11 settembre 1683

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

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 .

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

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.