The Day of the Siege: September Eleven 1683 (2012) User Reviews

Belittles History and Epic Genre

[marcin_kukuczka · 3/10 · 28 October 2012]

The title of the film, THE BATTLE OF VIENNA, rightly leads viewers to an assumption that they are going to see an epic production dealing with an important moment in the European history - the 1680s and the siege of Vienna. Undeniably, 1683 saw the turning point for the western world and its identity. Deserveably, the tribute in the form of the newest motion picture depicting this historic battle is a desirable achievement. For years, many history film buffs looked forward to its screen adaptation. Although there have been certain plans, they somehow did not materialize for several reasons. And here it is at last, a film directed by Renzo Martinelli starring some great international and Polish cast. With this challenging project, however, they should have kept in mind one thing: as our experience with the genre gets richer, our expectations naturally grow higher. What expectations?

Some await a spectacle, some look forward to historical accuracy, some preferably cherish the fictitious plots and characters creatively inserted into the historic moments. Unfortunately, Martinelli's movie does not meet any of these expectations and, sadly, disappoints a variety of viewers at multiple levels.

Amidst the storm of criticism among movie scholars, viewers can do their best to put up with innumerable flaws and try to find some positive aspects about a production. Nevertheless, it appears almost impossible in this case. If there is something positive or at least occurs to be promising, sooner or later, there turns up something that almost disqualifies the movie's producers, director and crew. The theme is serious but the backbone is a pure soap opera, cheap entertainment that leaves even a contemporary movie buff disappointed - not to mention learned historians. Let me consider some aspects more briefly.

JAN SOBIESKI and MARCO D'AVIANO: The two iconic figures of the historical moment, the religious and the military leader, are unforgivably diminished/distorted under Martinelli's direction. While Sobieski (Jerzy Skolimowski) is an almost background character diminished to some two or three scenes (no viewer, particularly the one who is not very acknowledged of history, can ever see the Polish king as the crucial victor of the battle), Marco d'Aviano is an almost fairy tale-like miracle worker.

SOBIESKI: Where is his charisma? Where is his military genius? Where is his detailed written correspondence with Pope Innocent XI? Where are his historic words he wrote to the pope after the battle paraphrasing Julius Caesar "Venimus, vidimus, Deus vicit" What do we get of Skolimowski's portrayal of the king? Just an episodic, supporting monarch...

MARCO D'AVIANO seems to be the protagonist of the film. He indeed has far more time on the screen. Played by wonderful F Murray Abraham, we have a clearer picture of the character. But the problem is what this picture has to do with the historical Marco d'Aviano or Carlo Dominico Cristofori... The terribly flawed and ridiculous (at moments) script did not allow even such a good actor as Murray Abraham to deliver something really powerful. The flashback to the youth itself with the alleged meeting with Kara Mustafa (when both were boys) is something that has no logical bases. It seems there is much of a miraculous or rather magical existence in his life. However, the director, for a number of reasons some intentional and some coincidental, ignored the jeopardy of a serious border that exists within depiction of the supernatural: border between a mystique experience and a mere laughable product of fantasy. Just to mention the sequence with the wolf (the priest's ancestor). What purpose does it serve?

OTHER HISTORICAL FIGURES: It would be unjust to start with yet another European. The winners take it all, true, and it has been so throughout centuries but let me highlight Kara Mustafa here played by just adequate Enrico LoVerso. As a matter of fact, there is nothing extraordinary about the portrayal of this key character so eager to spread the Ottoman Empire westwards. At the beginning, through some cheap computerized effects, we may get an idea of what he is like, the general impression might be quite impressive but in the second half of the movie, the character goes totally pale. The person who deserves credit is Piotr Adamczyk as Leopold I, the emperor of Austria. His performance, at least, leaves a certain idea of a ruler quite incapable of gathering the army but proud enough to refuse asking for help. Historically, this portrayal takes innumerable liberties again but at least, it is Adamczyk's interesting performance that viewers may enjoy (from the artistic point of view, I mean). The rest of the performances are worth soap opera. Sorry to say that but I think that I am not the only viewer who has that impression.

And the BATTLE itself? That would be the major point of criticism. It is diminished, belittled and cannot captivate a viewer whatsoever. This point, of course, refers to modern cinematic possibilities which allow for something truly spectacular. The reconstruction of the Vienna of the time (referred to as "Golden Apple" and the second, after Rome, greatest city of the continental Europe of the time) at the siege resorts merely to computerized packed images of some church towers (the ones of Minoritenkirche, Michaelerkirche and the copula of Karlskirche) and some almost laughable images of buildings. And what does the priest Marco D'Aviano do whilst the battle? He stands on a hill, shouts at the enemy in a Moses-like position and carries...something that thoroughly disqualifies even the soap epic...a bent, post-modern cross designed by Lello Scorzelli (so called 'Scorzelli staff) and carried by some recent popes, particularly John Paul II. Yes, Marco d'Aviano is supposed to be John Paul II for a moment... Great idea, isn't it?

A few years will pass and no one will be able to rescue such movies from oblivion...there is a danger that history and epic genre will also be belittled through such crap productions. A remake highly recommended.

Make your own decision

[AttyTude0 · 5/10 · 2 September 2018]

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.

Oops! they got the wrong staff...

[psainc · 4/10 · 11 February 2013]

Not a complete review, although I think the film was modestly entertaining, it's hard to do a sweeping epic style film on a very modest budget of only $12 MM.

So, my offering is a bit of trivia, an "oops" in the film. About 2/3 through or thereabouts, we see F. Murray Abraham carrying/holding a papal-like silver staff. It has a slightly down-turned cross, with a crucifix of a very thin and stretched out Jesus attached.

The problem, although a beautiful and imaginative design, is that that particular staff was designed by Lello Scorzelli, from Naples Italy, in 1965—just about 300 years later than the time of the historical period!

The Scorzelli Staff has been carried by the last 3 Popes, among other ferula, not counting the other staffs. I just think they chose it for the beauty, but I recognized it immediately, did any of you?

Virtually all the critic on the history y a handful of Turkish reviewers here is wrong

[random-70778 · 7 July 2019]

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.

Such a waste of possibilities

[lidkajch · 2/10 · 12 November 2012]

I have to agree with the previous reviews - there is almost nothing good you can say about this film...

My expectations were high - it's such a filmy topic... A great battle with the most powerful heavy cavalry in the military history of the world (the Polish heavy cavalry known as "husaria"), interesting characters of king Sobieski and Marco D'Aviano, not to mention Leopold I, and... nothing, zero emotions, no involvement in the movie whatsoever... Such a disappointment...

The only two positive things I can say about this film are: 1) a very comic portrayal of Leopold I by Adamczyk (just one look at him and I was dying with laughter - though I don't think that was the intention of the director) and 2) a very short scene in which Polish troops were shown mounting the Kahlenberg Hill - it perfectly picturized the arduous job it was to get to the top of the hill with the horses, in full armor, with cannons heavy as hell... But then that's it... The cavalry charge, which should have been the epitome of the battle, which should have shown how murderous those "husaria" charges were, was limited to a narrow frame of a few horsemen trotting their way down the hill in slow-motion almost... Watching them makes you start wondering why the whole of Europe had been so scared to death of those "winged" Polish knights for over two hundred years...

On the whole - if you look for great battles in a movie, go and see the Rohan riders' charges in The Lord of the Rings movies, if you look for great acting, choose any of the classics - but stay away from this horrible misunderstanding of a film.

One of the worst experiences of my life.

[friq18 · 1/10 · 16 October 2012]

I just had to create an account to write this review and warn people. Under any circumstances do not go and watch that film.

The first thing that really hits you is the CGI. It's like it's taken out of a poorly designed computer game from the 1995.

The sound was so horrible especially when suddenly the speaking character is sort of behind you and you can see who's he speaking to... and when I say behind you I mean you feel like there's a huge pumped-up guy breathing down your neck... dreadful!

Music? What music? The music is supposed to help set the mood... well this film's music took the mood and wiped its behind with it. It's really closer to jingles you hear in some ads on the TV.

Dialogs? Action? Any drama? Nope. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. It was one of the worst films I've ever seen and the first one that made me leave the cinema. Ever.

Thank you, good night.

Great Casting, Poor Results

[denis888 · 2/10 · 13 April 2013]

Oh, what can I really say here? I love the history of great battles and the Polish events of the 17th century, Jan Sobieski was a distinguished king and a great warrior, and the very topic of Kara Mustapha and the peak of Ottoman Empire's power in Europe all seem to be very exiting topics to make a great film about. Did the filmmakers succeed? No. Why? First, and foremost, extremely poor special effects. They are so naive, amateurish and so obviously bad, that even a mere kid can immediately say that this is drawn, this is computerized and this was very sloppily assembled on a very simply software. Shame. The worst moment? he very battle, of course. My, it is so caricature, so unassumingly badly done, so fast and hasted, that one can marvel with a mouth open. Terribly poor effects and very laughable attacks recall all the great previous Polish movies on war, but here the battle simply sinks. Even the great casting cannot help. All the stars seem to be a bit lost and absent, with only two great exceptions - Adamczyk and Abraham - they did a marvelous job. But they did not save the poor film from a fail. Immense failure.

A historical travesty

[X-pat · 2/10 · 25 March 2013]

This movie is disappointing on so many levels, I don't know where to start.. The dialogue is cringe inducing. Characters are one dimensional. Historical accuracy is shaky, even on the simplest-to-get-right-thanks- to-google things like the Polish flag of the time or basic Ottoman court etiquette (you NEVER turn your back on the Sultan).. The battle scenes (this is, after all, a movie about a battle) are so amateurish, the end result is that the victory looks unconvincing. Acting is touch-and-go, but with the script they had, I can't put much blame on the actors.

There is also a not so subtle marketing effort trying to ride on the coattails of post 9/11 emotions. These "triggers" are carefully planted throughout the movie, no doubt with a calculation for profit: The too obvious title (September Eleven 1683 - but history books agree that the battle was decided on September 12th!), the Ottomans being called "Muslims" at every opportunity, the "defend your Christian faith" and "churches will become mosques" one-liners, the subplot about the irrational Turkish guy (with a uniquely Arabic name, of course) who betrays his old Christian friends for the sake of "jihad", Istanbul depicted as an Arab style oasis full of date palms, Karamustafa wearing his turban the Baudouin way, etc. etc.

SPOILER One last beef: Toward the end, a lone Ottoman rider who the Poles believe to be Karamustafa himself is shown charging against the Polish hussars. Instead of sending out a knight to fight him or better yet, capture him alive, the Polish commanders including King Sobieski just shoot the guy dead with their pistols. This Indiana Jones style defense makes a travesty of the chivalric customs of the period and I found it offensive to Sobieski's memory, let alone logic and history. END OF SPOILER

In conclusion this movie takes up a very interesting historical event and strangles it. It is so bad, it makes the Turkish-made 2012 movie "Conquest 1453" look like a classic in comparison! A missed opportunity.. I give it 2 stars instead of 1 for casting the ultra-charismatic Hal Yamanouchi as the Tatar commander.

Horrendous and inaccurate

[kuk-64298 · 1/10 · 8 September 2016]

I confess I could only stomach about 45 minutes of this swill. The makers of this movie started off with a fairly good idea, the historical account of arguably one of the three most important battles of in the development of Western Europe, along with The Battle of Tours on 10 October 732, and Constantine's victory at the Milvian Bridge on 28 October 312.

However, the film's producers allowed their idiotic biases & prejudices to get in the way of historical fact. The Italians making this movie, suffer from a bad case of Freudian transference. They insisted upon portraying the Austrian and Germans as cowardly, backstabbing and incompetent, you know, as if they were Borgias and Medicis. Further, as you will shortly see, the Holy Roman Emperor, Leopold I, had extensive experience at building alliances, particularly with Poland. He didn't need a Venetian monk to hold his hand.

Like any good Austrian, I am grateful for the brave assistance of the Poles, and hold in high regard the longstanding friendship between Poland and Austria. However, our Polish friends need to remember that the same Leopold I cemented this friendship with the Austrian intervention, on behalf of Poland, against the Swedish invasion in the Second Northern War of 1657. 12,000 Austrian soldiers (mind - not Italian, but Austrian) helped drive off the Swedes in that war.

In 1657, Brother Marco, the protagonist of this sad movie, was probably still popping pimples. Fifteen years later, in 1683, Leopold I was a savvy, experienced strategist who held off the French, and soundly thrashed the Ottomans. Yet he is portrayed as a vacillating dilettante. It is enough to make you reach for a barf bag.

What did you expect?

[matteo-cortigiani-1 · 7/10 · 26 January 2014]

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

Apparently there was no money

[DLochner · 5/10 · 22 May 2021]

When the siege finally starts after a good hour, you will be somewhat disappointed by the very modest and ineffective effects. The first waves of attacks also consisted of only a dozen horses in close-up. Apparently there was no money. Then everything was only moderately exciting, although I was looking forward to this historically interesting event because I hadn't known any film about it before.

Faith in times of adversity

[jamalking15 · 8/10 · 7 January 2019]

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.

Epic falls below norm

[CelluloidDog · 6/10 · 10 August 2014]

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.

Terrible movie

[kennethedelstein · 1/10 · 11 August 2014]

It takes a lot to ruin an historical battle epic for me, but these guys succeeded.

The director and writer obviously had an simplistic agenda: To show a victory of Christendom over Islam -- and to milk the coincidental historical date the Battle of Vienna (Sept. 11) for all it's worth. The jingoism is annoying enough. But the screenplay and the execution of the battle scenes also turns what should be an historically fascinating and action-packed story into a horrid trudge through the mud.

Why F. Murray Abraham would lend his considerable talents to such a mess is the only thing about the movie that could hold this viewer's interest.

An Excellent Historical Drama

[dahlswede · 26 August 2014]

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.

Horrific in all means

[kt88-922-394499 · 1/10 · 28 August 2016]

I was amazed to see reviews with top ratings. This movie will be watched by someone who likes history and knows something about the Battle(s) of Vienna and etc. Well, let's start: - it is insanely inaccurate when we speak of uniforms, only the Austrian musketeers and the Janissaries had proper uniforms but the second were armed with sabres only... - but the previous was nothing - it is insanely inaccurate when it comes to the real events. Indeed, it has little to do with them, even Hollywood would make it more accurate. - the whole plot is based around a monk and the main event - the battle - goes like they didn't want to do it at all but decided the movie was too short and went on adding it - the battle is inaccurate, not even close to what actually happened (besides the breach of the wall but it was not caused by a mine) - 95% computer explosions that were made on the first generation Celeron, as it seems. Not ugly, but dreadfully bad. Muskets were even worse. - sound from guns and muskets was probably generated by firing an AK-47 and then multiplying it - the movie is groundbreaking in revealing that Austrians actually invented the first recoilles gun with the exception of the Polish artillery which had recoil absorber - no one had a pistol in the whole movie - Austrians had a total of 18 men infantry and some cavalry which run away - how did the monk and Reiter escort get into the city when it was besieged - battle was hilarious

I think this movie deserves -6 but can't select it so gave it 1.

My goodness! What did I just watch?

[artyom_aa · 1/10 · 25 July 2013]

This is the absolute worst historical movie in the history of movies that I have ever seen! It is a tragedy for every historian on earth! It is an evil depiction of Islam and Turks. Showing Europeans to be so civilized and nice while Turks and Muslims to be blood thirsty beasts who have no goal but to kill and destroy! 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. Kara Mustafa prostrated in front of the Sultan and a weird fortune teller in the mosque. Second, fortune tellers are prohibited in Islam. So not only he prostrated to people, he talked to a fortune teller in the middle of the mosque!!! The third, is the false history of the necklace that Marco gave Kara. That never happened! Every single scene in this movie from the Italian ruler to the Polish and Turk is the worst most evil depiction possible.

Who is Ab'ul ?

[aksarayonur-938-509794 · 1/10 · 2 March 2014]

I had seen the trailer for the 2012 Turkish movie 1453 Fetih(Conquest) already,and after seeing it I did not even find it worthy of seeing.But after having heard of the title of this one,I was curious to see it.What I just started to see from the very beginning of the movie though,were the same things I did on that trailer of the Turkish production,amateurish computerized animations thrown in here and there,so apparently visible to the eye that they start being annoying after a while.I was patient however,to get into the developing stages of the plot where the real action was going to happen.All my waits in vain. There are already comments here that mentioned it,so I don't want to repeat the same points over and over but I completely agree with the poor delivery of acting here.Even Murray Abraham,who will always stay in my memory with his unforgettable moments casting for Cuban gangster Omar Suarez in Scarface could not save himself in this misery.(Well,given the horrible plot,there wasn't much he could do) First of all,I won't agree with those who say that not all the things have to be historically accurate as they should have been,if you claim a title depicting an historic event(and as important as this one) I am sorry but there can't be any excuses.Yes there might be of course deviations from the accuracy of the real events at some point,but the plot here so much falls apart that there is not much left throughout the whole picture that actually gives a single idea to spectators what the movie is all about. The characters though are somewhat real except ermm...Abul ? A completely fictitious character,a close friend of Marco D'Aviano and a lover of a young deaf woman,and along with Marco and Kara Mustafa Pasha of Merzifon(yeah this is a Pasha that we are talking about,the Ottoman Grand Vizier) their lives all at some point come across with another ridiculous series of coincidences just made up in this movie.The 11 September message of course is subliminally given to the spectator trying to set the connection with the events of 2001,like it has anything to do with it,blatantly making fun of his/her lack of knowledge on the historical events because the Siege started on 14th July and ended on 12th September. The fictitious Abul's one absurd line while speaking with her lover:''We are Muslims,we are not Westerners,we can't listen to our heart and faith at the same time'' and those lines at the imaginary meeting between Marco and Kara Mustafa,were so out of context and nauseous that a spectator here would completely lose the point of what's going on.I just don't understand that even in 2010s,so pointless and ridiculous vilifying images of another faith,another religious group can be so impudently delivered in cinema.On the final scene where Kara Mustafa is strangled to death for his failure in Belgrade and the executors having his son to watch his execution(the latter I think also never happened) I called it quits but it was already the end of the movie.Is that the expression a kid of his age shows when watching his own father killed for God's sake ? No emotion,no grieving or suffering,shaking,nothing ! Are you kidding me ?

If you are interested in the Ottoman conflicts in East and Central Europe of those times,I advise you to find the 1989 Serbian movie Battle of Kosovo and Romanian productions Vlad The Impaler(1979) and Michael The Brave(1971) with English subtitles if you can.Those too at times deviate from the historical script,but they are way way better in characterizing the incidents and keep you in the main story.At least they do not demean their titles unlike this movie.

The Bias Ruined This

[Theo Robertson · 3/10 · 22 April 2015]

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

false events to change the history

[belenkasbelenkas · 1/10 · 8 August 2017]

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

A decent film despite being understandably (but unfairly) disliked in modern times

[borismk-38942 · 7/10 · 29 January 2021]

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

The worst propaganda since the times of the Soviet Union

[rklopotowski-57878 · 1/10 · 16 April 2019]

Besides awful special effects resembling 1990's video games, and historical mistakes (even according to Polish version of Wikipedia the battle was caught on September 12, not 11th) the movie is a cesspool of anti-Islamic propaganda. Scene after scene, line after line it pukes anti Muslim texts. It also draws a parallel between the XVII century expansion of the Ottoman Empire in Europe and the influx of immigrants from mostly Muslim countries in recent years. Save yourself two hours of your life and watch reruns of Bewitched. It is loads more intelligent and artistically sophisticated.

Great Film about a Great Battle (minor spoilers?)

[setnaffa-412-51023 · 10/10 · 6 June 2014]

As Vienna never fell, there should be no spoilers possible; but it does contain drama so I'll skip that.

As usual, the the Ottomans want to roll up Europe like they did the formerly Christian nations of the Middle East and North Africa. Only Vienna stands in their path. They bring a huge army. Their siege is working to perfection. And yet, they fail.

How? It's great to watch the movie. You might even see things that remind you of Lord of the Rings (Large army out of the East, city without a strong enough defense to survive alone, weak, decadent leaders who can't agree about what to have for lunch, and a few surprises.

This is worth watching (I saw it on cable in Korea) and buying. But only if you like movies where the good guys win.

This is not movie about polish king Sobieski and his great victory!

[gpbach · 7/10 · 23 May 2014]

This movie show mostly charismatic Marco d'Aviano and his role during siege of Vienna and the IMDb storyline didn't talk about this movie and you need put "September Eleven 1683" to the box with all Italian catholic films. Remember you can't confront it with high budget Hollywood productions. As catholics low budget movie for catholics audience is good. Also if you know history of Poland and expect historical film about the siege of Vienna REMEMBER this is NOT a film about the great victory of Sobieski, the Polish cavalry, or about the political intrigues of European sovereigns in the 17th century.

From other hand matteo-cortigiani-1 are totally right about this movie. Now if any movie has positive view of Christians(especially Catholic) must be bed. Sad but true :-(

Some good acting in a generally poor vehicle

[georgekwatson · 4/10 · 25 June 2019]

The best part of this 'noble Catholic' hagiography is the acting of F Murray Abraham. The worst is the rest of it. The CGI is uniformly terrible (to see a proper battle ca this era 'Ran' is much better). The story has also been perverted from accepted history a good deal. The profound viewpoint bias is readily apparent. Though the Turkish motivations and the fact that most of the conflicts with the Ottomans until the 19th century were framed as religious conflicts by their leaders, this film degenerates into pure Catholic propaganda at times. It's too bad. Witnessing the apex of Ottoman civilization throwing itself repeatedly against European civilization would make a compelling film. This is not it.