1612: Khroniki smutnogo vremeni

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.

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.

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

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.

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."