After the death of his father Murat II, Mehmet II ascends to the Ottoman throne. After braving internal and external enemies, he decides to complete what he was destined to do - conquer Cons... Read allAfter the death of his father Murat II, Mehmet II ascends to the Ottoman throne. After braving internal and external enemies, he decides to complete what he was destined to do - conquer Constantinople.After the death of his father Murat II, Mehmet II ascends to the Ottoman throne. After braving internal and external enemies, he decides to complete what he was destined to do - conquer Constantinople.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 1 win total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Almost everything in the movie, is very blown up: Costumes, characters, places... Not everything fits to what really happened back then, nor does it have to. But that doesn't mean that the director has the right to irritatingly twist history in favor of conservatives in Turkey.
He falsely presents Emperor Mehmet II as a superhero that makes almost no mistakes, and as a monogamous person. Of course, the facts that he was a wine drinker, a lover of ancient Greek and Roman arts, that he let the city to be sacked for two days, he hanged one of his viziers, and killed all his brothers and made a law that allows and suggests his successors to kill their brothers "for continuation of the state", were all ignored! And we see "the enemies" always speak with a sneaky voice which shows that they're the coward and evil guys. Byzantine Emperor has a weird "digital palace" that has numberless columns, and lives in corruption. War scenes and military costumes are so unrealistic, as well... The list goes on.
Shortly, what I saw was a religious, peasant point of view and a foolish sublimation of Ottoman history. That's what happens with big budget and very limited mentality.
He falsely presents Emperor Mehmet II as a superhero that makes almost no mistakes, and as a monogamous person. Of course, the facts that he was a wine drinker, a lover of ancient Greek and Roman arts, that he let the city to be sacked for two days, he hanged one of his viziers, and killed all his brothers and made a law that allows and suggests his successors to kill their brothers "for continuation of the state", were all ignored! And we see "the enemies" always speak with a sneaky voice which shows that they're the coward and evil guys. Byzantine Emperor has a weird "digital palace" that has numberless columns, and lives in corruption. War scenes and military costumes are so unrealistic, as well... The list goes on.
Shortly, what I saw was a religious, peasant point of view and a foolish sublimation of Ottoman history. That's what happens with big budget and very limited mentality.
The film isn't good enough to tell us who was really Ottoman empire and what they did before and after the conquest.Ottoman empire lasted 400 years and everybody lived in peace and harmony,some countries paid tribute but never new born babies only 10 to 12 years old boys to make them special soldiers,many Christian families were willing to comply with that because it offered the possibility of great social advancement and also they were paid salaries and pensions on retirement not just this there are some other interesting facts like Dutch tulip was introduced to Holland by the Ottomans,math,physics,geometry,maps etc.Please visit http://sylverblaque.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/5-medieval- facts-of-ottomans-the-harem-home/
It is absolutely clear that the conquest of Constantinople was a great victory for the Ottamans who finished what the crusaders started in 1204. BUT. We must respect history and the director of the film did non respect history at all. During the siege, Constantinople had nothing to do with the glorious city of the past. Only 40.000 of once 1.000.000 people lived inside the walls which were defended only by 7.000 soldiers. 2.000 of them were foreigners. The Ottomans had an army of about minimum 100.000 soldiers. Some say that the army had 200.000 or more soldiers. The Byzantine empire was found at that time at the lowest level of her past glory and in the absolute decline. It is know to everybody who knows only a few things about history that the Ottomans entered the city though an unguarded small gate known as Kerkoporta which has been left open by mistake. This gives a picture of history as it really happened and nobody can argue about that.Because it is history! The Byzantine empire had come to an end as it happens in all the empires in history. There is no place here to talk about more historic facts. I understand that the film maker wanted to give to Mohamed the part of the glory that he deserves. But the end of the film it is absolutely ridiculous and was made only for propaganda reasons. People who study history knows very well what happened at that days when a city was conquered. Massacres. That happened in Constantinople as well. The director the only thing that he does not tell us is that Mohamed gave candies to children! The conquest is without doubt a great achievement of the Ottomans. It helped them built their empire. The dominated east for about 500 years. But without of course knowing Mohamed gave west a great gift as after the fall of the city all the great men escaped to the west and they helped Renaissance to begin. The film is not bad at all and in my opinion is by far better than Hollywood films of that kind. The Turks are making a great effort to raise their country and are to be praised for this.Since i visited Constantinople a few times i can say that progress is visible in Turkey. Hope that in the future they will make again films like this and even better. But please respect history. History can not change because some people want to do propaganda thank you
Would you understand that someone rates "Saving private Ryan" with a 1, because it depicts germans like evils and morons?
This film has many problems, but it's not more manichaeistic than western (american) films about christians, WWII or Vietnam's war.
And it's worth to see it at least because it's a different subject, from another point of view.
This film has many problems, but it's not more manichaeistic than western (american) films about christians, WWII or Vietnam's war.
And it's worth to see it at least because it's a different subject, from another point of view.
So I finally got around to watching this film after having it on my list for quite some time. I have almost no historical knowledge of the Ottoman/Byzantine empire from this time period; I went into this film looking to be entertained, to watch a pseudo-historical period piece similar to something like "300" (expecting less action) and that's exactly what I got.
The cinematography, sets, landscapes, and costumes were all very beautiful. There was a surprising amount of military-related action, and while there were a few slower moments involving politics and character relationships, overall I was entertained and didn't really find the film boring at all despite the 2 hour 40 minute run time.
I see a lot of criticism on this forum regarding the historical inaccuracies and the possible vote-manipulation but I really can't understand why. The film doesn't market itself as a documentary, it's as historically accurate as 300 or Gladiator. The film stands on it's own if you go into it with an open mind without any expectations other than being entertained. As for the vote-manipulation by Turkish people, I myself am not Turkish, I'm Canadian (english/german ancestry) and in fact don't even know a single Turkish person. I easily rate this film 7/10 based on the quality and entertainment value and have already recommended it to several friends who all enjoyed it as much or more than I have.
Ignore the naysayers! If you enjoy a beautiful and well-made film with a touch of political intrigue and big-scale siege warfare you will enjoy Fetih 1453 (Conquest 1453)
The cinematography, sets, landscapes, and costumes were all very beautiful. There was a surprising amount of military-related action, and while there were a few slower moments involving politics and character relationships, overall I was entertained and didn't really find the film boring at all despite the 2 hour 40 minute run time.
I see a lot of criticism on this forum regarding the historical inaccuracies and the possible vote-manipulation but I really can't understand why. The film doesn't market itself as a documentary, it's as historically accurate as 300 or Gladiator. The film stands on it's own if you go into it with an open mind without any expectations other than being entertained. As for the vote-manipulation by Turkish people, I myself am not Turkish, I'm Canadian (english/german ancestry) and in fact don't even know a single Turkish person. I easily rate this film 7/10 based on the quality and entertainment value and have already recommended it to several friends who all enjoyed it as much or more than I have.
Ignore the naysayers! If you enjoy a beautiful and well-made film with a touch of political intrigue and big-scale siege warfare you will enjoy Fetih 1453 (Conquest 1453)
Did you know
- TriviaFatih Sultan Mehmed conquered Istanbul when he was 21 .
- GoofsAt one point, Giovanni Giustiniani uses a telescope to watch the invading troops. The telescope was not invented in the West until the early-1600s.
- Quotes
Sultan Mehmed II: Either I will conquer Istanbul or Istanbul will conquer me.
- ConnectionsReferenced in Coming Soon (2014)
- How long is Conquest 1453?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $35,730
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $35,730
- Apr 8, 2012
- Gross worldwide
- $35,797,045
- Runtime
- 2h 42m(162 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content