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.

kuk-64298 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.

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

pbsoko-56481 Good storyline and a historical representation of events that shaped Europe. Most of the actors are excellent in their acting. However, the CGI effects are not on par with a multi-million dollar flick. You need to remember, this was a very low budget movie that actually engages you with a proper story. This movie, for acting and storyline alone, deserves at minimum a 6 rating. It should be seen to allow all to understand the mindset of what the middle east has in store for the rest of the current world. Centuries ago Poland stood up, will it take invasion to open the eyes to the rest of the world? "Misunderstanding of the present grows fatally from the ignorance of the past." Marc Bloch