Sluga Gosudarev

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main char do this in the movie) Just some clarification's about the battle, because it is tense, well-done and SUCKS as historical document… The whole redutt fight was a misunderstanding – Swedish orders was to run thru reduttes just before morning/sun-break – thru to the fields beyond.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

...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.

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.

I normally.dont review a movie but this horrible movie makes me to do it because Russians mocks all nations in this movie. Decent battle scenes from Youtube makes me watch whole movie. Poles are portrayed as alcoholics and primitive villagers,Swedes like some evil psychos who want to just destroy everything and French as arrogant snobs. Only Germans are portrayed as decent people what is not bad but how they mock everyone else is ridiculous. Russians are portrayed just as victims who has wisdom and are above the things,brave and.rightful. No matter of historical context of this war. Costumes,camera angles and other technical things are right for me but I feel some bighead thinking in this movie. Battle scenes are well made except that thing they made Swedes looks like cowards sometimes. Battle scenes arent historically accurate but fit well for the movie. So battles,visuals and plot are cool anything else makes me angry so 3 points.

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!