11 settembre 1683

F. Murray Abraham does a great job portraying Marco D'Aviano. His first speech in the movie is magnificent. But also does a great job throughout the movie depicting the faith of a priest in world changing times. Although a Catholic priest, the faith presented is quite ecumenical. This is less an historical drama and more of a reflection on the impact of one man's faith on an event of major impact in history. The only weakness of the film is the low budget CG during the battle scenes, which probably could have been reduced anyway, for the strength of the movie lies in the dialogue and quality acting. Although I am not an historian, I think the ideological representations are quite accurate as well as the challenges and conflicts the leaders faced making decisions to deal with the impending threats of invasion. Truly worth the time to watch and quite memorable.

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.

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.

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.