurts, yes, but as far as we see their jaws are nowhere near a piranhas. It takes minute to tear victim's skin, yet they can kill a man. Also, there are far bigger herbivore dinos than T-Rex. But how on earth their step can't shake the earth while a T-Rex's can? One last thing, by the time one and a half hour of movie passed we've seen the velociraptors only for 2 minutes. There is half an hour more but I can't continue. So if you still want to watch, enjoy your torture. Last word: It's not a blockbuster sequel, it's a B-movie.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed