William-of-Baskerville This movie starts with some beautiful wide shots, then quickly turns sentimental. When the father arrives in Turkey to look for his sons after the battle of Gallipoli, the story seems to hold up, but quickly starts disintegrating into non-relevant elements. Towards the end it's getting weak and very hard to watch. Think soap-opera cheesy. I was also very irritated by the attempts at whitewashing Ottoman/Turkish history. First this happens when visiting the Blue Mosque, where the father is so surprised to acknowledge that such a beautiful thing does not exist in his culture. Well, maybe not in Australia, but sitting next to it is the Hagia Sophia, until modern times the building with the largest dome, which was a Christian Church until it was captured by the same Ottomans during their conquest of the Byzantine (Roman) Empire. The Hagia Sophia is thus an expression of the same culture that led to the culture of Australia. Second, during the second half, Greeks are painted as truly evil villains against the noble Turks, whereas during the period of 1914-1922 is known by historians as the Greek genocide: the systematic genocide of the Christian Ottoman Greek population from Turkey, by the Ottoman Empire's government. Third, the movie is also completely silent about the Armenian genocide from 1915-1923 where the same (Islamic) government exterminated 1.5 million (Christian) Armenians, something acknowledged by international scholars, but denied by Turkish government to this day. That same genocide has been the inspiration for Hitler's genocide against among others the Jews during World War 2. He said of it:"Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter -- with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. It's a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization will say about me.I have issued the command -- and I'll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad -- that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formations in readiness -- for the present only in the East -- with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"Hitler was well aware that denial of the Armenian genocide was a strong signal that his tyranny would not be opposed by the civilized world. It is telling that Russell Crowe sought Turkish approval, and the Turkish minister of culture told him "I believe in the script.". That's the same minister who's responsible for Article 301 in the penal code, which has been used to prosecute Turkish citizens who have brought the Armenian genocide to the attention of the people. No wonder Armenian and Greek organizations have called for a boycot of this film.

areatw 'The Water Diviner' is a good movie with many positives aspects - the plot has depth, it is well acted out and Russell Crowe did a reasonably good job as director. You do, however, have to be patient and make an effort to stick with this movie because, in parts, it's very slow.I also wasn't keen on the many flashbacks/flashforwards which didn't really add anything to the movie and just made the storyline harder to follow. There's nothing wrong with the plot itself but I felt it could have been executed better on screen.Overall though I thought 'The Water Diviner' was a good movie with a plot with enough depth to keep it interesting.

kosmasp Russell Crowe has been directed by many good and qualified directors, so by now he must have picked up on many of things. Which I reckon can be seen in his directorial debut. Would it have been better if he had just concentrated on one thing though? Tough to say, especially because it does not seem to affect his acting in the movie at least. The direction on he other hand ... that's up for discussion, unless you argue it was the script that needed improvements.Having said all that, the movie is emotional and it does take you on a (literal) journey. It also seems very strong on making a point in showing gray areas in war and laying out blame. To a certain degree that is, because you do get some "bad people" to, which is a shame and not consistent to what the message should be about. Not to mention an overly dramatic ending, that really was unnecessary. Other than that, this was more than a decent film debut

phd_travel Surprisingly I enjoyed this historical war drama about a father searching for his sons in the aftermath of WWI in Turkey. The Gallipoli battle scenes are well done and exciting. The locations are stunning and exotic. The Istanbul hotel is charming. Some of the continuity is lacking between scenes and the story seems to progress abruptly in some scenes. The sending of so many British soldiers after one poor old man is ludicrous.The story is interesting and is well crafted around the historical context. Looking for bodies in the aftermath of battle is quite a powerful anti war statement. Liked the political correctness by showing the Turkish point of view (you invaded us). The weakness is in the message of reconciliation which is a bit too strong - hints of romance between Crowe and the stunning Olga Kurlyenko and between his son and the lady of the night is too much. Russell is too old for Olga. That kind of cheapens the effect and seems like a plump old man's fantasy.Worth a watch.