Nokiandr At all times, the victor country rewrites history and nothing can be done about it. 7,000-10,000 Byzantines vs 100,000-200,000 ottomans - can this be a heroic victory for ottomans? The film also does not show that in those days Constantinople was already in decline. In 1453, Constantinople was not already a great city, but was only a symbol of the former might of the empire. Basically, this film is designed for the Turks. An educated and literate person will not watch a false historical film. It would be better for the Turks to make a film about how their ancestors - Seljuks, came from Central Asia and occupied the lands of Byzantium, Armenia, Greece and Persia)

tom-durham The pacing on this movie is terrible. There is maybe 1.5 hours of actual content plus 1 hour of fluff. In addition there is a lack of interest in history when making this movie. You'd think for 2.5 hours there is plenty of opportunity to cover the many interesting historical points of the battle for example. In reality they picked maybe 5 main points and these get a minute of screen time each. It's quite bad.Watching this movie gives you more of an insight into the Turkish culture and religion than the actual conquest of Constantinople. For example they can't show Mohamed on screen so they cleverly use the camera itself, so you the audience become Mohamed. Except it then becomes confusing as you don't realise when this transition occurs back. Also there are many prayers involved. There is even a 'suicide bomb' scene where they all yell Allah Akbar before blowing themselves up.This movie is almost least twice as long as it should be, given it's content. The script really lets it down, there is little dialogue in parts, and much attention is given to drawn out camera movements or people being idle. The first half of the movie, the lead up to the battle is not too bad. However the second half, the actual battle, is ruined by the drawn out scenes. If the director's effort was to make us feel frustrated with the time required to conquer the city, he succeeded, for the wrong reasons. To add insult to injury, the English subs clearly skip a fair amount of dialogue.If you want to watch history reviewed with rose tinted glasses by the victor, plus an hour of fluff this is it.

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.

slatinskidazdevnjak When I first saw the title i was really interested in this them, especially because no film was made about the fall of Constantinople before, or not to my knowledge, I was excited about it. But to my huge disappointment this movie is all about glorification and exaggeration of the Ottomans, their ruler and other MACHETE SUPER heroes, a complete propaganda about the conquest of Constantinople and Balkan's. It remind's me of some cheap Turkish TV-shows and other trash movies,with bad acting, cheap special effects etc.. not a history movie that I was expecting at all! They really ruined the chance to make a good movie. Final scene of Sultan Mehmed II entering the Hagia Sophia almost made me throw up. I really wonder who gave this movie such a high grades.