Day of the Siege (2012)

This film was cheap try to change the history,it is sad how such people like Renzo Martinelli could live with such lies,i ask every one to read the history to see by his own eyes how the facts was changed and many true events was hidden,the only true thing in the film is the fail attempt to occupies Viena but the whole thing around this movie was clear lie, i believe strongly it is cheap crusade attempt to attract people and show different massages to the Christian audience about Christianity after the church lost its supporters and recourses,honestly it is crap low and cheap lies,before saying any thing read the history from neutral western recourse's to see how Renzo Martinelli this radical crusade tryed to fake the history,specially about the women prostitutes and the death of the Turkish leader and why or how they lost this battle,without the betraying(when smaller leader in the Turkish army allowed the polish army to pass through the bridge behind the Turkish army without stopping them) the ottoman army wouldn't lost this battle Pro Rayan

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.

1683 and an Islamic force of three hundred thousand Turks lay siege to Vienna and the fate of Europe lies in the hands of Capuchin friar called Marco d'Aviano and a Polish knight called Jan Sobieski In a mood for a historical epic I watched DAY OF THE SIEGE with some apprehension . It's got lukewarm feedback on this site and not long in to the film I can see where the complaints are coming from . It has a good cast and costume and production design are impressive but it's impossible not to notice the musical score is awful . It's intrusive and used badly and by trying to create mood it effectively destroys every scene when it is heard . Noticing music when it's good really enhances a scene and much of my enjoyment of the trashy thriller GONE GIRL was simply down to the Reznor / Ross soundtrack and is one of my favourite scores of recent cinema . DAY OF THE SIEGE must just be my least favourite one As the story continues there's another element that is a spanner in the works - bias . This is a heavily religious film and in the opening scene we see a supposed miracle . Obviously this miracle happens on the Christian side with Marco present . He's a pious man don't you know and the more pious someone is due to their service to God the better they are . Marco is good and King Louis the king of France is a philistine who wants to stab the Holy Roman Empire in the back . It's the bias against the Islamic Turks that does jar . I did think Kara Mustafa Pasha might be painted in a neutral light but as the story continues it's obvious this film might be having an agenda that there was no difference between the Muslims seen here and hardcore violent terrorists and mass murderers seen today in Iraq and Syria . Words like "Jihad" and "Infidel" are thrown about with gat abandon and the Muslims are not to be trusted . One reason the religion of Islam was so popular in those times was because in the zeitgeist of those days was it was relatively liberal . Now it wasn't liberal as we understand the word in the 21st Century but an enemy of Islam was offered the choice of either dying or converting where the defeated enemy would be allowed to keep his land and property which in the spirit of the time was quite a good deal . You wouldn't really know that from watching this and every opportunity to equate 17th Century Islam with the present day ISIS and Taliban where women are kept as sex slaves gets wheeled out at several points . Even the film's other title ELEVEN September 1683 has an unhidden agenda of sorts . I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a racist film but it is one that is heavily biased which works against it . I'm an anti-theist with a Greek name and even I thought the portrayal of Muslim Turks was ugly

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