As World War I rages, brave and youthful Australians Archy and Frank, both agile runners, become friends and enlist in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps together. They later find themselves part of the Dardanelles Campaign on the Gallipoli peninsula, a brutal eight-month conflict which pit the British and their allies against the Ottoman Empire and left over 500,000 men dead.
- Category:Action, Adventure, Drama, History, War
- Stars:Mel Gibson, Bill Hunter, Mark Lee, Bill Kerr,
- Director:Peter Weir,
- Writer:Peter Weir (story), David Williamson (screenplay)
The story takes place on a film set in World War I. It is about two close friends : Frank (Gibson) and Archy (Mark Lee) who join the Australian army and fight in deadly battles. What danger must they face for survival? . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Gallipoli torrent reviews
(au) wrote: crappy songs, but a light heart swades!
(us) wrote: Certainly NOT what I had hoped for.
(gb) wrote: One of the best Disney Channel Original Movies! I still like the show better though.
(mx) wrote: nice little thing, a bit slow as most other taiwan movies.
(it) wrote: It is strange how much effect an ending has over someone's view of a film. It makes sense: the last glimpse of the cinematic world you have entered should be your final memory of it. As the steadily-paced crescendo of the characters' lives, the climax approaches in the ever-nearing horizon and then you crash straight into the sun with a reaction. And as Gillian Armstrong's troupe were all gathered onscreen, consisting of Saoirse Ronan's feisty Benji, Catherine Zeta-Jones' driven mother Mary, Timothy Spall's calculating Sugarman, and Guy Pearce's haunted Harry Houdini, at the point of impact, we reach it. The spellbinding climactic message scorches for an instant then is left branded upon the film: the only magic you never expect is love.This climax however brings forth vomit. It is plain now that Armstrong's world was worth the visit, clambering the streets and rooftops of inner-city Edinburgh with the wide-eyed Benji and being moved by both sides to the Houdini character, but the culmination of the script won't satisfy anyone after more than the schmaltzy romance this becomes. It may have been possible that the characters themselves don't want the film to be a romantic affair, because they certainly go out of their way for anything but romance, especially Zeta-Jones and Pearce.What they probably were seeking to be in was a story about the ins and outs of magic and illusion, exemplified in Christopher Nolan's The Prestige or Neil Burger's The Illusionist, both released within a year of Death Defying Acts's release. The central question of whether or not magic is real, and whether it makes a difference either way, was a trend here which either Tony Grisoni or Brian Ward had focused on due to the success of, or in keeping with, those films. Armstrong certainly enjoys the focus on the magic behind the curtain, with telling shots lingering on the backstage actions and reactions of Mary and Benji McGarvie at their pseudo-psychic act. However, that theme appears swiftly to be answered by the existence of the red-headed spectre who haunts Benji throughout, implying a supernatural element beyond the audience's understanding, juxtaposing anything and everything explained by the film's script.More pressingly than a lousy answer to the spiritualism question supposedly at the film's core is the lacklustre romance between Zeta-Jones and Pearce. This does not seem a problem with the actors: granted that further chemistry would have aided the issue, Zeta-Jones and Pearce are very well-rounded in their portrayals of their characters. Zeta-Jones' Mary is a sober spiritualist performer, who expresses her primary concern for her daughter's safety with telling looks and the slightest of embraces, and Pearce's Houdini is a tormented Jekyll figure seeking solace from his mother's sudden death, hiding (or Hyding?) behind his own illusion as an anarchist showman against the laws of nature itself. Both actors understand the forced nature of the romance, and shots where they are contractually obliged to kiss and embrace as if they were on the cover of a penny-romance feel just as mismatched for them as it looks to an audience.No-one can take full responsibility for the shoddy romance: the script is crafted well with telling and implicit character introductions; Haris Zambarloukos' cinematography tracks the Edinburgh skyline with such grace that he cannot be the one to squish Zeta-Jones and Pearce together in such an ill-fitting manner (as proven by his work on Steven Knight's Locke six years later); and Armstrong had worked with an 11 year old Kirsten Dunst on Little Women, so she would understand how to get a genuine performance out of any and all actors. Why this romantic plot (and it is more central than a sub-plot to the film) exists when it is so out of character, when the entire cast and crew knows it, seems almost like it had appeared from thin air like a coin behind an ear.Gratefully on top of the icing-drowned cake, there are some cherries. All eyes are on Ronan for most of the film, an incredible talent beyond her years (and only a month younger than me!). Timothy Spall is still the only actor in the English-speaking world who can convey every emotion differently through slight and distinct scowls better than Harrison Ford. The relationship of distrust but near-admiration between the two characters forms an interesting piece of background drama, particularly highlighted in a lovely Jaws reference when Benji emulates every one of Sugarman's social rituals at a private ball. Armstrong commands the world of early 20th century Edinburgh in a way that appears period without falling into period drama stereotypes: things feel 'wee' but never twee.However, there is not enough to firmly root the film away from its descent into the pulp romance it never should have been. There is no problem with its twisting of history, indeed great films have played on the truth such as John Sturges' The Great Escape with Steve McQueen on a motorbike chase or Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds with Hitler's more 'cinematic' death, and the creation of 'new history' plays to the film's strengths. But the soppy nature of the plot's developments, not to mention the possibility of a Houd-oedipal complex, jars the narrative towards that vomit-inducing climax. Love, as it turns out, is the one kind of magic that Houdini never really needed in this film.
(kr) wrote: You'll be having a great time...!
(kr) wrote: i had heard annoying good girl Meg Ryan turned bad in this flick so i thought "WTF" and watched it. Well if you want to see annoying middle aged Meg get her ass eaten then tune in for that. As an "erotic thriller" this thing is pretty much a failure. If i had said half the crap that Mark Ruffalo said to Meg, i more than likely would have got a slap to the face, a kick in the balls, and told to F OFF. Or maybe i never ran into the right women.
(es) wrote: Opportunity will move out of the way to let a man pass it by
(mx) wrote: Failed my high expectations, but wasn't a complete failure. The movie is based on a real, and quite shocking, story that strongly illustrates the clash and mutual antagonism between the East and the West. However rich and prospect-filled the story might seem, Cronenberg has flunked in making it convincing and powerful enough to me. One of the things that saved the day is Jeremy Irons' top-notch, impeccable performance, and John Lone's almost equally beautiful "impersonation".
(nl) wrote: Walter Hill brings an electrifying sotry to the big screen starring Mickey Rourke as Johnny Handsome, a disfigured man with bad luck who had embarked on a life of crime and was betrayed during a heist gone wrong. He is then given a second chance to redeem himself from a prison surgeon who reconstructs his face, a sort of alternative modern-day 'Elephant Man' story at times. Excellent direction from Hill who skillfully blends comedy, action, romance, suspense, mystery and tragedy with great acting and wonderful writing. This is arguably among Rourke's best performances of the 1980s, especially before the actor turned to professional boxing and dissapeared from Hollywood. Forest Whitaker plays the sympathetic surgeon. Morgan Freeman is the detective investigating Rourke and has hunches about his former identity and life. The villains are superbly played by Lance Herriksen and Ellen Barkin and make a great villain duo, not since Penguin and Catwoman in Tim Burton's 'Batman Returns'. The movie flows elegantly from start to finish with finely developed characters. Revenge has a new face and it is Johnny Handome, a lost classic from the 1980s that features one of the finest actors ever to grace the silver screen. When is the remastered HD Blue-Ray version being released?
(jp) wrote: The second-worst Bond for me. Connery clearly has no interest in being there, Jill St John is constantly annoying, Charles Gray is as unconvincing a Blofeld as he is a woman, and the movie basically throws away OHMSS's killer ending (no pun intended) on a half-arsed adaptation of one of Fleming's better novels. One of the few elements they did preserve from the book, Messrs Wint & Kidd have undergone a substantial reinterpretation here from the viciously homophobic way in which Fleming rendered them (well may you say 'product of his time, blah blah blah,' but it WAS awful), with the result that the thing I liked least about a mostly good book has become the thing I like most about a leastly good movie. Terrible one-liners ('I was out walking my rat and I seem to have lost my way.'), a complete mess of a story and by far Guy Hamilton's low point for the series. But the theme song is definitely in my top five. I can't help thinking (and I'm probably not the first) that this would have been a lot different - a lot better - had the Laze stayed on. Oh, well.
(es) wrote: Oh boy. This was so bad. I kept waiting for that laugh out loud moment, and it never came. I actually feel embarrassed that I watched it. John Cleese, Kevin Kline, and Jamie Lee Curtis?? What were you all thinking? Oh bad.
(us) wrote: Laurence Olivier as a Middle Eastern extremist might not be as easy to swallow as it sounds but Olivier as always sells it. How about Heston as a British solider...well...his accent disappears more often than it should, but who cares...it's Charlton Heston in a sweeping, Cinerama-shot epic.
(nl) wrote: Great reflection on life and how you live it and the relationships. I recommend to watch it. I was surprised by it. So glad I did watch it.
(us) wrote: Not sure what Pierce Brosnan was thinking when he agreed to do this crappy flick! OUCH!