If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

The acting in this movie is really good.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

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.

This is a story about some episode British-Turk campaign in Palestine in 1917. Very important role in this campaign was played by Australian forces. The key to conquer the Holy Land is city of Gaza. British general wants however to throw his forces to bypass the city and capture another one - Beersheba. To take them both it is necessary to keep his plan secret.As a person who is interested in all WWI history I was waiting for this movie. I find it very good. All equipment seems to be very accurate, however, I've never heard about use of tanks in this front. There is a nice scene of air attack by German biplane, cars from that times, uniforms, and so on -- it all seems to be historical correct. The final charge is worth waiting for. I think that anyone who is interested in this campaign would be satisfied.Because of Australian point of view the role of British army seems to be a little underrated. I especially mean British commander -- general Allenby. I think it would be good to say at the very end that after capturing Beersheba, Gaza fell as well a week later, and the road to Jerusalem was opened. This was what was lacking for me.

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

Despite the ubiquitous appearance by Sigrid Thorton, and my having to eat crow over my previous comments on Anthony Andrew's acting ability (no scenery chewing or hamming it up here), I very much enjoyed this outstanding Aussie film.Simon Wincer has directed a wide variety of films, some bad (like the Cheryl Ladd waste of celluloid "Bluegrass" and the turkey "Pharlap") and some very good (like the intense "Harlequin" and the great A&E mini "PT Barnum"). I find this one to be particularly special due to it containing one of the best war sequences on film.Wincer and his crew have excellently interwoven a beautifully done drama with incredible special effects. The battle sequence at the end if the film is so powerful that even seen on video on an average size home TV it is astounding. Not only is the Lighthorsemen's assault wonderfully choreographed, but the reaction shots of the cast are well performed. You can see the private struggles going on in the face of the big one.This is not a movie for the faint of heart nor should it be dismissed as just another war movie by those a little leery of the genre.