Sluga Gosudarev (2007) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Servant of Two Masters
mart-4515 March 2007
There are several aspects to this film which need to be viewed before the films itself is viewed. Otherwise you might not get what you are expecting, and might do a great deal of suffering. The film itself is structurally confusing, as if two different teams had been working on two different films, without being allowed to know what the other unit is doing. It takes off as a light hearted historical romance: you get the obligatory glitter of the Sun King's court, lovely and corrupt noblemen and -women, dispute at cards, a lady throwing in her valuable necklace, fake letters being fabricated by ill-wishing, jealous courtesans, gentlemen dueling and the King, desiring the lady in question for himself, reprimanding them by sending them as emissaries to two courts which are at war, i.e. most certainly to their death.

From that point on the other unit takes over: we get a brutal, realistic battle picture with nothing much more than the combat and brutality of early XVIII century warfare. Then, occasionally, the "romance"-team steps in, introducing the rather lame remnants of the romantic involvement left back in France, as the heroine decides to embark on the perilous journey to be re-united with her lover (actually, as far as we know, they only had some casual sex one night during which the chevalier didn't even remove his wig).

Overall, the picture suffers from this structural inhomogeneity. I saw ladies who had been lured to see the film as a historical romance, get up and walk as it became clear that the romantic part is superficial and lame and the military part is bloody and unromantic. Even though there's a lot of glamour, the scenes depend too heavily upon familiar clichés which were introduced by Hollywood about two generations ago.

The battle scenes are extremely well done. The recreation of brutally ineffective, senselessly life-squandering warfare is absolutely top notch. If you are interested in war films, this is as good as it gets. As it is very realistic, don't expect much pathos or heroic fun: it's dirty and stupid as any war is. You get beautiful women raped, shot and hanged, and hundreds of handsome youth being turned into cannon fodder. The positive - and surprising - thing is, that even though it's a Russian film, the Russians aren't necessarily the heroes. They have wronged the Poles, so these fraternize with the Swedes, who in turn afflict misery upon Ukrainians and others who are supposed to be the enemies. Czar Peter the Great is a universal Russian hero, and to see him sending a girl to the gallows (a girl, whose whole family has been butchered by the Russians and who only has lived for rightful revenge) is something that has never before been done in Russian cinema.

Also rather unique is the fact that the dialog is in authentic languages: first in French, then in Polish, then Swedish and then Russian (and Ukrainian). The cast is 100 % Russian, who have memorized the lines in according languages (phonetically in most cases, it seems), and then the dialog has been dubbed - also by Russians! The results are mixed. French sounds adequate, as does Polish. Unfortunately there haven't been any Swedish-speakers around, so this part of the film is utterly ridiculous: even the word "Sverige" (Sweden) is pronounced totally wrong! To cover up the outcome, these scenes aren't provided with subtitles, but instead we get a monotonic Russian voice translating the dialog. This distracts from the action quite a lot and is very much to be blamed for the ineffectiveness of these sequences. As this big budget project has obviously taken a huge amount of money, I wonder why they have allowed that minor obstacle to virtually ruin a lot of the film's otherwise pristine historical accuracy.

I would have to state that this is a man's picture. You don't get the emotional depth, but you get a lot of very pretty girls (Ksenya Knyazeva is so superbly beautiful that for many viewers her presence on the screen is quite worthy of the ticket price). Then you get the very strong motive of friendship between two very different men, whose love-hate relationship carries much of the tension in the film. Most of the actors are good, even though it's not very comfortable to mouth your way through the scenes without understanding yourself. The lighting and camera-work, as well as the art direction is first class and makes the film watchable even when you don't believe what you see. Great pains have been taken to recreate the period, and the results are very good indeed. I am not sure what factors are responsible for the film not really clicking - probably a mixed bag of different undermining frivolities, such as listed above.

Worthy of a look for those interested in battle scenes and historical accuracy. To be avoided by those who look forward to either a fun epic spectacle, tantalizing love romance or deep Award winning drama.

Needless to say, this Servant of Two Masters is not based on the play by Carlo Goldoni.
41 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good movie, REALLY SUCKED as documentary
The-Swede6 September 2008
Good movie, REALLY SUCKED as documentary Im from Sweden, don't get me wrong, this IS a nice movie. Really enjoyed the whole picture, really enjoyed the SwedesAreBad parts, because we actually did do BAD things at 1709. The invented story with the details about french observers, the black rider etc was nice 2, worked fine to make the movie 'going'. (Karl XII was by the way hurt in one foot by a bullet before battle, nice thing to make a movie main char do this in the movie) Just some clarification's about the battle, because it is tense, well-done and SUCKS as historical document… The whole redutt fight was a misunderstanding – Swedish orders was to run thru reduttes just before morning/sun-break – thru to the fields beyond. Unclear orders made 2000 out of 8000 infantries die at reduttes in vain and only captured some of them. (6000 ran thru as ordered) At main battle of Poltava-battle (after reduttes), 6000 Swedish infantry's attacked 18000 (!) likewise Russians. The Swedes had gunpowder for one shot only and no artillery at all. The Russian army used all the modern artillery they disposed. It was a slaughter, and approx 3000 or more Swedes were Dead Meat before able to make their first and only shot in this fight. Tsar Peter dwelled inside Russian camp whole battle (generals made all decisions) – and no glorious cavalry charge changed the tide of battle at Poltava. Notable: in fact cavalry at this time had lost most of its OFFENSIVE capabilities (example: 60 years earlier Swedish infantry slaughtered the royal Polish cavalry outside Warsaw with no cavalry support). Cavallery at this time was mostly used vs cavalry, vs flanks or vs fleeing runners. The first outcome of Poltava was obvious for the remains of Swedish infantry, documents state them hiding under dead friends, sniped to death from distance by Russians. The second outcome was political: Sweden forever erased from the list of super-dominating nations. Im happy for that part. For example: Bin Laden ignores us :) I see this screen strictly as adventure but pointless if You wanna know what really happened – and in fact rate this Adventure to 7/10.

My 2 cents. /S
18 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Epic film with spectacular scenarios and describing historical events , rousing battles and swordplay
ma-cortes17 August 2012
Sluga Gosudarev (2007) is a historical film plenty of adventure , drama , passion , duels , extraordinary scenarios and breathtaking battles spectacularly filmed . It is an impressive flick set in Europe, 1709 , being based on a true story when Russia and Sweden are at war and most of the characters in the film were based on real people such as Louis XIV , Peter the Great and Charles XII . And there takes place the notorious battle of Poltova , the decisive victory of Peter I of Russia over the Swedish forces under Field Marshal Carl Gustav Rehnskiöld in one of the battles of the Great Northern War. It is widely believed to have been the beginning of Sweden's decline as a Great Power; the Russians took their place as the leading nation of north-eastern Europe. The picture deals with two French duelists are exiled by King Louis XIV of France: one to the side of King Charles XII of Sweden , the other to the side of Czar Peter the Great of Russia . Both of them become involved a loving conflict and factional disputes . Although separated by different allegiance and enemy , fate get them together.

This historical drama packs intrigue , sword-crossing , spectacular battles and wonderful outdoors . It's a sweeping and historical epic including breathtaking fights . Acceptable acting from main and support cast, though none of the performances are really bad, but none are very good . Evocative and functional Musical Score . Gorgeous and luxurious Cinematography . Impressive Production Design showing breathtaking outdoors , luxurious palaces and rousing battles . This costumer epic drama was professionally directed by the Russian Oleg Ryaskov , though contains flaws and gaps , including some scenes with no much sense .

The flick is inspired by historical events , the actual deeds were the following : Charles XII led early Swedish victories at Copenhagen and at the Battle of Narva in 1700 when he knocked both Denmark-Norway and Russia temporarily out of the war .During this time Peter I of Russia rebuilt his army into modern form, basing it primarily on infantry trained to use linear tactics and modern firearms properly. He then achieved a stunning propaganda victory when he established the city of Saint Petersburg . In the spring Charles resumed his advance, but his army had been reduced by about one-third due to starvation, frostbite and other effects of the weather. The wet weather had also seriously depleted the army's supplies of gunpowder; the cannon were also essentially out of action, due to a lack of usable ammunition. Charles's first action was to lay siege to the fort of Poltava on the Vorskla River in Ukraine.When the battle opened, Charles had about 14,000 men, while Peter commanded about 45,000. The battle began on 27 June 1709 with the Swedes advancing boldly against the Russian fortified lines just north of Poltava. At first, the battle started off in a traditional fashion, with the better trained Swedes pressing in on the Russians' redoubts, overrunning a few Russian defensive redoubts . The Swedish seemed to possess an advantage, but this was quickly nullified . The Swedish infantry, commanded by General Lewenhaupt, attempted to attack the Russians in their fortified camp just north of Poltava. But the Swedish advance soon faltered, partly because the infantry had been ordered to withdraw and reorganise.The Swedes were on the verge of a breakthrough and needed the cavalry unfortunately for the Swedes, it was disorganised . Several Swede regiments were surrounded in a classic Cannae-style battle as Bauer's Russian cavalry swarmed around the Swedish army and attacked the Swedish rear guard. Cruetz and the cavalry tried to buy the infantry time to get away; several units attacked the Russians head on despite them forming into squares. By this stage, the Swedes had no organised bodies of troops to oppose the Russian infantry or cavalry. Small groups of foot soldiers managed to break through and escape to the south while most of the rest were overwhelmed and ridden down. Seeing the defeat of his army from a stretcher in the rear, Charles ordered the army to retreat at 11:00 a.m. By noon, the battle was over as Russian cavalry had mopped up the stragglers on the battlefield and returned to their own lines. Charles then gathered the remainder of his troops and baggage train, and retreated to the south later that same day, abandoning the siege of Poltava. Lewenhaupt led the surviving Swedes and some of the Cossack forces to the Dnieper River, but was doggedly pursued by the Russian regular cavalry and 3,000 Kalmyks and forced to surrender three days later at Perevolochna, on 1 July.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
decent movie, poor DVD quality
james-263411 February 2008
Anyone who has enjoyed the "Sharpe" series would probably enjoy this film. It is a fairly well done period piece with lots of action and a modern directorial and editing style. The film, however, lacks any meaningful character development and the movie suffers as a result. If the film was a bit longer perhaps this problem could have been remedied. I suspect a lot of the film was cut to get it under a 2 hour running time. The production values are good and the battle sequence at the end is well done. Unfortunately, the DVD I obtained (the international version) was not well done. The picture is letterboxed and not anamorphic and there are visible compression artifacts through the entire film. This is a real shame as it appears a good deal of work was put into composing and lighting many of the shots and all of this work cannot be fully appreciated with the poor video quality.
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Good camera work, but that's it.
paradox-1223 September 2008
First of all, the battle of Poltava is very far from the center of this movie, so the international title is very misleading. Second, the story sucked. Big-time. Two french noble mens, one on the Russian side and one on the Swedish side, just for them to meet and settle at the end? Ridiculous.

All the foreign characters are played by Russian actors, and the foreign language is done by voice over, which is done really bad by the way.

The clothing is historical incorrect, with the officers on both sides looking like the Napoleonic offers during Waterloo. I guess Oleg Ryaskov got some inspiration from Sergei Bondarchuk's Waterloo. Except there is more than 100 years apart from these two battles. And for example, the Swedish attack wasn't lead by Karl XII (because he was wounded and couldn't lead Sweden in battle), it was lead by Carl Gustaf Rehnskiöld. I could go on and on about historical incorrectness.

The sound effects are the same throughout the movie. There is this exact same sound every time someone stabs another, and the guns all sound the same.

This is not a movie worth watching in my opinion.
17 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Frankly, a good movie...
ekulseth15 September 2008
...though not without flaws.

The main flaw was the plot, which sometimes seemed a bit contrived and incoherent, in particular the love story plot line. There were some clichés that could have been avoided or at least played differently, but once I got used to the fact that the whole thing was a sort of Three Musketeers meets Saving Private Ryan genre mash, that didn't bother me too much.

What starts out as a depiction of the splendor and pomp of Versailles under the Sun King eventually becomes a fairly brutal war story where several competing groups face each other, more accurately depicting the sometimes chaotic situation on the Russo-Polish borderlands during much of the late 17yh to early 18th century. Seemingly sympathetic characters are killed almost as an afterthought, and witnessing the differing reactions of the two protagonists - one French, the other Russian - brings home the differences in culture and outlook between them.

Kudos to the Russian film industry for their efforts towards historical correctness at least in props and settings, and for making the different characters speak different languages. Not knowing too much French, I cannot judge the pronunciation of the French lines spoken in the movie. Being Norwegian, and knowing a thing or two about the language spoken on the other side of the border to the east, I can say something about the Swedish lines spoken. In short, they ranged from obviously foreign (particularly on the part of the Swedish doctors) to what sounded seamlessly native. Since the Swedish army did incorporate a lot of foreigners, I didn't find that particularly odd. In any case, I've rarely seen a Hollywood movie do the same, it seems that making someone speak English with a funny accent is about as far as they are willing to go in the language department, at least up to fairly recently.

All in all a solid piece of production with a few rough edges. I'd like to see more Russian historical films, since there is a lot of interesting (and action-packed) history there to be made films of.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Good movie, but too much historical incorrectness.
hampus_sabel13 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of few films that portraits on of Europe's most interesting periods. It's a good movie, but unfortunately it's full of errors regarding the battle itself.

First of all, Swedish forces numbered between 19.000 and 22.000 men, the Russian army consisted of between 44.000 and 53.000 men. In the movie, both sides look equally strong.

Secondly, Swedish forces never stopped to open fire before their enemies. They would advance through enemy fire until at a range of approximately thirty yards before firing. They would then attack with cold steel immediately.

Thirdly, the Swedish surrender didn't take place until the day after the battle. King Charles had left the army to seek assistance from the Ottomans and the second in command made the call. He was branded a traitor. At this time, the Swedish cavalry, absent from the battle, had joined the main army. The army now had access to their artillery, which they didn't have on the day of the battle, since Charles XII wanted a surprise attack.

But if you take away the rather big errors in history, this is quite an entertaining film, which is why it gets a five.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Ideal Movie
spdmitry24 March 2007
I just watched the movie and all i can say is "WOW!" This is a truly beautiful film. It has everything that i personally want from a good movie. Lots of fighting a action, hot girls, an interesting plot, lots of blood, humor, beautiful camera work, a big ass battle toward the end, and even some sex! I just love it. I heard it was good when i started watching it, but I was just astonished how unbelievably brilliant yet simple it was. I was excited throughout the whole thing.

Oh my God, its so good. Everyone has to watch it! No, I take that back. Don't watch it, if you expect lots of romance, and stuff like that. Also don't if don't want to see any gore or brutality cause there's quite a lot of it there. I was surprised about it. Its not like I don't like it, we are all just so used to the good old PGs or PG-13s that Hollywood is throwing at us twice a month.

Anyway, watch it, you will not regret it, I promise.
20 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
What the....?
Fingal6117 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I was excited to finally see the Russian view on this historical event. But what did I get?

The story is a shallow version of a well documented epoch. In this story, that takes place in the 18th century in a war weary Europe, the Polish and Russian countryside are overcrowded by busty beauties, brutal and horny soldier of Charles XII and two french noblemen caught in the middle of two armies. It's beautiful filmed but... thats it. Stereotyped and full of clichés. The swedes got their asses kicked, but not in this way.

Now and then I thought I was watching a danish soft-core comedy from the 70s.
10 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Traditional Style
maj-solo19 August 2008
This my 2 cents just adding to what anybody else written.

I feel the movie is made just the way a teenagers war movie is expected to be. Something always saves the hero (or important character) in the last minute or even last breath (typical)! The bad guys have no chance, they drop like flies. So no more comment necessary I think, the movie is what you might expect plus a little childish.

No, no relationships or love story here.

Blod and gore, yes absolutely and it is funny too. When director wants to shock you some of the more important characters get hit perfectly in the center of the forehead, so it becomes a bit amusing.

Still it is an OK movie but nothing more. Have to add that some footage is very good.

The "big battle" is no big battle. The Swedish king Carl you learn nothing about, he is just someone on the other side of the battlefield. The best "big battle" which really oozes of realism/authenticity, is in the absolutely superb movie Gettysburg. The battle sequences in this movie are not important, not to the movies main story or as a "history class". No strategy is revealed.

So the movie is what it is and that is about the two Chivalliers from France sent to Russia as a punishment for dueling. This is how the movie starts off, and above I've written what the movie is not.

========= This has nothing to do with the review but, someone wondered about the Swedish voice-overs.

Voice 1: Halting severely, not a Swede. Used for the older characters.

Voice 2: Initially extremely good Swedish but then deteriorating so he is a foreigner.

Voice 3: Surely not a Swede, and I expect a German or a Russian very good a German and then trying to speak Swedish.

Voice 4: Finnish/Swedish. It is Swedish as spoken in Finland, could be the real deal here. Only that voice disappears and does not come back, only used once.

Voice 5: Perfect Swedish, actually it is an accent, take Stockholm with a radius of about 50-100 miles. He is used for the lowly enlisted infantry soldiers. Not a mistake all the way to his very last sentence which made me wonder. OK, so he might not be a Swede but surely have lived here, maybe as a student. I try give an example but in English: instead of saying "we need to withdraw from the battlefield" it sounded clearly as if he said "we need to withdraw from the bottlefield", unless of course that IS what they called it several hundred years ago and I don't know that.

Voice 6: Perfect Swedish, no accent, so its "standard Swedish", no mistakes, must be a Swede. Also used only for the soldiers.

------ Also remember Swedish army used men from several countries so if they don't speak perfect Swedish then that might very well be perfectly alright. This is if anybody care about stuff like that. The movie is OK.
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Doo yu speek rashshan or who was this film made for?
lyubitelfilmov9 August 2022
An action adventure. The picture of the screenwriter and director Oleg Ryaskov, who is known to the general public only by two TV series "Notes of the forwarder of the Secret Chancellery", but before that he shot this full meter. And I can say with confidence that he took into account the mistakes of this work. For the first time I looked at this picture more than ten years ago, and then I almost did not remember it, and now I understand why it happened - boredom. And here's my brief opinion for you - Do you speak rashshan? The picture had both pros that should be mentioned, and cons that dragged her to the bottom of Russian cinema. This concludes the much-needed introduction, and let's get to the point.

So, the pros: 1. Costumes and scenery - the picture is centered around the Northern War, specifically around the Battle of Poltava, the victory in which was the most massive and significant in Russian military history before Borodin. The uniforms of Russians and Swedes exactly correspond to historical prototypes, and the costumes of the French nobility and especially ladies' outfits are perfectly seen on the representatives of the beautiful half of humanity. The scenery, although budget-friendly, creates a sense of mass character and generally immerses in Europe and Russia of the early eighteenth century. The specialists in costumes and decorations have worked out their money one hundred percent. There are no complaints here (unless, of course, you are an expert in the military history of this period, who may notice technical flaws).

2. Battle scenes - the Battle of Poltava itself is shown well (although some key points are omitted), and create the effect of involvement in what is happening for the viewer. Explosions, shots, hand-to-hand fights, especially fencing pleased. You can see the refinement of movements, training and a kind of grace, if the fights can be called that. It is clear that these technical specialists were there, so the viewer will be delighted with such scenes. These scenes look good even now, in our digital age.

3. Alexander Bukharov is the only actor who is able to interest the viewer and who causes at least some emotions, because his character is very charismatic, and he at least tries to speak the way they did at that time, and in general the only one who is sorry. The rest - well, so-so.

So, the cons: 1. Scenario - two aristocrats quarreled in Paris on a far-fetched pretext, it came to a duel, which is prohibited by decree of the king, and then His Majesty decides to punish the fearless insolents. He sends one to Charles the Twelfth, and the second to the Russian tsar Peter the Great literally on the eve of the Battle of Poltava, so that they both would be observers and report all the most interesting things to their monarch. But these letters of recommendation contain something else. Here they also brought in a line of Polish mutts who kill Russian soldiers in the near rear, the line of the beloved of one of the duelists. In general, it turned out to be such a mess that you don't even want to look at. I implore you - rewind immediately to the Battle of Poltava and imagine that you are watching a kind of short film, because this battle is not a frequent guest in the cinema.

2. Logic - oh oh oh! There are big problems with her here, and they begin with a fatal duel, the pretext for which looks so far-fetched that you already want to laugh. The relationship between "our" Frenchman and the hero Bukharov is just a joke to the chickens. And this is just the beginning. If I paint everything thoroughly, then the review will be in fifty parts. And the finale will finish you off with its illogicality.

3. English credits - Oleg Ryaskov and company! Who did you make this picture for? Just if for the Western market, then the abundance of stamps and rigid stereotypes about Russia are clear, and if you did it for the Russian market and the CIS countries, then this whole set will cause irritation rather than patriotism, because it feels that it was the patriotic education that was aimed at, but you turned the other way. It's good that at least the "Notes of the forwarder of the Secret Chancellery" turned out to be good, and all the nonsense of the "Servant of the sovereign" is missing in them.

4. Speech - why do Russian soldiers talk as is customary now, in the twenty-first century? No one said that back then. Maybe at least Mr. Ryaskov would have read the documents before writing a script for a historical picture!

5. Characters - they are dummies who perform only functions. No one is remembered, although there are Chadov, Chindyaykin, Arntholz and so on. There was potential, but they didn't have time to realize it, it's a pity, because the result is more than modest.

6. Boredom - when the characters don't cling, then the viewer stops following the script, which almost happened to me. It was painful to watch this nonsense, but I overcame it. But he yawned very loudly at the same time.

In general, we have another failure of Russian cinema, which had good makings, but they could not really develop them. The script and the character buried him. I'm sorry for the time spent on it.

As a result, we have a failed action adventure, with a frankly bad script, missing acting. Great costumes and scenery, such music.

My rating is 4 out of 10 and I do not recommend this picture for viewing!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't waste your time
eatthisyoulot30 December 2012
Honestly, there are porn videos with better scripts and acting than this embarrassing parody of a Raspberry Award nominee.

A fascinating insight into how to do just about everything wrong with a massive budget, fantastic costumes and gallons of fake blood.

Lighting, timing, camera angles, soundtrack, plot, continuity and the action scenes takes you beyond the kitschiest productions of the 1970s.

Nothing makes much sense and enduring the voice dubbing is as unbearable as watching Hispanic TV.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed