An earnest, but flawed, first entry for Crowe.

Rating: 6/10 (1 January 2017)

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.