This page contains responses to my original Usenet posting in 1985.
Click here to see responses to my Gallipoli from 1997 and later.Date: Thu, 29 Aug 85 02:40:43 edt From: Dave Forsey <ihnp4!watmath!watcgl!drforsey> To: ut-sally!kelvin Subject: Re: _Gallipoli_ (spoiler) Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Re: Gallipoli review. Brilliant. Some of your other satire has fallen flat, but the line "Ultimately Gallipoli represents only a monumental waste of human effort" is your best. (So don't reply saying you really mean all these things and spoil my enjoyment okay?) Dave Forsey
From rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) Wed Aug 28 13:46:28 1985 Subject: Re: _Gallipoli_ (spoiler) Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma. 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
From peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) Fri Aug 30 21:42:10 1985 Subject: Re: _Gallipoli_ (spoiler) Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX > _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?
From steve@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Steve Holtsberg) Mon Sep 2 02:29:50 1985 Subject: Re: Kelvin stinks!!!!!!!!!!! Organization: System Development Corp. R+D, Santa Monica PLEASE PLEASE stop complaining about/defending Kelvin. It's bad enough to have to hit the 'n' key for his reviews, without having to do it for his critics. Maybe create a new group- net.movies.kelvin :-)
Jump to: responses to Gallipoli web page in 1997 and later | review of Gallipoli | home page | contact info
(Updated September 30, 1998.)