Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

HeadlinesExotic Boring

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Verity Robins Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

John Smith The WW1 victory by the British in the 3rd Battle of Gaza in late 1917 led to a retreat by the Ottoman Army to Jerusalem. After further battles in Jerusalem, the British were able to establish a strong front line until September 1918, when the final offensive took place.The battle of Beersheba took place on the first day of the Battle of Gaza and consisted of a successful infantry attack on the outskirts of the town by the British XX Corps and a mounted attack on outposts to the east. The latter attacks were held up and due to concerns about water, it appeared unlikely that a combined infantry and mounted attack on Beersheba was possible that day. The Australian Chauvel, commander of the ANZAC Mounted Division, wanted to break off to water the horses, but was ordered to attack. The 4th and 12th Regiments of the 4th Light Horse attacked in 3 waves across 4 miles of open desert. The defenders in trenches, with machine gun and artillery support were caught by surprise when the Light Horse continued and failed to dismount. In addition, the attack was so swift, incorrect sighting information was given, and the Light Horse was able to successfully attack 'under the guns', and experienced very light casualties. In turn they killed or captured 2000 enemy as well as several artillery pieces and also captured 15 out of the 17 wells.The light horse battle at Beersheba was worthy of a film and the battle scenes focusing on the light horse charge was a highlight of the film. The film also focused on intelligence that led to the Turks believing that an attack on Beersheba would only be a diversion.The film incorrectly had Chauvel offer to attack Beersheba, when the British were faced with withdrawal due to critical water supplies.The film tried to be realistic and portray the spirit of the Australian troops, especially as the film followed the successful ANZACS miniseries and many of the same actors were present. This was largely unsuccessful however as the acting was poor. Of note was Gerard Kennedy's now politically incorrect portrayal of 'tanned' Turkish commander Ismet Bey and a close up of Gary Sweet firing the 'recoil-less' Lee-Enfield rifle. Dean Semmler (Cinematography) was OK. Also of note was Jon Blake, who was critically injured in a car accident on the last day of filming. The accident ended his acting career.

ArchStanton1862 This wasn't a great film. Clearly it was trying to be, but somewhere along the way they forgot to figure out what they were trying to say. Is it an anti-war film? Is it pro-war? Is it about man's inhumanity to man? Is it just supposed to be good fun? Having the answer to all that be ambiguous might make it seem like this film is taking a more realistic approach but it doesn't feel realistic, just lazy. I honestly don't think they ever thought about what kind of message they were trying to convey. And that's why despite having a few decent battle scenes and an interesting setting it never really seems to catch your attention.The plot of the film is pretty basic. The Aussie light horse is in Palestine fighting the Turks. Sooner or later there's going to be a major cavalry charge, but there's no real anticipation for it. Most of the film is the soldiers dealing with each other, engaging in minor skirmishes, and other stereotypical soldier stuff. There's also the painfully stereotypical nurse love interest, who falls for the hero instantly despite not knowing him and having hundreds of other soldiers to choose from. Most of the rest of the incidents, while generic war film tropes, work significantly better. There's a soldier who isn't able to kill people who's crisis is generally handled well. The new guy introduced into the tried and tested unit is another. The film is taken up with these and there are more hits than misses in this regard. The big battle at the end of the film is the battle of Beersheba, the last successful cavalry charge. A subject like this seems perfect for a gung-ho war film about the high point of the ANZAC cavalry forces to counter the anti-war approach of Gallipoli, but as I said before the film never really settles on what it wants to say.One nice thing about it is the relatively low amount of Pommy-bashing. There is a bit of conflict with the obligatory stiff-necked and humorless British officer, but they also feature a scene where the British soldiers cheer the Aussies on to the embarrassment of the men who are looking for a fight. Furthermore my favorite character in the film is a British intelligence officer. He's every bit the cold and aloof officer you'd expect, but he's smarter than the rest and actually plays up the Aussie perceptions of him to good effect in one hilarious scene. The rest of the characters are somewhat hard to distinguish so this man stands out the more.A few more minor problems with this film: the scenery which is supposed to be in Israel is really obviously southern Australia. All deserts do not look alike, and Beersheba isn't nearly as deserty looking as they seem to think. The other minor problem that occasionally becomes a major problem is the choice of how to portray the enemy. Both the Turks and the Germans speak perfect English. Since this is World War I and the uniforms aren't as distinctive or imprinted in common memory this occasionally makes it difficult to tell which guys are the good guys. Especially when they're not facing the camera. They don't have many scenes, but that just makes it harder to tell when the film has switched focus to the villains. Also, the final charge goes on forever. I was reminded of Monty Python and the Holy Grail when Lancelot keeps running up the hill never getting closer.Overall not a bad film. I know I've gone on about the negative points, but that's just because they are the most notable things about this movie and some of them would be so easy to fix. Most of the film is decent enough. Certainly it's worth watching if you're interested in the time or just like war films or Aussie movies in general. I certainly can't think of another film that spends so long with the cavalry. Just don't go in expecting a masterpiece.

innocuous I have watched this movie at least five times. Initially, I was a little disappointed by the tedium of the first half of the movie. I began to realize, however, that the first half of the movie is a pretty good reflection of military life prior to the second half of the 20th century: long periods of boredom and routine punctuated by major confrontations.I've noticed that a few reviewers have remarked on the final "cavalry charge," which suggests to me that they really weren't paying much attention to the movie. The final charge on the Turkish positions is so much more awe-inspiring given the usual tactics of the Lighthorsemen. One of the most thrilling moments is when the Aussies prepare to meet the enemy on horseback and, instead of pulling out the classic cavalrymen's sabers, draw their bayonets for the charge. You almost want to laugh at the sight of 16" knives against the well-emplaced Turks.This is one of the few war movies based on actual events that is fairly accurate, too. Take a look at some of the sites dedicated to the 4th Light Horse Briagde and you will see what I mean. A letter from one of the actual participants to his brother is an almost perfect description of the events as shown in the movie.**** out of ***** if only for the charge

cannibalchuck This movie also has to go on my "desert island" list. What most people will say is that the first hour is about as exciting as watching paint dry, which is true to a point. But wars are often played like chess, and if you don't know the board you'll never understand the game. It's therefore necessary, though somewhat tedious, to show the situation, terrain, weather, and overall political climate to get to the historical charge. The Germans are played perhaps a little too stiffly, and the one Aussie who couldn't shoot a human and became a medic was perhaps given a little too much screen time. As for the charge itself, you can hear your heart beating faster as you literally smell the sweat from the horses. The two-mile charge against an entrenched enemy supported with machine gun, razor wire, and cannon is intense beyond words, and stands as some of the most awesome cinematography I've ever seen. Actual casualty stats are listed, which are surprisingly low. As for how the horses were handled, not one was injured-a feat you'll scarcely believe after having seen the charge. The Lighthorsemen, unlike Gallipoli, is well worth a look. -Chuck