Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

leethomas-11621 How much of Mel Gibson's success as a director does he owe to Peter Weir? He must have had a wonderful experience working with him on this movie. Perfect depiction of innocents at war - the young soldiers who didn't know how cruel the world (and their officers) could be. Has a better depiction of the Australian character ever been put on a screen? Screenplay by David Williamson is spot-on. (He is the "long streak of pelican s**t" who has to be "sorted out" while playing football near the Sphinx!) (viewed 10/16)

DylanW 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.

rjun67 I remember being excited about watching this film before I actually sat through it, and when the end credits finally appeared, I knew I had been conned! 'Birth of a Nation' it was not, and even the totally rubbish 'Objective Burma', would have given it a run for its money! Just the title 'Gallipoli' promised so much and delivered so little, but that is just one failing in this bargain basement, Brit bashing, Fenian-friendly, pile of steaming horse manure! In a campaign in which the overwhelming majority of casualties were British, this film denigrates their role to the basest level, featuring them as fools and manipulators who are eager to sacrifice the flower of Australian youth. The tired old cliché of Anglophobia in Australian cinema has not dated well. We know much more about the Gallipoli landings now, and this film only makes a cringing, sentimental nonsense of what was, no more than a military failure! To watch this film on the centenary year of the Dardanelles operation makes the sneering and petty minded direction seem all the more insulting, not only to the British, but also the Indian, French, NZ and African troops who also died in great numbers. In reality the ANZAC troops were often as not, born in Britain and were eager to fight for King and Empire, but as usual the truth is substituted for a wishy-washy tale of a poor little Irish Catholic boy, who has an inbuilt hatred for the 'evil' English. The commanders - (all portrayed as chinless Brits in this film), may have been ill suited for purpose, but they were no worse than any other allied General's of the time (remembering this type of warfare had never been experienced previously). The film's epic-like title betrays the viewer's expectations in a unforgivable act of deception!...8 months, 10 Nations, and 570,000 men, whittled down to 15 minutes, 1 Nation and 40 men! The scope of the film is limited to an Australian desert location which stands in for a fake Egypt (complete with hardboard pyramids) and an unconvincing Turkey.There are no portrayal's of the landings or anything much to do with the events other than a cheap series of trench discussions and a paltry battle scene involving maybe 40 people (including 5 Turks/blacked up Auzzies). This type of budget warfare pays no tribute to any of the combatants, including the 'heroic martyrs' of Oz! In my opinion the only film to make me want to vomit more, is the appalling Canadian movie 'Passchendaele' which makes a similar mockery of the dead! Mel Gibson's acting is - as usual, pretty bad and the other characters don't have much meat to chew on, which takes away any empathy you may want to feel. Overall Gallipoli should be watched as a piece of propaganda and no more!

LeonLouisRicci One of those Paradoxes. A Beautiful War Film. But of course the Movie is much more than a War Movie. It is about Male Bonding, Friendship, Sacrifice, Patriotism and most of All the Futility that was World War One. Along with such Great Films as All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) and Paths of Glory (1957) this is Another Example of what can Only be Described as the Fog of War Blinding the Commanders and Removing any Sense that is Common in Everyday Thought.The Film's Finale Portrays this Trench Warfare in a Gripping Third Act that Punctuates the Poetry Displayed in the First Two Thirds with its Excellent Cinematography and Lush Warm Colors. It is Deliberately Paced and Unfolds as Character Studies of Australian Youth Plucked from Their Prime and Placed in a Hell-Hole on the other side of the World.There may be a Misstep or Two like an Occasional Synthesizer Intruding on the Organic Beauty of the Film, or a Lopsided, Misplaced Nationalistic Conceit at the End (that the Director now acknowledges), but Overall this is Fine Filmmaking and is also Footnoted as an Early Career Starter for Director Weir and a Virtually Unknown Mel Gibson.The On Location Scenes in Egypt also Add a Layer on Top of this Already Well Textured Film that is a Fine Production All Around.