User reviews

After the Battle of Gallipoli, in 1915, an Aussie farmer called Connor (Russell Crowe), travels to Turkey after the Battle of Gallipoli to attempt locate his three sons , allegedly missing in action . At a hotel he meets a beautiful widow (Olga Kurylenko who learned Turkish for her character), and later on he tries to find out a way in arrive to Gallipoli , where reportedly died his children . As he must travel across the war-torn landscape with the help of a British Lt Colonel called Hughes (Jai Courtney) and a Turkish Officer (Erdogan) . Meanwhile , there takes place the Greek-Turkish war and the invasion of Smirna by the Greeks . As it is set during the Turkish War of Independence, in revolutionary days during fall of the Ottoman Empire . The War resulted the defeat of Greece in Western Turkey (Greco-Turkish war), on the East, Armenian state and Britain, France and Georgia.

This is a family story in which is treated thought-provoking issues with a tough man holding onto hope, fighting for a desire , and bringing to life a promise . Australian Russell Crowe gives an acceptable actiing as the Aussie father who goes out to find his 3 missing sons and while staying at a hotel in Istanbul, he falls in love with a gorgeous widow. The charming Olga Kurylenko is good as the attractive widow mistreated by his brother-in-law who wants to marry her . Support cast is pretty well , such as Jai Courtney , Isabel Lucas and Jacqueline McKenzie who also starred with Crowe in the 1992 hit Romper Stomper . And some fine Turks actors as Cem Yilmaz and Yilmaz Erdogan who are both comedy actors in Turkey . It displays a colorful and evocative cinematography by Oscar-winning cameraman Andrew Lesnie , being his final movie . Sensitive as well as thrilling musical score by David Hirschfelder , helped by Lisa Gerard .The motion picture was stunningly acted/produced/directed by Russell Crowe .

The picture gives an interesting portrayal about the bloody campaign and battle of Gallipoli . There happened the following : The Gallipoli Campaign, also known as the Dardanelles Campaign, the Battle of Gallipoli, or the Battle of Çanakkale , was a campaign of the First World War that took place on the Gallipoli peninsula (Gelibolu in modern Turkey) in the Ottoman Empire between 17 February 1915 and 9 January 1916. The peninsula forms the northern bank of the Dardanelles, a strait that provided a sea route to the Russian Empire, one of the Allied powers during the war. Intending to secure it, Russia's allies, Britain and France, launched a naval attack followed by an amphibious landing on the peninsula, with the aim of capturing the Ottoman capital of Constantinople (modern Istanbul).The naval attack was repelled and after eight months' fighting, with many casualties on both sides, the land campaign was abandoned and the invasion force was withdrawn to Egypt.The campaign was the only major Ottoman victory of the war. In Turkey, it is regarded as a defining moment in the nation's history, a final surge in the defence of the motherland as the Ottoman Empire crumbled. The campaign is often considered to be the beginning of Australian and New Zealand national consciousness; 25 April, the anniversary of the landings, is known as "Anzac Day", the most significant commemoration of military casualties and veterans in the two countries, surpassing Remembrance Day , Armistice Day .The struggle formed the basis for the Turkish War of Independence and the declaration of the Republic of Turkey eight years later, with Mustafa Kemal (Kemal Atatürk) as President, who rose to prominence as a commander at Gallipoli. Mustafa Kemal, Attaturk commanded the Turkish national movement in the war of independence. His successful military campaigns led to liberation of the country and to the establishing of Turkey. He transformed the former Ottoman Empire into a democratic, modern, secular nation-state , his reforms are referred as Kemalism. Ankara became the new capital and Kemal abolished the Caliphate and Sultanate. .

Right from the beginning, Russel Crowe's directorial debut, THE WATER DIVINER, is already sweeping with unfathomable amount of emotions, gathering affection the moment it flashes grim representations of war and what follows at its heels. From there, it treads through compassionate subjects of ambitious scale, stumbling upon its own entanglements at times, but gets saved by towering affectionate performances from its actors.

The film follows the story of miraculous farmer (he knows where to find water underneath the arid earth) Joshua Connor (Crowe), whose three sons were sent to the war in Turkey. Years later and none of them has ever come home. His wife mourns over their presumed death, and succumbs to fatal depression. Swearing at his wife's grave to bring their sons' remains home, Connor voyages to Turkey, not even knowing what exactly to expect and see.

There is much to admire in Crowe for helming such historical romance, teeming with bold themes about love, family, and war. His directorial inexperience screams with some odd choices he made, like the forced romance between Connor and Olga Kurylenko's widow character, and the mostly ill-woven narrative his screenwriters knitted, but the sentimental performances of his actors and himself, are overwhelming enough to make up for the narrative inconsistencies. These solid heart-shattering performances summon the affection they truly deserve, and make the film, amid of its script's evident flaws, able to relay its sincere intentions, to the audience. Also a key factor for its effective delivery, is an exquisite cinematography that is able to capture the dreadfulness of the war, the sorrow of a grieving and longing father, and the breathtaking sceneries of countryside Australia, assuming incredibly toned palettes that shifts along the landscapes of the story.

This movie could have been perfect with an excellently-written script, but considering it's just Crowe's first directorial assignment, I'd say this is one hell of an epic job. Sincere, heart-wrenching, and beautifully-acted, THE WATER DIVINER, packs an incredible wallop of searing emotions, sending the most striking of sentiments, despite the faults in its storytelling.

Set in 1919 The Water Diviner tells the story of an Australian father of three young men all of whom have enlisted with the ANZAC's in the Gallipoli campaign in World War 1. Subsequent to the battle in which the Allied forces were defeated all three have failed to return home and are now presumed dead. Joshua Connor (Russell Crowe) their father, a Victorian Outback farmer with a gift for divining water makes a promise to his wife to bring them home and heads off on a quest to Gallipoli to find them.

This is the reasonably promising premise laid out in the first 20 minutes of the film. I didn't envisage a swash-buckle fest at this stage; nor is it true to say it becomes this, but the film does veer in that direction once or twice over the ensuing hour and thirty minutes. It seems like a betrayal of the seriousness of the subject matter because of this.

The Water Diviner is relatively entertaining but it falls short of what I was hoping for and I think this is because it neither all-out delivers as a full on ravages of war redemption story or as an all- out high-spirited adventure. Having said that some of the battle- scenes (shot in flashback) are unflinching and are probably the best scenes in the film.

The cinematography is beautiful to the eye but the end effect here is that it feels too sanitised at times. There are other things that rankle as well- a burgeoning love story which comes over as too shoe-horned and heavy handed for my liking and in my view steals the central story of its import. There are two scenes in particular where the viewer is required to make the jump from believing in the power of the diviners hand to believing in altogether more mystical powers or insights divined by the same hand (also to do with powers of location). Another thing to watch out for; the film plays host to a stock character or two- witness the very officious English officer who speaks in stereotypical clipped tones, previously seen in countless other films.

Well-intentioned but clumsy.

It is 1919 and, after his wife's death, an Australian man, Connor (played by Russell Crowe), goes to Turkey to find the graves and remains of the three sons he lost at Gallipoli in World War 1.

The movie is a bit of a hit-and-miss affair. The search for his sons (which turns out to be much more complicated than anticipated) is quite an emotional journey. Along the way we see how they died, and experience the wastefulness and futility of war. We also see the war from the eyes of Turkish people, who also lost many loved ones in the war, often to Australians.

On the other hand, many of the scenes don't seem written or staged well, giving the movie a rickety sort of feel. The whole romance angle seems out of place too.

Overall, a decent and watchable attempt by Russell Crowe on his directorial debut. A bit more tightness in the script and polish in direction and this would have been a great movie.

Great movie although Russell does not look old enough to have adult sons. The water diviner title is also rather weak and not really anything to do with the story as far as I can tell.

What is good is the scenery in Turkey is stunning. Its a beautiful country and this movies does it justice. The story as well is entertaining and well told. Russell has done a good job with such serious and heavy going subject matter.

Movie goes out of its way to acknowledge and show the Turkish side. Full credit for that especially coming from Australia which often brushes over this. Sadly failed to acknowledge the other allies that were fighting alongside the Anzacs which suffered terrible casualties as well. I appreciate this was about the Anzacs but it made out as though they were the only ones involved so an opportunity missed to truly educate everyone as to exactly what happened. The token British toff thrown in to rub salt into the wound of the thousands of British, french, canadians, kiwis etc that died in the campaign as well.

The overall casualties were shown at the end but no mention that they were not all Anzacs. I appreciate its Hollywood and historical accuracy is not their strong point. But given the outstanding efforts made to show the Turkish side fairly I think this was poor. Likewise the nationalist uprising taking place in Istanbul was not really explained very well and little mention of Ataturk.

Otherwise entertaining. Enjoyed it and recommend.

First of all, I am neither Australian nor Turkish. I'm from Rio, as far away as it can get from either country - not only in terms of geography, but also, and most importantly, in culture. I enjoyed "The Water Diviner" enormously nonetheless (watched it in Mediterranean Turkey on a trip), for this jewel of a movie is built upon universal themes of common appeal to our shared humankind.

This is the first film from an English-speaking country with a huge budget and world-famous actors that thoroughly succeeds in overcoming jingoism and achieving a perfectly harmonious, cross- culture balance of fairness that I have ever watched in my entire life.

The story has an amazing soul, a mesmerizing spiritual power, and a refreshing perspective on History. As a scholar of History, I'd say it treats a noble Turkish nation victim of absolutely unprovoked aggression from all sides during World War I with long-overdue justice after a 100 years, while retaining the dignity of ANZAC soldiers who fought with great bravery and loyalty for a dubious British cause.

"The Water Diviner" is not only a cinematographic masterpiece of rare beauty. It is a powerful statement of tolerance, a testimony of endless hope and love.

Well, why did I give 6 stars? Cause it was a good film, the flow of the movie was somehow forced, different pieces of the movie could not constitute a whole in my opinion, and it was due to the need to tell as much as possible in a limited amount time. But still acting, the story, scripts were above average. Now, lets talk about haters "read some history" propaganda. I am not gonna say Turks were the complete victims, genocide claims are totally empty and so forth. All of these arguments have some valid points from academic point of view.

Ottoman Empire had harbored many nations; although the word "nation" and what it represents are very newly formed concepts in history (depends on the nationalism movement in 18th history). Moreover, just read and accept this, nationalism is a sociologically constructed human made concept, it has absolutely no biological foundation. And OK, Ottoman Empire had its faults and different practices during its time history, but seriously consider Europe between 1400-1800, just to say "the world is a sphere" was enough to spend you life in jail. So, saying something like "for like years we were crushed and forced into sudden and unexpected practices" does not justify brutish approach and it certainly does not mean Turk cannot be victims after.

OK you know International Institute of Social History; it is an archive on social history and an independent scientific Institute founded in 1935. Read "Turkey. A Modern History" by Erik-Jan Zürcher if you somehow manage to spare your precious time, he was the head of the institute for 15 years. It is one of the most objective approaches you can find for Turkish history. There, apart from everything else (including Genocide claims of Armenians), you would see that the events in gallipoli war was not really that different from what you see in the film. So, instead of ranting on saying things like "I am oh so so angry, cannot write, so angry, cannot see, crap this is, ohh very angry, Greeks and Armenians are the victims always, Turks are always the oppressors always, ohh angry", get out of your high school history books and make real research for once in your incredibly valuable life.

Not going to give it 10 out of 10 stars, because you should always save your 10. However, this movie is close to perfect. Very loosely based on what might have been a true story (a war record that mentioned that 'only one father came looking for his sons' at Gallipoli after the war). Really well acted. The war scenes conveyed some of the horror without being gratuitous in the violence or gore. There was some shown, but only briefly, and really just enough to set the scenes. The movie is well- paced, well edited and doesn't drag. The lead actors (including the young Turkish boy) were all perfectly cast. At the start of the 100th anniversary year of the Gallipoli landings, this is a story that was well worth telling. Great job, Russell Crowe.

'THE WATER DIVINER': Three Stars (Out of Five)

Russell Crowe makes his directorial debut, with this war drama film; about a farmer searching for his missing sons, who never returned home from the Battle of Gallipoli, four years earlier. Crowe also stars in the movie, as the farmer, and it costars Olga Kurylenko, Yilmaz Erdogan, Cem Yilmaz, Dylan Georgiades, Ryan Corr (of 'WOLF CREEK 2' fame), Jaqueline McKenzie and Jai Courtney. It was written by Andrew Anastasios and Andrew Knight; and it's based on the book, of the same name, by Anastasios and his wife, Dr. Meaghan Wilson-Anastasios. I found it to be pretty slow-paced, and clichéd (at times), but it comes to a pretty rewarding conclusion; that almost redeems the rest of the film.

The story begins in Australia, in 1919 (four years after the end of World War I). Joshua Connor (Crowe) is a farmer, and water diviner, that's still obsessing over his three missing sons; who never returned home from the Battle of Gallipoli. His wife, Eliza (McKenzie), commits suicide; due to the presumed death of their boys. After the loss of Eliza, as well, Joshua decides to travel to Turkey; and bring back his sons.

The film starts out promising, while setting up it's story (and characters), then it becomes really slow-moving (and dull). The movie really takes a turn for the worse, when a war-widowed love interest is introduced, for Crowe (played by Kurylenko). That's when the film gets really clichéd (and corny). It does come to an exciting, and pretty emotionally charged, conclusion though; that almost makes it all worthwhile. Crowe is good in the lead performance, but his directing skills can definitely use some work. I've also read that the movie is incredibly historically inaccurate, and insulting to some (many it appears, actually). The film is definitely not a very impressive directorial debut for Crowe; to say the least.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/uU2Z04j5ZzE

The preview did not hint at the complex and gripping tale in store for us, beyond that of a father seeking his sons' fate on the battlefields of Gallipoli. Crowe clearly sought to make a powerful statement about war (my wife was moved to tears during the battlefield scenes) but did not overdo it at the expense of an engaging plot. We left the cinema with a new insight to the Gallipoli story, that being the cost to the Turkish people.

Crowe was very convincing in his role of the grieving, relentless father. Fantastic support role by Yilmaz Ergodan and, although brief, Ryan Corr was very moving.

Don't wait for this to come to DVD, it is best appreciated on the big screen.

So, we have an Australian superhero who, being a humble peasant and family man in his homeland travels to Turkey in the years after WWI in search for his disappeared sons, and once there he manages to: 1) get to the place of the Gallipoli battle and find the exact place where two of his sons were killed and lie under ground, all thanks to the seeming extrasensorial faculties he possesses, 2) again with some extrasensorial help (intuition will say some...) find his third son alive in a remote village, 3) allow the escape of a foe-turned-friend Turkish military official from a fully armed squad of Greek soldiers using a wicket to fight them, and 4) beat up a group of members of a Turkish family clan one of whose members had been previously insulted by our protagonist (this time he was barehanded and the ones using sticks were the rivals).

Why the surviving son never returned home when he was not badly injured or affected in his mental faculties after the battle (and is now living a miserable life in a small remote village) is not coherently explained, being this the triggering point of a family tragedy that prompted the trip of the protagonist.

Apart from all this... pretty photography in evocative sepia colors, a ravishing Olga Kurylenko playing a Turkish widow soon-to-marry as second wife a rich man (but making googly eyes to our hero now and then), and a playful smart boy intermingling occasionally in the story, may keep you mildly entertained if you do not take the story too seriously.

The Water Diviner is a very interesting and beautifully-made film, giving an unusual post-war aspect of the well-known Gallipoli story. The production design, cinematography and acting are all excellent and the story (based on an actual event) is a powerful and moving one. Russell Crowe proves himself to be an able director, and the film is well structured and edited. I agree with other reviewers here that it also offers a sensitive and respectful view of Turkish culture. There is rather a lot of violence, both in the 'present' and in the flashbacks, although I realise that it is difficult to make a movie about war without depicting violence.

But unfortunately the whole film is deeply marred by the schmaltzy, unrealistic and frankly unbelievable 'love story' between the Aussie farmer Connor and an impossibly glamorous Turkish woman at the hotel. For me, this completely ruined an otherwise very good film. Sorry, Russell, but you have caved in to the Hollywood demand for soppy romance at the expense of verisimilitude.

Quickie Review:

After the death of his three sons in the WWI Battle of Gallipoli, devastated by the loss Connor's (Russell Crowe) wife takes her own life. To fulfill her last wish, Connor travels to Turkey to return their sons' bodies back to Australia, their home. The Water Diviner is both well-acted and filmed. The movie fully develops its character while fairly showing the perspectives from both sides affected by the war. It is not without flaws in that it occasionally adds melodrama to the war drama. Still as a whole this is a solid directorial debut by Russell Crowe.

Full Review:

To be honest, I wasn't really sure what to expect from this movie. I rarely heard people talk about it and I only found out this movie even existed about a month or so ago. Nevertheless, I went in curious to see what Russell Crowe delivers as a director and mostly I liked what he achieved.

The performances in The Water Diviner are really good. That's not surprising from the talented Russell Crowe but Olga Kurylenko did some of her best work here as well. I always thought Kurylenko was a serviceable actress but in this movie she actually shows some range. Asides from the performances, I appreciated the different perspectives that were shown from the people involved in the war. War dramas can at times fall into the trap of painting the different sides black or white. Fortunately The Water Diviner recognizes and presents the fact that both sides have their guilty executioners and innocent victims just caught in the middle of a senseless war. So the delicate handling of such a subject matter should be commended. Also the cinematography of the movie was quite impressive, capturing the life and landscape of the early 1900s Turkey.

What hindered the movie from being great for me were the moments where the movie got a bit too melodramatic. I can't say much without revealing some of the plot points but these were scenes that clearly Crowe wanted the audience to be emotionally affected. However, the scenes are repeated so often or prolonged for so long that they started to lose their effect on me and felt like I was being begged to shed a tear. On top of that, all too often there are so many coincidences, the movie almost becomes a fantasy rather than a serious war drama. These series of coincidences solve many of the problems that Crowe's character faced, wrapping up in a nice little bow. It diminishes any sense of struggle and as a result I ended up being less invested whenever the characters were in danger.

All in all The Water Diviner is a good movie. I just wish the movie wasn't pandering to our emotions and instead let the story unfold more organically. Nevertheless, considering this is the first feature length film as a director for Russell Crowe I am interested to see what he takes on next.

Check out more on my movie review blog The Stub Collector: http://thestubcollector.wordpress.com/

Russell Crowe can direct. The Australian actor has transformed himself in one of Hollywood's best, after consecutive roles for which he was Oscar nominated in The Insider, Gladiator, and A Beautiful Mind (he won for Gladiator). He's continued to cement himself as a quality actor with more recent roles in films such as Cinderella Man, Noah, and most recently The Water Diviner. With The Water Diviner Russell Crowe took on the extra role of directing, for the first time. With Crowe's leadership The Water Diviner turns out to be a quality, greatly paced, and very entertaining film.

The Water Diviner is inspired by actual events. It tells the story of an Australian farmer named Connor (Russell Crowe), who lives with his wife Eliza (Jacqueline McKenize). The couple lives in an extremely dry part of the 1919 Australia, (Region of Victoria) where it rains every so many years. In order to survive and maintain his crops, Connor resorts to a divine ritual that helps him locate underground pockets of water, which he later transforms into wells. At night we see Eliza persuade Connor to "read to the kids" after Crowe finishes a chapter of Arabian Nights the camera pans to three empty beds. We soon learn that Connor's three children volunteered to fight for the British in World War I, but they never came back. The last that Connor had heard of them was from the bloody battle of Gallipoli in Turkey; the army had given them up for dead. However, after a drastic turn of events in Australia, Connor decides to go to Turkey to look for his sons.

What surprised me most was the incredible balance that the film had, it doesn't rely on one facet to carry out its story: the acting was great, the script was witty, and the length and pace were perfect. A first time director is expected to fall on a cheesy and "safer" route; inexperienced directors also tend to make longer movies to "have more to show." Crowe, however, managed to put together a great team that stayed true to Crowe's and their cinematic beliefs.

The acting is exceptional. What I most appreciated about it was that it came from lesser- known actors. Apart from Russell Crowe, the rest of the cast was comprised mainly of Turkish and Australian actors, amongst which Cem Yilmaz and Yilmaz Erdogan shine out by playing Turkish military officials. We also have notable performances from Jai Courtney, who adds a bit of star power (is known for Divergent, Jack Reacher, A Good Day to Die Hard, and is in the upcoming Terminator: Genysis) but plays a more minor role, and a fantastic Olga Kurylenko (known for Oblivion) who holds her ground against Crowe with a challenging role of a hotel owner who believes her husband (who was also in Gallipoli) is still alive. The actors give each other space, and Crowe resists hogging the screen, this gives the cast and the film the great balance mentioned before.

The script really surprised me. It could have been easy to take this true story and make it extremely cheesy and tacky for the general audiences (like Unbroken did), but the dialogue ended up being extremely smart, daring even to crack a few original jokes. Historically it's also accurate, which gives me a relief since period pieces sometimes sloth over history research. But what worked really well was the unpredictability that the script maintained. At first you start guessing ("oh he's gonna end up with her," or "oh he's going to find his sons and its gonna be all great"), but the script pulls you this way and that so that you end up doubting your predictions and are on the edge of your seat for nearly the whole film. The script also took a bold move in combining a war story with a road story. The film could have messed up the scale and abused one story theme too much, but, again, the film was able to achieve a great balance that ends up being the key to its success. What I especially liked about the script was how it never takes on one biased perspective. It doesn't frame all the English as good and all the Turks as bad. There is a mix of each (just like in real life), and that balance of perspective not only allows for a more believable story, but it also gives proper respect to both historical sides, something not normally seen in Hollywood films.

Overall the film gives us a peek at Russell Crowe's possible directing career. Could he be the next Clint Eastwood? It's a little too early to make such bold predictions but, nonetheless, he's on the right path.

If this is Russell Crowe's first film I can't wait to see what is to come. The Water Diviner takes you an an impossible, heart warming journey of a father looking for his sons after the tragedy of Gallipoli. What this film does well is captures both sides of the battle, the Turkish and the ANZAC's. It is visually stunning, emotionally charged and does more than most movies to pry open your empathetic side.

The cast are amazing but I think my praise would have to go to Ryan Corr, Yilmaz Erdogen and Olga Kurylenko for three beautiful performances. All three of them aid Crowe's performance in a highly emotional way and create depth and love within the film.

I highly recommend giving this film a go if you appreciate a film with a good story and good talent and I hope it receives the praise and attention it deserves. It is definitely worth the watch.

For me, directorial debut of Russell Crowe and his attempt to tell a tale of war, tragedy, loss, romance and healing was quite long, clichéd, uneven and unsatisfying movie experience. He also, as a main character, seems to be blessed with some mystical power. Really??? The use of flashback confuses the issue, leaving us scratching our heads as to whether we are sharing his psychic visions or it's simply a matter of clumsy editing. In general, movie is too unfocused, while the film has none of expected dramatic tension or emotional depth. Ukrainian-born Olga Kurylenko is miscasted here, and no matter she tries her best, it's difficult to accept her as valid character. Actually, whole this (an extraneous romance) aspect of the story is awkwardly introduced and never especially credible. Movie runtime is too long (111m). Also, no matter that the story develops complex characters such as Turkish Major Hasan, it also contains some unfortunate, to say stereotypes or today political correctness such as the Turks as noble and heroic, the British as pompous and arrogant, the Greeks as savages and marauding bandits (Satan's army, says one of the film's characters), Aussie soldiers as a raging blood thirsty killers, while the priest is being presented as quite 'unholy' man. With its tendency towards such ... oversimplification (who produced this movie I wonder), this 'water' may not taste right. Because of so many clichés, the movie barely emotionally touched me, while most of its runtime I was bored. Peter Weir's "Gallipoli", starring a very young Mel Gibson, is much better option for an iconic image of Aussie WWI heroism, if ever there was one. At the end, Russell Crowe is much better actor than he is director. Disappointed so much, I even disliked the font used for the titles.

Rating: 6-/5+ Just 'cos of nice scenography

One does not have to be Turkish or an ANZAC descendant to be interested and touched by this film.. doesn't need to be necessarily interested in history, either. The Water Diviner offers something for everyone who carries a heart and soul. It offers a beautiful yet heart-wrenching journey to all those that love the art of cinema.

If I were asked "what is this movie about?" I'd say it's an epic tale of love and hope, a beautifully crafted story inspired by real life, and a breath-taking masterpiece that makes you forget where you are, or what time/day/year it is. It really is a captivating film. The story itself may sound rather simple to some, but in my opinion it's a spectacular mix of reality and art. Hats off to Andrew Anastasios and Andrew Knight for their great work, the Water Diviner tells a magical tale and reminds us what wars do to people, to families.. and to our humanity. I cannot imagine anyone who won't be touched by this film, touched very deep inside, that is. Whoever that ever loved somebody or lost a beloved one –sibling, parent, child, significant other, or friend, you name it– may have their heart shattered during certain scenes of the Water Diviner.

Apart from the story, the characters too felt so "real", and the cast performances were nothing short of what one would expect from such brilliant names. Russell Crowe, as always, seemed to "live" the role, not "just act" it.. and I'm so very glad that Cem Yilmaz has been in such a special project. In an attempt to keep my review as short as possible, and choosing to comment on acting after I see the movie more than once, I won't go into detail of each and every name. But.. I have to say that Ryan Corr's performance was outstanding! He and James Fraser certainly nailed it, causing a flood of tears among the audience –during a certain scene of this duo, I could hear sniffles and see shoulders shaking among the audience.. and I'm not exaggerating one bit. Speaking of the scenes that certainly leave a mark on the viewer, I'd like to say that certain scenes from the battle field were spectacular – both technically and artistically. The scenes are so "real" that they take you from your seat and put you on Lone Pine battlefield , feeling scared.. helpless.. angry.. and questioning what a war is.. and if it's even worth it. And then, there is a specific scene which reflect how a war can make people lose their humanity and surface the ferocity of human nature. As my favorite scene from the epic Noah, the creation scene, reminded us all: "Brother against brother. Nation against nation. Man against the creation. We murdered each other. We broke the world, we did this. Man did this."

The fascinating art is not limited to battle scenes, though. Andrew Lesnie simply works miracles, turning the movie into a feast for the eyes –from the dust storm in Australia to the breath-taking views of Istanbul, the Water Diviner presents top-quality cinematography *thumbs up* Before I wrap up my words on this beautiful piece of art, I'd like to mention two of the many special scenes which may well be extra-touching for the Turkish: i) The scene where Jemal (portrayed by Cem Yilmaz) raises a toast to Mustafa Kemal: During the screening at the Istanbul premiere, the audience responded to this by loud and clear applause, and it certainly will remain an unforgettable scene for many, many Turks. ii) Another special part of the movie that I really loved is the old Turkish folk song Jemal sings –an old song called "hey fifteen year olds", telling the story of 15 year old boys leaving home to join the battle of Gallipoli.

Taken together, the Water Diviner tells a tale of love mingled with adventure, delivers a sea of emotions from grief to hope, and works the magic of cinema, reaching the viewers' heart and mind in a way that crosses all barriers of language, different cultures, politics, and history.

PS: the Water Diviner was rewarded standing ovation, and I believe this was not only because it's a great movie, it was also a heart-felt "thank you" to the director for such an honest story which the Turkish audience isn't used to seeing in foreign films about Turkey and its history.

Kudos and hats off to Russell Crowe & the entire cast and crew. The Water Diviner (Turkish title: Son Umut, i.e. 'the Last Hope') is a spectacular movie, a must-see, a masterpiece.

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.

Russell Crowe has absolutely outdone himself with this film; it had me entranced from the start. Beautifully shot, amazing casting and the time and effort put into the making of this film really shone through. I feel the costumers deserve an Oscar nomination for this one - everything was spot on which for a period drama is almost impossible:) Flawless casting and great character development leads the viewer through the story; this film will bring out emotions and provoke thought. I loved the perspective of the film; it is an exceptional sensitive retelling of an historical story from both perspectives and I think this is one of the absolute highlights of this film.

See it - you won't be disappointed!Take the tissues though...

'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.

Good British, good Australians, good Turks and bad Greeks in a simple minded approach of the really turbulent and complicated post WWI period in Asia Minor. War is a crime committed by the ruling classes of societies so they can pursue their own interests sacrificing their own people.

The movie has all the ingredients needed to become a good movie about how people independent of their nationalities can keep their humanity even in brutal periods (like a war) forgive, respect and help each other. But since it chooses to depict only one of the nations involved in this war (the Greeks) as the bad guys it looses completely its point.

And no this didn't bother me as you may think , because I am Greek. I like Turkish people and I see them as a brother nation and it's true that in this specific period they did a defensive war against an encouraged by UK and France Greek imperialism. So I would do the same criticism if any other people was depicted negatively.