11 settembre 1683

without special effects. without the ingredients of blockbuster. a film about hope and faith and an Europe front to a great danger more than a historical movie. because it is not exactly portrait of an episode from past but a remember. a film about change of a world. reflection about power and about ambition. maybe, the speeches of the characters are not always inspired. maybe, the siege from 1683 must have a most inspired adaptation. but it remains an useful film. as beginning search for the story of one of greatest events from the XVII century. for the discover the last centuries's source for Ottoman Empire. for admire the history not as a story but as a kind of mirror for present. because, the Vienna's siege , like many other great moments from the past, is not exactly one lesson. but a seed for our every day life.

Really I would give a 5.5 since the ratings are 3.4 which is lower than it should. It's clear people want gory battles but this historical drama lacks that. Like some, I just saw it on netflix and that's where it belongs, quite an average film. Most epics are good films and few go wrong but this one falls short.

Acting is average. F. Murray Abraham is overbearing as Marco D'Aviano. He just spends a bit too much time shouting. Did the real Marco D'Aviano shout? I doubt it since he was revered as a skill negotiator. Enrico Lo Verso plays Kara Mustafa which is fine since the real Mustafa was Albanian. A pleasant surprise appearance was Jerzy Skolimowski as Jan Sobieski, the King of Poland. He wrote the screenplay for Knife in the Water, a 1962 Polish gem by Roman Polanski. He also directed some unusual cult films like Moonlighting and Torrents of Spring. Personally I take a liking to his bizarre King, Queen, Knave and Adventures of Gerard (mostly due to Gina Lollobrigida and Claudia Cardinale). But yes, you get the point. Day of the Siege is an Italian-Polish production that falls into a sort of cult-like realm. A more religious cult-like realm.

So complaints by modern standards: No blood, special effects do look like a war video game at times, the sky never seems to be real, dialogue is stiff and formal, acting is over the top or stiff except a few moments where Lo Verso and Skoliminowski shine. Direction is very average, nothing special and predictable. The low ratings may be due to expectations that this would be a gory film about the battle. Battle choreography falls short by today's standards. Polish nationals might be disappointed that King Jan Sobieski's appearances are limited. People are not going to cheer for a monk unless it's Sean Connery in The Name of the Rose. Some of the low ratings may be due to turn- off with a religious tone. Some don't like the references to September 11 and the concept of defending the faith. So some complain about historical inaccuracy.

But actually, in researching this interesting siege of Vienna, the film could focus on King Jan Sobieski but Marco D'Aviano was a real key character. Perhaps he was made too zealous in the film with a weak script and direction - how could a monk win a battle? This part of the film was a bit fictional. But in reality Marco was a key diplomat who was a skilled negotiator in bringing the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire back together against the encroaching Ottomans. The real Marco had quite high standards and even several hundred captured Turks went to him to beg for mercy knowing his skills in helping others. But in terms of filmmaking, it's not that interesting and may involve deeper character development. Another person complained that Kara Mustafa prostrated before the Sultan and in Islam, one never prostrates unless before God. Actually that is incorrect, as it is traditional to prostrate before very high rank. And it is tradition that a failed Grand Vizier is executed by strangulation by a silk cloth. So some feel it makes the Ottomans look evil or inhuman. But on the other hand, the only family we see in the movie is Kara Mustafa's. Therefore he is a central figure who has a human touch.

It is an average film but below average for an epic. It lacks the excitement that a bloodier epic might have, such as Braveheart or the Last Samurai. But it is far more accurate than people suggest especially compared to most epics.

The strengths of the film was as some say, soundtrack was fairly strong, costume design was good. Just a bit too glorious and shallow. Like a nice piece of cake that looks good but a bit bland.

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.

Most of the flack for this film probably comes from the fact that it portrays Christians as the good guys. People love to talk about the Crusades and condemn Christian history whilst events like the expansionist attacks of the Ottoman Empire are largely ignored.

From an objective perspective the film could use some improvement, the CGI is fairly poor at points, some of the acting is over the top and I'm guessing the specific accuracy of events is probably questionable.

That being said, I do feel the film accurately conveys the spirit of the times and the attitudes of the people who lived them. Abraham deserves a lot of credit for his performance of a largely forgotten (but highly significant) figure of European history, Marco D'Aviano. Of course it's unpopular nowadays to remember people whose faith largely led to positive outcomes, not just in defeating the enemy but also showing them mercy and compassion in victory.

All in all, I wish there were more movies like 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 .