11 settembre 1683

Not a complete review, although I think the film was modestly entertaining, it's hard to do a sweeping epic style film on a very modest budget of only $12 MM.

So, my offering is a bit of trivia, an "oops" in the film. About 2/3 through or thereabouts, we see F. Murray Abraham carrying/holding a papal-like silver staff. It has a slightly down-turned cross, with a crucifix of a very thin and stretched out Jesus attached.

The problem, although a beautiful and imaginative design, is that that particular staff was designed by Lello Scorzelli, from Naples Italy, in 1965—just about 300 years later than the time of the historical period!

The Scorzelli Staff has been carried by the last 3 Popes, among other ferula, not counting the other staffs. I just think they chose it for the beauty, but I recognized it immediately, did any of you?

I know, the movie is bad. All the critics hit the nail. But...This movie is, how do they call them? Indie. this movie is the real "V for Vendetta". This movie did not receive any funding from the state, from the EU, from anyone, because it is not politically correct. It has no lesbian scenes, no incest, no sex among clergypersons, and tackles a topic too many European politicians would better seen buried under the thickest and farthest away carpet.

After "masterpieces" of the like of "Kingdom of Heaven", or that Turkish movie on the siege of Constantinopolis (at least, righteously bashed by everyone), this movie was at least something to root for.

I am still waiting for a decent movie on the siege of Malta, but I know I'll die without seeing it - so be it, one can't have everything in this life.

Why 7 out of 10? That's why: I sympathize with all the Polish reviewers who killed this movie. You deserved a lot, but an awful lot, better. But really, at least this movie's heart is on the right side, and I am giving my 7 to its heart.

Ciao

Well, I see that posters either loved this film, or hated it.

It is more than obvious that those who hated it did so for political reasons. Pick any reason. The uniforms are not accurate. The history is all wrong (yeah, everybody is a history professor). It's racist (but you expected that would pop up, didn't you). It's only for Catholics (well, finally something for Catholics). The acting is bad (I've seen worse).

Someone complained that F. Murray Abraham spends the whole film screaming. Er, no. Only in two scenes. In one he was addressing an entire army. And in another he was trying to make himself heard over the thunder of battle. May I politely remind our distinguished critic that there were no microphones in those days?

It also looks like that the mention of the date of the event - Sept 11 - went down some tender throats like battery acid. Yeah, those historical coincidences are a (bleep). Haters of this film also wasted no time pointing out that critics panned the film (and we know that critics are infallible). Well, consider it from their perspective. These exalted critics must have remembered what happens when a certain religion is mentioned in an unfavorable light (Charlie Hebdo, anyone?). So maybe the critics panned the film more out of prudence than displeasure.

Is the film perfect? No. Is is 100% accurate? I NEVER saw a 'historical' film that got the historical facts 100% right. And I've been around a good bit. But I enjoyed Day of the Siege.

IAC, watch the film and make your own decision. A quaint concept, I know. But some of us still believe stick to it.

not about politic or military victory but about force of faith. not about Vienna but about the Church. a film like a honest confession. not great, not impressive, not original. only a story about few people, a danger and the only solution for resist against it. result - not a bad movie but a different one. and it could be a surprise because not the low budget is its sin. the real cause - the chosen public. it is not a documentary and far to have the purpose to become a blockbuster. only to present a fruit of deep faith. that is all. so, it is not right to criticize it in serious manner. only see it without the ordinaries expectations for a historical film. and, maybe, it could represent an useful image about a fundamental episode from Europe past .

For example reviewer "awab_avril25" writes on July 2013 "Let me give you a few scenes as examples of terrible fictitious history of this film. First, you absolutely can not prostrate to any man or thing on earth except for God." Uhm the written documents on the Ottoman court by visiting Christians, visiting Arab and Iranian Muslims, and Ottoman Turks themselves describe exactly that: Visitors and Ottoman officials, right up to Ambassadors from Muslim and Christian countries, and ottoman subjects up the Ottoman grand Vizers themselves bowing, genuflection and prostrating themselves before the Sultan. It is a stone cold fact attested to in scores of written documents. This film has lots of imperfections, but the portrayal of the core issue is hardly so. The fact is the Ottoman Muslim brutal invasion and occupation of a large part of Christian Europe , virtually the entire Balkans, was genocidal, rapacious and pervasively violent as it had been when they invaded Anatolia itself.