mojoguzzi-879-68498 For years the Hollywood studios had a rep for creating dumbed down "Hollywood" versions of reality. Now we know they aren't alone in failing to honor some of the greatest, most dramatic slices of history by jazzing them up with unnecessarily hokey dressing.The Siege of Vienna in 1683 was a tale that begged to be told - and told properly. The true protagonist was King Jan Sobieski, and although he is given the credit he is due in this misfired epic, he is sadly given short shrift in screen time, appearing in a scant fraction of the film's running time. In his place the writers (no doubt to please the Italian market and anti-Islamic backers) injected the superfluous (and possibly completely fictitious?) character of a saintly monk, whose sole purpose seems to be a cheerleader for the heavily Christian anti-Islamic propagandist tone of the movie.The connection to 9/11 is an obvious draw, although in reality although the Turkish siege began its climax on that date, the dramatic ending happened on the 12th when the Polish Hussars led their suicidal charge that freaked out the Turks and broke their resolve for the siege.To accommodate the overly long and somewhat messy story of the monk (and other minor characters in his entourage) the filmmakers discarded a majorly important component of the true story - Sobieski's long journey to the battlefield, gathering troops along the way. It would have been more sensible and more exciting to show his race against time in counterpoint to the Turkish march to Vienna. And while the colorful Hussars are the heroes of the movie, the director showed no imagination in depicting their arrival and their historical charge. There is no wind whistling through their feathered back-braces which freaked out the enemy horses and put their cavalry in disarray... no thundering horse hooves or rows of long lowered lances crashing into the enemy lines. And their surprising arrival is blown by Sobieski's appearance at court (so the Italian monk can put his two cents in). It would have been much more dramatic to have the Hussars show up along a ridgeline unannounced, starting with a tracking shot of their feathers rising into view.That said, because the production of this misfired movie now makes it unlikely that a proper homage will be filmed, it is worth checking this one out for what it's worth. There are some good battle scenes to balance out the cheesier story points and occasional over-the-top acting. The special EFX are not as bad as some have complained about, and the CGI is not as bad as some I've seen in much more expensive Hollywood films. With young people distracted by so much ephemeral crap these days, filmmakers should take the lead when it comes to history and do it right. There is so much incredible drama just waiting to be revealed, and it just might inspire more interest in learning.

Armand 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 .

dahlswede The Day of the Siege (2012)recites efforts by the Ottoman Empire to invade what is now Austria in an effort to eventually capture Rome and place a mosque in the Vatican. The film was produced by an alliance of Polish and Italian companies; it offers a historically mainly accurate account (with dramatic elaboration in terms of individual subplots and characterization) of events. The film does not rise to the expectations of some modern viewers in terms of special effects perhaps, yet it more than makes up for low budget technical flaws in a stunning visual panoply of the opposing forces in the battle and in the excellent script. It is not a film that I would recommend showing children because, as an account of a sometimes brutal military campaign, it does contain a lot of graphic violence.The plot centers around St. Marco d'Aviano, a humble monk from the outskirts of Venice, who largely focused the attention of some impacted European rulers on the threat to the Papacy posed by the expansionist ambitions of the Turkish ruler. His warnings that the way of life and the traditions promulgated by the Catholic Church would be endangered were not taken seriously by most members of the Austrian ruling family until a large invading army was literally within sight of Vienna.Marco d'Aviano had a reputation in Europe at the time as a great healer; he was later canonized based partly on accounts that he had performed miraculous cures. Through the monk's personal influence, the military leaders defending Vienna reluctantly allowed the Polish King Jan Sobieski to spearhead the defense of Vienna against the vastly larger, well trained Ottoman army. Brilliantly depicted by F. Murray Abraham, Marco d'Aviano contends with many challenges, including his sorrow that the defense of the Church in this instance would involve warfare and the loss of life. He represents a tortured protagonist, a Christian confronting harsh temporal realities.The merit of the film in my view rests also in the fact that the protagonist, courageous and charismatic Kara Mustapha, the Turkish Grand Vizier, emerges as a strongly defined, very human historical figure. His character is not two dimensional, but highly complex in this intriguing historical drama. Despite his deep love for his favorite wife, and their son, he undertakes an ambitious campaign, quite literally risking his career, his wealth and his life on his belief that he will prevail in seizing Rome by capturing Vienna, "the Golden Apple" of Europe. Enrico Lo Salvo portrays him with great talent. The historical outcome of the siege is accurately reported. The film could be seen as a study of conflicting world views and value systems. It is definitely worth watching, although the material is unsettling and at many places is clashes with modern perspectives and ideals.

matteo-cortigiani-1 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