Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Whitech It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Kamil Burgazli Just don't waste your time. This is an insult both to history and movie industy.

Kirpianuscus a politic tool. obvious subjective, not interested by historical accuracy, sketch of a great event for the Eastern Europe, portrait of a hero and not the inspired manner to present the Byzance. but the nationalist purpose is only one of its direction. it has of poetry and flavor of old fairy tale, it has nice scenes of fight and decent acting. and far to impress, it is not real a waste of time. it is only a Turkish story. not correct , not fair play, using, not surprise for the East, clichés about the self courage and virtues and force. it is not a bad or a good film. because it has not ambition to be more than "our version of events". "our truth" . and, for a Romanian as me, after the historical movies by Sergiu Nicolaescu , this film could not be a surprise. only a meeting with well known ingredients.

Andy Akdeniz I started watching this movie last night and only watched the first hour. As far as I've seen the actors do not fit the historical characters mostly. The main character "Fatih Sultan Mehmet" gives a feeling of a weak man determined to destroy the Byzantium empire. He is reflected as a sick minded, obsessive person with no human feelings. If you can recall the Turkish TV series "Sultan Murad the 4th" with Cihan Unal starring as the sultan , compared to him , Sultan Mehmed character is a weakling. I think that is an insult to the actual person who is considered as one of the most heroic sultans in the Ottoman lineage. Most of the other characters also seem like they can't reflect the persona of a 15th century historical figure. They play their parts as if they are in a contemporary movie. It seems to me that the producers didn't employ serious historical consultants in the making, but they just made up stuff as they wished. If you compare the characters in this movie to a real good historical movie such as "mission" with Robert de Niro, you can see what I mean.I think the reason behind the bad casting is in the politics in Turkey. The financiers were probably from one conservative group, the production crew an the cast were from modernists, and as a result, they didn't cast some of the actors in Turkey who would fit to some of the roles perfectly because they were affiliated with other groups. It's a pity that political wars in Turkey weakens everything from economy to film industry.Other than these, this movie deserves praise for some good action scenes, computer generated graphics and visual effects, costumes, and set designs.

daviddevries Spoiler Alert- Turks take Constantinople.Beard vs. Beard; many steely glances; the movie-phone guy doing the voice-over narration; and the most over the top heroic death scene this side of Tae Guk Gi, yes this movie has a lot of flaws. But surprise surprise, this movie is rather enjoyable. A good amount of the flaws could be solved by better narration and subtitles, so I decided not to gig it for that. The overly heroic style actually has a kind of charm to it. They swung for the fences on the action, and mostly succeeded, better than a great many over-bloated Hollywood movies. Most of all I liked the characters, Hollywood should recruit some of these actors.Some of the reviews complain about the Turks being the heroes, which I scratch my head at, seeing that it is a Turkish movie about the defining moment of the Ottoman Empire, of course they are the heroes. Indeed there is a whole lot of whining about historical accuracy, from people who don't seem to realize that this is a movie and judging from their comments, could use a great deal of historical lessons themselves. Other than it being the kindest, most fuzziest sacking of a city in all of history, the rest of the historical account was not that far off. Of course the Ottomans could be extremely cruel, so could the Byzantines, and definitely the Crusaders also. If the movie was merely a history lesson, it could have also shown the Cruaders sacking Constantinople, instead of merely a few villages, and ultimately being responsible for the fall of the Byzantine Empire. But it's a movie, and one that they tried to ratchet up the dramatic tension, at expense to a few facts such as the size of the Byzantine army. As the actual taking of the city was rather difficult I can forgive the dramatic license. You just have to take the movie for what it is. A movie about the dawn of a new and bright civilization, and which for good or bad, glosses over many of the injustices committed by both sides. Mehmed the Great was the quintessential Ottoman, not somebody to defy, but he was also tolerant and a great believer in law, and established a pattern of affording more religious freedoms to conquered peoples than any other empire in history. Istanbul flourished for centuries after the capture and remains one the greatest cities in the world. It wouldn't hurt if a few more Westerner's learned even a glossed over history of him.It's not a great movie, but it could have been, and I liked it and if you like historical actioners, you should check it out too.