Fetih 1453, if you do a search for it you'll end up with shirtless Ottomans, that in itself does not bode well for the movie.
But rather then then pick through the entire movie's accuracies, (Very Little) and inaccuracies, (Numerous) I'll focus on the portrayal of the Byzantines.
They are depicted as a rich and powerful nation. While that would normally fit the Byzantines, but in the years before the fall they were very poor and hanging on for dear life.
Constantine XI depiction as, shall we say, a pervert, is also a major inaccuracy.
But the main problem is with the siege itself. Rather then the accurate gigantic army bombing a city into submission, the Ottoman's are portrayed as a noble crusading army, knocking the Byzantine tyrants off of their marble thrones because Muhammad said it would be so.
During the siege scenes you see the Byzantines using flamethrowers. Once again, usually this would be accurate, but during the siege the Byzantines did not make any use of Greek Fire.
If you've watched the video, you saw the scene when they break through the walls, and then a large skirmish between Byzantine and Ottoman troops ensues. In reality, the Byzantines were in a tight shieldwall, blocking any Ottoman advancement, while allowing archers to mow down the Ottomans. Also, you'll see moderately armored Ottoman troops fighting in the breach. This is a MAJOR inaccuracy. The Ottoman's sent in their grunts and Christian recruits first to soften the defenders up for the Janissary forces. Another thing is the color's. Byzantines in black. Ottoman's in red. Now, in my research the Ottoman's color was mainly, (And fittingly) vomit green. As for the Byzantine colors; I ask you dear reader, how many images of completely Black armored Byzantines have you seen? Not many I guessing, Byzantine armor was usually multicolored, (Except for stealth related missions, but that's for another article.)
Giovanni Giustiniani is killed in single combat, rather then the historical wounded by a cannonball, (or a crossbow bolt,) escaping Constantinople, but eventually dieing of his wounds.
Constantine is given a decent burial, apparently the Ottomans in the movie did find his body.
And finally, they skip the Ottoman raiding and pillaging. And forget that Mehmed actually did little in actual fighting.
In the end, I agree with the Greek officials which called it a propaganda film.
What do you think?
Of course it's a ridiculous example of neo-Ottoman propaganda. Showing Turks as noble "liberators" of anything, but a better life under someone way better than them is a complete historical inaccuracy. Twisting history as they see fit is nothing new. Imagine Huns taking over Europe, but staying for some 400 years. That's what happened to the Balkans. Todays' situation is undeniable, but what's also undeniable is that Turks were the worst possible thing that could have happened to Asia Minor and Southeastern Europe. One of the most developed regions of the then-Europe moved some 400 years backward because of it. The consequences are still visible (the worst part of Europe, we have large Islamized populations in Bosnia and the so-called Kosovo and Albania). Turks are, unfortunately, making a comeback and this is all bad. A unique opportunity to drive them off once and for all was foolishly wasted in the Greco-Turkish War. History rarely gives you a second chance, let alone a third or a fourth one.
They gave Constantine a burial??? Ha! Constantine's face never even touched the ground!