Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Loui Blair It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

jarth_5 One cannot watch this movie without experiencing mixed emotions.This is a well-meaning and earnest film which flaws are the consequence of poorly considered and unbalanced writing and character construction, as well as somewhat simplistic stereotypes.it is not an issue that only 3 women feature in substantial roles in the film; my issue is the positioning of these women. The first is Connor's wife, the mother of his sons, and crucial to the motivation of the plot; we can't expect much of her, given that all we need to know is that the loss of her children understandably induces the loss of her sanity. It is tragic but brief; She rarely features even in flashbacks. The second, Olga Kurylenko's character, is a strong-willed but socially subjugated widow obsessed with her MIA husband; the entirety of her screen time is expended either discussing her missing spouse, the pressure to marry her brother- in-law, her obligations to her son and flirting with Connor; while her character contributes to the story by providing a window into Ottoman Turkish household culture, she really is little more than a love interest for Russel Crowe; the third character is the inn's resident Circassian prostitute - need i say more. It possibly sounds worse than it is. While the female characters are far from purely objectified, they seem to provide little more than support to an otherwise predominantly male film. While failing the Bechdel test, it still manages to be sensitive and relatively respectful, at least at a tertiary level.like almost all Australian films that feature British characters, practically every Briton in this film is a cartoon-like, two-dimensional stereotype; the most prominent of which is of course the absolute favourite of Aussie filmmakers: the stuffy, pompous, and insensitive martinet army officer. The only broadly sympathetic British character is a junior naval officer about the right age for a midshipman, but who is bizarrely addressed as a lieutenant, which is very weird. Perhaps predictably for an Australian film about Gallipoli, the real enemy is the Pommie. This adds a two-dimensional and callow aspect to a story which attempts to address a particularly complex period of history; there is absolutely no consideration for depth in relation to any of the British characters whatsoever. -the treatment of the Turkish characters, and Turkish history in this period, is probably the biggest issue,with this film. Australian historiography relating to the Turks at Gallipoli tends towards the respectful and the positive, which may explain the political position of the film, and which by itself is not a problem; but it is the treatment of the Turkish political position in the post-war period that becomes galling; without exception, the Turks are portrayed as the innocent victims of foreign imperialism and aggression; simple, decent and patriotic; every Turkish soldier, for example, is noble and honourable. They are shown as the victim of atrocities committed by the invading Greeks, who feature only sufficiently to identify them as bloodthirsty and murderous monsters bent on genocide and rapine; no mention whatsoever is made of Turkish atrocities against the Greeks, or the Armenians, or anyone else. I don't mean to detract from the quantity of undoubtedly upstanding and decent Turkish men who served their country at this time, but neither do i think that this film's portrayal represents anything like a well- rounded perspective of the period. As a comparison, it would literally be impossible to find a contemporary German film about ww2 which did not feature at least one Character who was a Nazi.For all its faults, it still manages to project a sense of charm, even while featuring anything as dubious as water-divining. The photography is generally appropriately attractive, the scenery is often enchanting, and the standard of acting is relatively high. The Turkish landscape is wonderfully showcased and the Turkish actors are all competent if not outstanding. If Crowe intends a transition into directing, then this is a strong, albeit flawed, starting point.

Leofwine_draca THE WATER DIVINER is a family drama set in the years following Australia's disastrous foray into WW1, the Gallipoli campaign. Russell Crowe plays a grieving father whose three sons all vanished, presumed dead, in the battle. Spurred by an old battle diary he decides to travel to Turkey to find out the fate of his offspring for himself.This is a film that seems to have been devised as an ill-conceived history lesson for Australian viewers. Certainly as a movie it's not very interesting, lacking life and vision. There are a handful of flashback battle sequences in the film which play out all the clichés, and the present day material involving Crowe's character isn't very good. His romance with Olga Kurylenko (utterly out of her depth in her attempt to play a Turk), clumsily shoehorned into the story, is quite laughable.Elsewhere this veers between maudlin introspection and old-fashioned jingoism. What's most surprising is the blatant way this film whitewashes history, with each country being stereotyped to basic levels. The British are humourless, dour, and unfriendly; the Greeks are evil; the Aussies are gentle and heroic; the Turks are misunderstood. It's basic stuff indeed and portrays certain events in surprising ways given the complexity of the real-life historical situation. The climax is as predictable as they come, and although Crowe employs decent cinematography in his directorial debut, he just doesn't have the power to bring a lacklustre script to life.

Peter Pluymers "Are there any more records about my son? We are Ottomans, not Germans. "It looks like "Russell Crowe movie week" here. After "Fathers and daughters" I had to check his directorial debut. And to be honest, I thought this postwar dramatic film was much better than the sugarcoated "Fathers and daughters". In both films the father figure plays an important role. In "The Water Diviner" however, he's a grieving father whose sons were killed in the Battle of Gallipoli, which took place in Turkey during the 1st World War. A bloody battle, on a piece of land as large as a handkerchief, between Turkish troops and a corps with Australian and New Zealand troops (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps or ANZAC). It's beyond dispute that wars provide disgusting scenes which once again demonstrate the absurdity of such tragedies. The agony of the three brothers on the battlefield was the most unpleasant and difficult part of the entire movie. It was so terrible to watch. I really had enough of it at a given time. The relevance was clear to me. It wasn't clear to me why it had to take so miserable long.Apart from a few hiccups, I thought it was a fairly successful film. Looking at the technical side of the movie, you could say it was excellent. Perhaps it seemed to be a dramatized travel documentary at times. But the palette of colored fabrics and the interior view of Turkish mosques assured some visually stunning images. The phenomenal scene in Australia, where Connor (Russell Crowe) protects his three sons against an impressive sandstorm, was a breathtaking moment. And this impressive imagery is used throughout this reasonable epic adventure story. It resembled a bit "The Physician". In this case it's someone from down-under who gazes at the traditions, the folklore and the beauty of Istanbul. Naturally this leads to intercultural conflicts with a few yelling Turks, who defend their values, and a fleeing Aussie.The historical side was also fascinating. I don't know that much about the 1st World War. And certainly not about what happened in the Arab part of the world. The Turkish community wasn't happy about welcoming Australian tourists afterwards. This was also presented realistic. At the same time the cooperation between the ANZAC and Turkish Major Hasan (Yilmaz Erdogan) also didn't proceed so smoothly and the intense hatred again resurfaced. And just let me mention the scene at the beginning with the local priest who has a huge problem with the burial of Connor's wife, because she committed suicide apparently. A strong moment. A proof that the short-slightness and insensitivity remained intact through the years.Altogether it's a wonderful debut from Crowe. And this combined with a not so bad leading role. The role Erdogan played was also noteworthy. A calm Turkish Major who forgets his grievances and offers his help to identify the tens of thousands of victims without hesitation. And additionally also aid Connor with his search for his lost sons. Dylan Georgiades plays the role of son Orhan enthusiastically. While the ultra-cool Olga Kurylenko gives shape to the widow Ayshe. An exotic beauty who's aloof at first, but as the film progresses her icy attitude slowly melts.And now it's time for the disappointing elements of this yet fascinating film. The "station novel"-like love story that was incorporated, wasn't really necessary according to me. The fact that it's about two individuals from two different cultures and each bearing a loss due to the war, sounds plausible. But they should have left it at that. The paranormal talent Connor supposedly possessed, was grossly exaggerated. Sure, maybe he can find water in the bone-dry Australian desert by using a twig. I'm willing to believe that. But him standing in the middle of a battlefield in a sort of trance surrounded by the rotting remains of thousands of victims and miraculously finding the location where his sons are lying, was a bit ridiculous. And then the Indiana Jones imitation in the end, clashed a bit with the rest of the film. But the biggest annoyance was the sound. The dramatic music and sound effects were terribly noisy. By contrast, the conversations were at whisper level. I had a sore thumb afterwards because I had to use continuously the volume button. But ultimately it was still a magnificent movie.More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT

SnoopyStyle Joshua Connor (Russell Crowe) is an Australian farmer who lost his three sons in the Battle of Gallipoli. Four years later, his wife Eliza dies and he vows to bring his sons home to be buried next to their mother. In Istanbul, he rents a room from war widow Ayshe (Olga Kurylenko) who is under pressure. Connor sneaks into Gallipoli despite the British military. Major Hasan commanded Turkish troops during the battle and decides to help Connor find his dead sons.There is a sense of the great epic. I really like the movie going to Gallipoli. However, it goes on a little too long with a few twist that is less believable. It would be better to not have those turns. It also tries to make the Turks victims and the Greeks villains which doesn't necessarily sit well. I do have a few problems with the story in the second half. It's Russell Crowe's theatrical directing debut and his visual efforts are impressive. He is able to keep flow of the story and shows some solid skills as a director.