1612: Khroniki smutnogo vremeni (2007) User Reviews

Not too bad, not too good

[lawer2 · 6/10 · 18 June 2008]

Title in English is "1612. Chronicles of the Time of Troubles"

Well, one should know post-Soviet cinema to rate this movie. As a whole, it is not so bad as it can seem, especially against a background of lots of new films (mostly very bad ones), which our TV shows everyday on every channel.

Some expressions about History. The plot is fantastic.

1. Poor Xenia Godunova! If she knew what she would "do" in the director's imagination 400 years later, she would die of shame :))) Her travel with some "hetman" is a nonsense - just see any source about Xenia, she was one of the unhappiest women of the Time of Troubles. Also she never betrayed her country or used to live with a Polish robber. Actually she was not able to, because she had been in a monastery for about 7 or 8 years by the time of the movie action.

2. Fedor II Godunov was killed by Russian supporters of the Impostor, not by Poles!

3. Strangely enough, but the leather cannon is not a fantasm of the movie creators. Such cannons did really exist even though it is unlikely that they were used by Russians during the Time of Troubles.

4. Another (at least) strange thing is Kuzma Minin's absence in the action. Probably, he was just cut off as not wanted :))

Actors. It's impossible to understand the reasons Porechenkov was set as Prince Pozharsky. Porechenkov is no actor. If no actor tries to play such a great person you can imagine the result. Almost the same about the girl who played Xenia. She really tried and really did not manage. Zolotuhin is no doubt the great actor, but his character looks and behaves like Gandalf, but not an Orthodox Elder at all. Guys, you live in traditionally Orthodox country, is it really too hard to take a little care of your work? The actor who is absolutely excellent is Michał Żebrowski. Brilliant! Maybe, he saves the whole movie.

Picture. Nice. Battle scenes, especially storm of the fortress, are quite good.

Action. Not bad, not too slowly.

The End. It is disappointing because it's a pure propaganda. They write "November 4th, 1612, Russians liberated Moscow". Ha-ha, they are as stupid as Duma of Russian Federation: both don't even know the difference between Julian and Gregorian calendars. Bad promotion for new "holiday".

And one more thing. Positive. The movie is kind, and that's fine for such kind of film, I think.

As a result my rate is 6, maybe 7. This movie is watchable but definitely not a masterpiece.

That'll Do

[victorboston · 6/10 · 20 August 2009]

I am a little confused by the comments blasting this movie for historical inaccuracy. For Christsakes people - the movie has a unicorn (oh and a disclaimer inserted into the last scene, stating that "no one knows all those nominated for the throne...").

In any case, the movie background is more or less accurate, at least as accurate as the background for, say, Braveheart. And I don't remember too many complaints about the Mel Gibson's anachronistic kilt.

That having been said, this is certainly second rate cinema, but its pretty to look at and its fairly engaging, which is an improvement for Russian entries in the "block-buster" category. So 1612 gets 3 stars for execution, 2 stars for story and 1 star for the unicorn. It also gets a firm handshake for keeping me entertained and for giving me hope of a slight upward trend in run-of-the-mill Russian film making. In the words of Arthur Hoggett, "That'll do."

He likes me,... He likes me not...

[jlpicard1701E · 5/10 · 5 February 2011]

I like it, but I don't like it...

Funny, but true. As a modern action movie it stands at par with other similar stuff that even Hollywood manages to produce (see "300").

Not so much for special visual effects, of which there are virtually none, except for the occasional battle scene, but rather for the silliness in language and story development.

It is a simple fun movie. One for popcorn chewing moviegoers.

Unpretentious and yet captivating in its silliness.

At times, while watching it, I was reminded of movies of yesteryear, such as Errol Flynn's escapades in "The Black Hawk" or more recently Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow's shenanigans in "Pirates of the Caribbean".

Costumes and settings are gorgeous though, and even the music is pleasant and appropriate for a movie of this type. But let's face it, it's just another cape and dagger movie, not really Russian history as it pretends to be.

Sure, there are hints to that (and many, but then again distributed freely throughout, without an actual chronology). All we get to know is that after Czar Boris Godunov's demise and that of his entire family (but one surviving Princess), there is a period of anarchy in Russia.

Add to this the ever-lasting "bad" Polish invader, riding in with very fanciful armor which sports applied feather wings (actually an accurate depiction, but just reserved for the Royal Polish Guards of that time and only worn during parades, never in battle - for obvious reasons).

True to history is the fact that after the fall of Czar Boris, Russia had been literally invaded by opportunistic tradesmen from everywhere in Europe. This has been simplified and centered around a central Hispanic figure, represented by a mercenary, and apparently, former Conquistador. The reality though, was different, and the so-called invasion was far less pervasive and intrusive. Europe simply needed new trade routes through Russia and did indeed send out emissaries for this purpose.

Yet then the entire story goes through a mystic development, even involving unicorns and a mysterious Hermit chained on a pole in the midst of a forest. It may be significant for Russians but for a foreign audience who may not know all the symbolic significances of this, it still remains a puzzle to the end of the movie.

As said, as an entertainment movie, not too bad, but as a pretense in historic fact it really leaks all over.

The actors, probably all unknown to the Western world are all competent, especially in secondary roles and do their job quite convincingly. The action scenes (battles, swordplay, fights, etc.) are all very well choreographed and at times, even spectacular.

But does this mishmash stand for something?

Not really.

Not even as other reviewers have stated, as a propaganda movie for the Medvevev / Putin duo.

If it is true that this movie was pushed by the Kremlin itself, then the taste of this entity has considerably diminished since Stalin's times. It has become so very simplistic and populist (mind you, not popular) that I question whether they are still able to read Pushkin, Dostoevsky or even just Tolstoy, or whether they too have slumped into just reading pulp fiction if not bad cartoon strips.

Not wanting the invasion of Western culture in their Country, in that sense at least, is utterly wasted effort, since this movie proves without a doubt that they have already been "contaminated" by this bad taste kind of trendy movie.

What next? Japanese "Animes" to entertain the masses in Russia too?

At least Stalin had Eisenstein to propagate his views, and those movies have become true Classics.

But "1612"? Forgettable at best.

Being of Russian descent myself, I regret this popularization in Russian history. Why can't we have true historic, if not epic movies about the true history of Russia?

The theme alone, Boris Godunov, already made famous by a well-known Opera, should entice any film-maker deserving this definition, to make an extra effort and develop a true biopic around this figure. But not just limited to this period.

All we have are just excerpts from Russian history. We never get the whole picture. What about the first Viking invasion of Russia, when it was still unknown under that name? In fact Russia takes the name from the first Conquerors of the land, which the native population named "Rus" after their reddish scalps and beards.

What ever happened between Boris and Peter the Great. Who were the various successors, what did they do, what have they achieved, how long did they all rule? These are all still unanswered questions that no one ever bothered to tackle with in any serious form.

My simple question is: why?

Russians of today want to be respected from Westerners and be considered as equals. Well, then help us understand your history in its fullness and allow us to penetrate your culture more thoroughly. Not just through literature, or through music, but also producing movies that open a window upon a respectable (or even not so respectable) span of time and allow us to penetrate this world of the past, to better understand your recent past and even the present.

"1612" is not it. It deserves only 5 stars out of ten just (and I have decided to be particularly generous) for the effort of all those involved, who nevertheless did their job. But none of these stars are referred to the story, nor the quality of the picture, which in my own opinion, is below the average level of movie-making, which I know to be otherwise excellent.

Go back to film school and watch some true classics and you will see what I mean...

Historical drama in the spirit of Die Hard

[PenOutOfTime · 6/10 · 8 September 2011]

This is a film that aims to create action entertainment, with great historical costumes to be sure, but it is not a "serious" historical drama. Broadly speaking, the action is not less realistic than say, many of the James Bond movies, and it is not intended to be. The hero protagonist and his "ethnic" sidekick really draw on cop buddy films as much as anything else, and it is modern action/adventure films with which this movie should be compared.

There are not an enormous number of films with which this movie compares, but in general, if you wouldn't like Zorro, you wouldn't like this one.

I would argue that where this film really excels is in its use of tragedy and the mystical/magical. Neither of these elements are dominant, but the elements are well done, and they add weight and a touch of meaning to an otherwise light film, without desecrating religion or the folk traditions of Russia.

If I was a person who normally watched this sort of film, I would rate it higher, but as a matter of taste, I am simply giving it a 6, meaning that I think it is objectively, a bit better than average.

The crucial point about whether you should watch this film is really whether or not you like fairly light entertainment of this sort. This is a movie that has the costumes, but not the spirit or atmosphere of the average American or British costume drama.

Complete waste...

[gbalkowski · 4/10 · 30 December 2007]

It was my first impression after watching this movie. If someone decides to spend serious amount of money on costumes, special effects, on employing the best Russian actors... well, one would assume the producer got also at least semi-decent scenario. It was definitely not the case here.

Without giving out too many details, the main plot of "1612" is a little similar to that of "Patriot". Just move the action to the early 17th century in Russia, and replace British troops with those from Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The problem is that "Patriot" was somewhat realistic (even if one might have some doubts if all Brits are really brutal sadists), and "1612" is not. Frankly, I have not seen such BS story since I quit watching American B-grade action movies and it was so bad even the best actors could not help it.

Do you know who would be able to build a cannon from leather and then use it with marksman accuracy? Maybe MacGyver? Well, no, but if you want to know the answer for this (and many other, but equally absurd) question, just watch "1612". Otherwise, do something else. I still give it 4 of 10 - mainly for decent historical costumes, great cavalry charges, and other secondary details.

Disappointment

[Vincentiu · 6 January 2012]

What is better way to present Time of Troubles ? This movie is an answer. Not the most inspiring, not the appropriate. But a sketch , very ambitious, strange and almost childish. The cause - desire to use all classical toys. Love story and heroic events, religion and magic, fight between good and evil, roots of Russian Modern history, beauty of princess and humble Prince Charming. Problem - this ingredients are very delicate. Jugglers with these are not easy. And to spread , like colors on paper, by a monkey, in a visual epic, is not the right solution. At end, crumbs of interesting images - the monk, nature, unspoken words. Guilty - picture of Saint Patriarch Hermogenes and the stupid mixture between fairy tale and one of great moments of Russians past, the hijacking of an impressive story, with huge artistic potential an transformation into a caricature of 1612 year. Unfortunately !

Underrated fantasy

[matisp-05206 · 7/10 · 28 January 2019]

I've seen a lot of people, mostly Polish, who keep complaining about this film. While yes, it is basically historical crap, when you hide your national pride for a bit and treat it like a fantasy productions, it becomes a decent watch.

Unfortunately I won't be able to review it without diving into spoilers so there's your warning.

Let's start with the biggest historical lie of this film. It starts with saying that the Smutnoye vremya or "Time of troubles" in English, started with a monk claiming the Russian throne. This is false and the whole section reminded me of the "historians of England will say I am a liar" section from Braveheart. Needles to say, this is a false statement but both the smutnoje vremya actually did happen *and* a monk did claim the throne with the help from the Polish-Lithuanian nobles, the cause and result have been swapped. Grigory "Grishka" Otrep'ev, which was allegedly the monk's name, was a fugitive from a Russian orthodox monastery. He came to Cracow in mid 1604, claiming to be the diseased son of Ivan the Terrible, who had died recently (his death being the actual cause of the time of troubles).

The self-proclaimed Dimitry I gained some popularity between the Mniszechs and Wisniowieckis, both powerful magnate families of Poland-Lithuania, but king Sigismund did not support him, with Grand Crown Chancelor Jan Zamoyski outright saying that his cause would hurt the Commonwealth's political businesses. So no, Poland-Lithuania did not openly support Dimitry as the film tries to communicate. Eventually he did conquer Russia with the armies of his supporters, ranging from the Polish-Lithuanian magnates and Don Cossacs to the pope himself. His reign was short and quite ambiguous to us, though he was actually liked by his subject, if not necessarily understood. It was quickly abolished by a rebellion of the Boyars with the future tsar, Vasily IV. What I liked about his segment was how his corpse was shot with a cannon towards the west - it did happen and is portrayed really nicely in the film.

Then we have Xenia and her subplot with the hetman. We don't know all the hetmans of the Polish-Lithuanian forces at the time (or there wasn't one of them in service, something like that; don't quote me on that, though) so I'll give them a pass on inserting a fictional one. I also loved his portrayal by Michal Zebrowski. But Xenia's story wasn't as nice as portrayed, and that's saying a lot. She was a daughter of the Russian de facto regent during the time of troubles, or smuta (as we Poles call it and as I will refer to it for brevity) Boris Godunov and the of the tsar Feodor. Her family was murdered by Dimitry's forces. She was spared but got raped by Dimitry himself and held in his palace. When Dimitry's spouse, a girl from the aforementioned Mniszech family, arrived, she was put in a monaster and donned the name Olga. This also happens in the film, but seven years later - in the titular year 1612.

The main character of Andrey, who is a commoner, basically a slave in the Russian hierarchy, and rises to eventually be nominated tsar, as well as the Spanish man who "teaches" him in his dream and the unicorn, of course, is fictional. Because Xenia was a nun at the time, their love story also couldn't have happened. The film does contain some sweet siege scenes with him though.

The siege which takes place during a major part of the film, is a great sight to behold, but completely historically inaccurate. There's nothing I can say about the Russian side, we've already covered the hetman, Andrey and Xenia. But the Polish-Lithuanian site's portrayal is bad to downright abysmal. We seem to have no "national contingent" troops. Those were our own people, recruited in the Commonwealth. All we've got there is a bunch of mercenaries; judging from their languages, they're Swedish and German. While we've had some Germans in the "foreign contingent", Poland had just got out of a war with Sweden a year ago, so I don't think Swedes would serve in the Polish-Lithuanian armies.

The tactics on the Russian side are portrayed to be flawless, while every officer in the Polish-Lithuanian army seems to be utterly incompetent. The hetman is portrayed to be a dumb commander, so I'll give him a pass, but come on! Who would build a gunpowder storage so out in the open and so unprotected, a single shot from a handmade leather cannon could penetrate it and blow it up?! Also, I'm no siege tactician, but the way they shoot their cannon (yes, cannon, not cannonS, there isn't a plural) so aimlessly to just hit the wall wherever seems kinda dumb to me. And the hussar charge on the gate, oh god... No sane pearson would give such an order. They get slaughtered there and an absurdity, when a handmade specialized cannonball with a blunt blade tears through a hussar armour, one of the finest pieces out there, happens.

The battle of Moscow, which happens in the last quarter of the film, is completely unhistorical, although being an amazing spectacle. Here, it is an open battle on a flat field, with massive cavalry charges on both sides, and a large force of the winged hussars (that would provide the Polish-Lithuanian side certain victory in the conditions shown), which, as mentioned, appear to be the only national contingent troops in our army, which is also false. In reality it was a long street battle inside Moscow; some hussars were there but couldn't be use due to the nature of the battlefield.

As for the story, it's actually quite good. It's a story of a young commoner claiming to be his diseased mentor (how ironic, seeing as Dimitry I, a bad guy in the film, also claims to be someone higher in hierarchy and succeedes), infiltrating a foreign force, falling in love, getting expelled and fighting for the cause of his country to eventually becoming someone greater. It's a nice plot. And it's executed like one. It just bears a much closer resemblance to a fantasy film, than a historical one. It is a propaganda piece and blaintant about it, so I have to take one point from it.

The acting is great and Zebrowski is born to depict a slightly cynical Pole, and a nobleman, as he had proven with his roles in The Witcher (the old Polish TV series, wouldn't reccomend overall) and With Fire and Sword.

Now to the scores. I'd give it 1/2 points for plot, 2/2 for engagement, 2/2 for acting, 2/2 for effects and visuals, which are great in my opinion, especially the nattle scenes, and 0/2 for historical accuracy, which is sad, because it's a really good time period and events to base a film on. Which leaves us with a 7/10 overall score for the movie 1612. Narazie, kurwa ;p

Historically based Mayhem and Magic

[gradyharp · 5/10 · 6 July 2010]

1612: KHRONIKI SMUTNOGO VREMENI is a strange Russian epic seemingly composed of pasted together bits of history, myth, and fiction by writer Arif Aliyev and directed with a complete lack of continuity by Vladimir Khotinenko. Why these production choices were made in what is apparently supposed to be a critical turn of events in the history of Russia is unclear, but the reason for making the film seems to be to out-Hollywood Hollywood without the benefit of CGI that serve as Hollywood's main 'character' in epics of this sort.

Apparently from the title we are to accept this tale as a recreation of the death of Boris Fyodorovich Godunov (1551 - 1605) - de facto regent of Russia from 1584 to 1598 and then the first non-Rurikid tsar from 1598 to 1605. The end of his reign and the murder of his son saw Russia descend into the Time of Troubles. There was a witness to these murders, one Andrei (Pytor Kislov) who fell into serfdom and then into being a mercenary with his friend Kostka (Artur Smolyaninov) for the Polish hetman (Michal Zebrowsski). Apparently one Godonov remained, the Tsarina Kseniya (Violetta Davydovskaya) and was loved by both the Polish hetman and by Andrei. The entire film is an extended battle between the Polish and the Russians for the control of Moscow and the dream of the Polish hetman to marry Kseniya and ascend the throne as the new Tsar. The referenced year 1612 is the year of the Battle for Moscow when the Poles were successfully defeated making way for the rise of the Romanovs as the royal family of Russia.

Somewhere well hidden in this collage of decapitations and other examples of battlefield mayhem are the identities of the characters who populate this story, but the tale is so chopped up by amazingly bad editing (to the point that the film feels like there are large gaps missing as the screen simply goes dark frequently), by flights of fantasy that focus on a unicorn, moments when the past is recalled through the use of pixels of supposedly previously viewed material, and just plain lapses in plot details that the movie appears like a richly colorful blood bath with some unintentional (?) comedic moments. The machinations of the battle between the winged Poles and the oh-so-inventive Russians fighting against all odds border on absurd. But then perhaps that is the point of the film: war is madness and kingdoms are built by serendipity. It is a long song and tedious, but if you know the realities of Russian history it may be a very entertaining movie!

Grady Harp

Lighten up, folks, it knows it's not "history"

[mepontoni · 8/10 · 7 October 2010]

I always watch films BEFORE coming to IMDb to read comments. If I dislike a film or am unmoved by it, I never end up here anyway. But when I really like a film, I slide over here hoping to find some fellow travelers who can help me appreciate more what I just viewed, knowing there will always be some folks who hate everything and delight in finding ways to pile on.

When it comes to reviews of 1612, however, I am a bit stunned at all the negative attention this film has brought. Most of it seems centered on historical inaccuracies in the film. As I was reading them I kept asking myself...did these folks notice the unicorn? If you're watching this movie as some History Channel documentary, you're going to have problems with it. There's a unicorn playing a major role! This is not to say there are not problems with this film. There are noticeable editing nightmares that have us jumping into what looks like the middle of an intended scene. Several times we're forced to conclude "oh that must have happened even though it's on the cutting room floor." This was the most disappointing part of the film.

As for the story and art of telling it, I very much enjoyed it. The winged Polish cavalry was thrilling enough to keep me going. I felt like one of the peasant children when I yelled to my wife in the other room "Lisa...they're angels!" The reproduction of Repin's "Barge Haulers" painting in one of the opening scenes was also a treat.

As for the storyline, I had no trouble whatsoever following it and appreciating it. This film is part history, part fantasy, part love story (and a good one at that!), and part vehicle to bring utter mayhem to the screen in new and bloody ways. If you want only one of these you're not going to like this film. If you can put your historic snobbishness aside, however, you can appreciate the splendid qualities of this film.

History almost unknown in the West

[GwydionMW · 7/10 · 28 January 2018]

The film is set amidst the massive break-down in Russia after the overthrow of the heirs of Ivan the Terrible. And shows how much Russia suffered in that time.

It also shows the failed attempt by Poland-Lithuania, at that time a Great Power, to conquer Russia and convert it from Orthodox Christianity to Roman Catholicism. You see many shots of the Polish hussars, with their 'wings' making them look like angels, but behaving otherwise.

The un-historical romance has a serf who escapes, loves a Russian princess and becomes a military hero. There is also a mystical element, featuring a holy man and a unicorn, which is also visually striking.

You ought to enjoy this.

Found it funny, in a sad kind of way

[aermakov · 5/10 · 9 March 2009]

For someone who is not prepared to handle this movie on the first try, like myself, it would be logical to suggest watching it again. Trouble is, you don't want to. The movie is all over the place with a very vague storyline. I agree that the special effects were descent, the rest of it was borderline horrible. The language used, is "bydlorussian" in many instances. Almost nothing in the movie is remotely believable. Many commented had pointed to a leather cannon, well, it has been done with some success, even reproduced in our time. Such a cannon takes several weeks to produce and a lot of patience. Some would not believe it, but Germans used reinforced cardboard mortars in WW1. As others had noted,the script sucked, actors would look OK in a "clean" porno movie, but are completely unfit for what was attempted as a historical film. I gave it a 5, based on the fact that, even barely, it prevented me from changing a channel, thanks to commercial-free transmission.

Terrifically entertaining historical fantasy

[steven-222 · 8/10 · 27 April 2009]

This is a terrifically entertaining action-adventure fantasy from Russia. I say "fantasy" instead of "historical epic" because as the movie proceeds the story and the main character, a serf who rises to superhero, become increasingly larger than life. This boldly heroic storytelling makes 1612 seem very old-fashioned, in the best way, even as the film-making is state of the art, with some amazing action scenes and superbly staged battles. The hero is played by Pyotr Kislov, Russia's answer to Orlando Bloom; the antagonist, a Polish warlord intent on marrying the kidnapped daughter of Boris Godunov and making himself master of Russia, is played by Poland's #1 leading man, Michal Zebrowski, who has headlined some impressive action films himself, such as With Fire and Sword. The initial set-up is a bit wordy, but once the action starts it just gets better and better. Great fun (though be prepared for some startling battle gore).

Totally Unrealistic, Not Historic, Not Captivating

[denis888 · 2/10 · 3 November 2013]

I understand, patriotic cinema must exist, so that it can instigate deeper feelings of love to Motherland, of pride and of decency. Sometimes, filmmakers succeed. Thus, we have Ogniem i mieczem or Gettysburg. Often, they fail, like here. The movie was shot with a certain purpose to establish totally illogical 4th of November holiday in Russia, which, as it was said, is about defeating Polish invaders of 1612. OK, but 4th of November has nothing to do with that defeat, all happened a bit earlier. The movie itself is rather pathetic one-timer which is about to produce deep hatred to all foreign invaders, and to create deep loyalty to all things Russian. That is OK, but the way it was done is very clumsy. To mention the few - there are many goofs and anachronisms that make us laugh. The very appearance of sliding trombone in 1612 is hilarious, as well as very modern language figures and awful mistakes in Spanish or German usage. Well, you can watch it only for Michal Zebrowski's sake, as he is great anyway, but then forget this second rate creature as a very vapid and weak attempt to make some cash on a vibrating patriotic topic

just limp

[Aendrzey · 3/10 · 5 February 2009]

I am no critic but seeing the comments for this title that has already been posted on IMDb, makes me think I might have a few words to add.

First and foremost, 1612 lacks what a good historical flick should have. Bearing in mind that it was made to commemorate and glorify the expulsion of Polish-Lithuanian troops from Moscow, ending a period in the Russian history called the Time of Troubles, it fails to deliver on the promise, thus leaving the viewer with nothing but a bizarre mixture of war, romance and folklore aspiring to be a historical epic. The purpose itself is "noble" and entirely understandable but the meal served hardly makes you want to ask for a second helping. I certainly did not like the aftertaste.

As for the overall impression after the first and last viewing, it leaves a lot to be desired. Acting was acceptable, in places, maybe even good in some cases but it could not make up for the terrible script and horrible background action. You would expect a Russian crew to be knowledgeable enough to make the extras seem realistic (Polish soldiers chatting away sounded like a present-day hooligans at a street corner). I have seen better cavalry charges in historical films made decades ago.

All in all, it was definitely not the worst film of the sort I have seen so far. However, calling it decent is a severe overstatement.

Bloated and silly with a few good scenes

[tarchon · 4/10 · 24 May 2009]

This is basically Kingdom of Heaven transplanted to Russia in 1612,and it's just as bad for all the same reasons. It's overstuffed and relentlessly ridiculous, but it manages a few good historical set pieces. If you like clichéd Russian folk sayings, they toss one in every 5 minutes or so. In fact, if you like clichés of every kind, this is your movie. It's way too long for what it is too, committing the cardinal sin of stupid movies by instilling a lot of yawns as it drags on and on. The DVD version I rented also has a major editing error in the fortress siege, where one of the scenes was cut into the wrong sequence - I guess the plot was so pointless no one noticed?

What a movie!!!

[michaelmalak · 10/10 · 14 November 2011]

I rented "1612" from my local library. As a Pole living in the U.S. I was trilled to see a movie about any aspect of the Polish-Russian history - especially one presented from the Russian perspective. Of course - the Poles are presented as the bad guys (now I know how the Germans must feel after watching "any" Polish or Russian war movie made during the last 70 years.)

The movie is almost EXCELLENT. There are little too many unicorns for my taste, and the main character of Andrei looks too soft for the role he's playing. I would have preferred if Andrei was played by someone harder, tougher. And it's not his physicality, or corrupted faulty character that make him soft, but rather his good looks. His face is just --- too pretty. He looks too much like Johny Depp in Don Juan DeMarco and he "should" look like ...I don't know - harder, tougher; like Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry :) And yes, Andrei ages about 10 years during the first 15 minutes of the movie, while the Tsarina retains her youthfulness despite passage of time.

The movie is not a portrayal of historical events, but a fantasy merely set in a historical period. It entertains - it entertains like hell! and prompts one to get on-line and look up the real elements of that period.

The story, the plot twists, the battle scenes - are just incredible - Hollywood could learn a lesson or two from these Russians.

I'm glad I saw this movie and would recommend it to anyone willing to go for a ride on the back of a panting snorting stallion. I'm also getting on-line right now looking for more films from the director Vladimir Khotinenko.

Not only unrealistic, but made without basic knowledge of film-making

[kombaat · 2/10 · 13 March 2009]

The movie was terrible. There were very big holes in screenplay and direction... The most important problem was the characters. They, especially that Polish knight, were totally not consistent. You don't know what actually drives him, whether it is love, passion, greed, hate or power... the director actually didn't have any logical concept on that. The makers also didn't have a consistent idea on how to put fantasy moments into the movie. The unicorn, the oracle and others could be, without a doubt, removed causing no loss for the movie. But the stupidest moment was when the Russian defenders almost destroyed the whole Polish army with a gun made of leather during one night. That made me laugh for a few minutes. But it wasn't funny... it was pathetic. One thing I liked were parts of battle scenes. They were pretty realistic (considering the way they were filmed, not their probability). But this is not enough to make make this film worth watching.

unrealistic but extremely enjoyable

[ssvfolder-1 · 8/10 · 17 February 2008]

Well if anyone into physics and pure common sense, for them the plot is too unreal that is for sure. But there were so many other "Pure" historical movies with about the same historical accuracy, and I still Loved most of them. This movie is a great show, I personally loved it way better than all the rest recent Russian movies. I believe that if it gets translated to English it'll become a huge box office hit in US and Canada. Great costumes, Good enough acting and excellent special effects alone make this movie worth watching. The only historical series\movie till now that i put above all other is the "Rome" series. It delivered spirit of the era along with quite accurate general facts and an imaginative interpretation from different more simple point of view. Now if we look at the famous historical movies like Gladiator or Braveheart, besides the fact that the actors are much more talented (in Hollywood interpretation of talent) and charismatic, they are exactly as "real" as this one. I gave this movie 8 out of 10 and definitely advice to see it just to relax and enjoy.

An epic failure of a historic fantasy

[p-stepien · 2/10 · 29 November 2009]

In 1605 the armies of Lithuania and Poland invade Russia and capture Moscow at the same time murdering the Godunov line of Czars save for Kseniya Godunova (Violetta Davydovskaya), who is captured by a Polish hetman (masterfully played by Polish actor Michal Zebrowski). An unwilling witness of these events is a 10 year old boy Andrei.

7 years later Andrei is a ca 25 year old slave (yep, that's right... the kid aged a minimum of 15 years within the given timeframe) with no rights to his own life. Fate drives him to once again meet Kseniya, who is now the unwilling / willing (take your pick; the script gives you no favours and you don't really know what the uninspiring actress is actually trying to convey) lover of the Polish hetman. Luck takes a fortuitous turn as Andrei gets bought out by a hardened Spanish mercenary. Soon after the Spanaird dies tragically in battle and Andrei uses the opportunity to steal his identity. All this as part of the peasant Andrei's path to becoming the next Tzar of Russia...

You can see the budget splashed out on this movie and everything glitters and overwhelms. All the set designs are exquisite and some scenes are breath-taking. But really this movie is evidence that throwing money at a movie does not a classic make.

There is absolutely no tension or build-up and I had a nice 30-minute nap during the movie, which apparently didn't matter as nothing of consequence happened in the meantime. Storybuilding is pathetic and the overuse of slow-mos and 'mystical' flashbacks or dreams just mulls the pace even more. What's worse is that there are actually times where it would have been beneficial if they focused more on various parts of the story and fleshed out the background more. Instead the script rushes where it should have walked and crawls when it should be flying.

The two redeeming things in the movie are the detailed and historically faithful set designs (the Polish hussars are especially beautifully done) plus the great role of Michal Zebrowski, who absolutely nails his character despite having the director and script against him. In the end those are the only two things you are sure to remember. That and the ridiculous unicorn (just what a historical movie needs... sic!) that plagues the picture every 5 minutes...

I'm not sure what the game plan was here. It seems like the director wanted the aura of mysticism to dominate the story, but it failed miserably with the biggest and most ridiculous yawn of a movie I have viewed in ages.

Patriotic and historical show that has escaped the pathetic style

[daeris · 9/10 · 26 September 2008]

History is my field of interests. I am in a historical re-enactment society, read quite a lot about the European history etc. This was wrote to point, that I do treat history as an important part of my life. I also like fiction and fantasy literature and I like when there is a solid border between fiction and historical scenarios/books/etc. I particularly despise productions, where “historical costume” is used only as an excuse to tell quite present-day politically correct stories about love and patriotism. And I was really worried this could be such a production especially since it was made “by the order” of Kremlin. But it was not. On the contrary – there is love, there is patriotism, there is pride of being a part of Russian nation and even some political correctness (a little) but all of it is served in the funny, warm and definitely not serious way and not the standard pathetic Hollywood-style. As for the history in the picture it is treated similarly, I mean not to serious. There are historical figures and historical events but they are mixed with fiction and fantasy. To do such a thing without losing the “spirit” of the period requires a great deal of talent and is almost impossible. But they have done it and they have done it great! But when I wrote that they treat history not too serious I did not mean “without respect” since there is a great deal of such respect that shows in costumes, characterisation, armament and in the commentaries throughout the movie. Well – there are some mistakes especially in polish cavalry (especially for me – this is the part I am interested the most J) but one can live with that. Treat it as a half historical half fantasy-adventure one and you will have a great time. The actor playing main character adds a lot to this adventurous mood – I think he has a potential for being next Johny Dep! His young and some times it shows that he need practice but he definitely has a talent. Small warning – movie might be a fantasy-adventure one but hen people die there they die, well…, realistic enough, so this is not a “family” movie. In my opinion it’s 9 out of 10 since there are some minor imperfections like the beginning is a little to slow and to mystic sometimes, there are some mistakes in costumes or armament I have mentioned above and some “wooden” background dialogs. Also this is another movie where the heavy cavalry really do not know what the charge should look like. But the movie is definitely a “must see” especially if you like historical and/or adventure shows.

a...w...e...s...o...m...e

[dctr666 · 10/10 · 24 June 2012]

I've been saying, in a lot of my reviews, that Hollywood films keep falling in a downfall of quality...but, fortunately, for us, viewers, there are a lot of good movies, form other countries...from Indonesia,Korea,China,Japan,to many countries of Europe... Russia has one of the most capable cinematographic enterprise in Europe...it can fight toe-to-toe against Hollywood, and, in many factors, Russia would win.

From the remake of The Fugitive(the Russian version is more "cool", even though the American one is great) to Sword Bearer or the "Night Watch-Day Watch" duo-logy, there lots of excellent films, made in Russia...

1612 is a historic movie, having the fall of the tzars in a "backstage scenario"...this movie has a well defined story, excellent acting,lots and lots of action, brutal and "in your face"...and it never becomes boring...I've seen it 3 times...and I must say, I'm enjoying it every time I re-see it...

a must see for everyone...

good intentions

[Kirpianuscus · 3 October 2015]

a film who could not be a real surprise. heroes and fairy tales, the brave Russian, the week enemy, the love story and few beautiful scenes. and the only error remains the ambition to use to many levels of story without any link. the beauty of images are not enough in this case because to many parts are out of sense. and it is not real a surprise because, like in many other Russian films, the purpose is only expose the heroism as the basic virtue. short, an useful film for the connoisseur of the historical events. and nothing more because the mixture of myth and history , in that case, is almost confusing. good intentions and fight scenes. a fresco about the rising of Romanov dynasty and nice characters.