kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) (08/27/85)
_Gallipoli_
by Kelvin Thompson
_Gallipoli_ is a bad abortion of a movie. The movie promises to be a
fine adventure film -- a cross between Twain and Lucas -- but just as it
gets rolling the editor's shears bring the film to an abrupt end, and the
viewer wonders why they even bothered to make it.
The movie begins with great promise. Two brash young lads prepare for a
small track meet in Australia of the early 1910's. Archy, played by
newcomer Mark Lee, belives he has a footrace race sewn up, but Frank,
played by another unknown, Mel Gibson, surprises him by narrowly winning.
The two become instant friends and set off in search of adventure.
And they do have great fun as long as the movie lasts. They win more
races, chase some skirts, cross a desert, and meet a mysterious sage.
Then they both join the army and head for Istanbul to fight the Turk.
They have some more adventures in the Orient, are split up, then
rejoined.
And then the movie comes to an abrupt halt. One moment they are having a
grand time popping around in an exotic land, then Lee is sucked into a
suicidal battle and dies without firing a shot. End of film. His death
is absolutely pointless -- it does not further the battle or the war in
any way, and he is permitted no final deathbed scene with his buddy.
What's worse, the movie does not show Gibson going out to avenge his
mate's death, as a good Sly Stallone or Chuck Norris adventure might have
done.
So the movie has no real conclusion, no rounding out of the story or the
characters. The lads' boisterous romp around the world finally leads
nowhere. The great investment of time, money, and effort that all kinds
of people -- from producers, directors, and actors, to construction
crews, lighting and sound men, and script girls -- have made in the the
movie is for nothing. Ultimately, _Gallipoli_ represents only a
monumental waste of human effort.rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (08/28/85)
It helps to know some history to understand where the story goes & how it ends. The Australian & New Zealand troops were used as cannon fodder by the British command in WW1, especially at Gallipoli (the Canadians seemed to get some of the same treatment at the hands of the Brits in Flanders). Australian & New Zealand viewers would know this & probably still have fairly vivd emotional responses towards the British and the film's events. I thought it was a very well-made movie, but I found its designation as an antiwar film (by some reviewers) bizarre. Instead, in an indrect way it's positively pro-war: it employs an underlying romantic view of war that isn't cancelled out but enhanced by the sacrificial slaughter at the end. Regards, Ron Rizzo
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/31/85)
> _Gallipoli_ > > by Kelvin Thompson > > _Gallipoli_ is a bad abortion of a movie. The movie promises to be a > fine adventure film -- a cross between Twain and Lucas -- but just as it > gets rolling the editor's shears bring the film to an abrupt end, and the > viewer wonders why they even bothered to make it. I have never found it necessary to flame Kelvin Thompson before, but since I have some interest in the subject at hand (having had Gallipoli drummed into my skull every ANZAC day for the last umpteen years) and since there are apparently one or two people who take this guy seriously... Look up Gallipoli in the library before deciding not to see this movie on the strength of Kelvin's review. Oh, by the way Kelvin: you're really beginning to reach. Perhaps you have exhausted the possibilities of the medium (spoof reviews). Your BTTF review was a particularly bad example, but this isn't much better. Why don't you go review Coccoon or ET?