Customer Reviews

1612

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

1612 takes place during the time of troubles in Russia and is loosely based on history. It could be called the "time of troubles" not only because a foreign army is occupying the country, but also because there isn't clear leadership to bring them out of the mess. The film doesn't try to be a strict historical film but an adventure that will capture the hearts of the audience. The movie mixes history with mystical and legendary elements; namely, one reoccurring subject is that of unicorns. Even with that said, I could say with a straight face that it doesn't go too far with this into fairly tale land as most parts with unicorns are in dreams or visions.

Polish invaders murdered the royal family but the Polish Hetman (Michal Zebrowski) spared the life of Princess Kseniya, whom he loves and sees as a way to become Czar himself. Andrei (Pyotr Kislov), who also loves Kseniya, ends up as a servant and then mercenary of the Polish Hetman, witnessed the murders and makes it his goal to overthrow the invaders and free the Princess. The love triangle between the three is the crux of much of the conflict.

The villains of this story are the Poles, who wear armor with wings giving them the look of angels, but they strike with fierceness that is more demonic than angelic. Interestingly enough, the Polish Hetman is actually a famous Polish actor, which adds a bit to the realism to the film. To some degree this film is anti-Polish in nature and is not entirely historically accurate but we are reminded that this movie isn't a documentary from time to time by the unicorns. Even with that said, I still think the movie is a lot of fun.

1612 rivals the best historical films in both story and special effects. The action doesn't slow down between the duels, skirmishes, and sieges. I think 1612 particularly excels in showing cannon warfare, in which there is quite a bit of in this movie. I would say 1612 would get an "R" rating by American standards for showing some nudity and quite a bit of violence that doesn't spare us the goriness of war.

I enjoyed this movie even though I'm quite convinced it suffers from severe credibility flaws if considered as authentic historical drama.

On the positive side, it is a vigorous tale of raw adventure where an unlikely underdog mounts an effective opposition to oppressive and seemingly invincible overlords. Although this theme has been worked countless times, I think this Russian film brings a freshness and vitality to the subject which hasn't often been achieved by Hollywood.

There is enough of the mystical Russian element brought in to add a unique twist, but not enough to belabor the point. For instance the monk with visionary gifts who chained himself to the top of a tower until the "time of troubles" should end. There is other symbolism as well, such as the ladybugs and the unicorn, though I don't know if those have to do with Russian folklore or are merely fantasy.

One aspect of the movie which probably is historically authentic is the gruesome results of warfare in the early 1600's. The ghastly way in which people get blown to smithereens by cannonballs or get limbs hacked off by swords was realistic enough to jangle my nerves, although many people may be so jaded to special effects by now that this is old hat.

As an admirer of Russian cinema, particularly late Soviet cinema, I recognized two of the elements I am partial to in Russian film: The first is energetic portrayals that, at their best, convey a sense of passionate exuberance without overacting. The second is a more democratic presentation of the whole cast, where even minor characters seem more vivid than in American films. In this film I enjoyed some of the minor characters, such as the Spanish mercenary with his intriguing combination of courtly charm and deadly intent. Visually, I thought this was quite a colorful and engaging spectacle.

On the less positive side, there were cliches aplenty in the film, such as the hero who rose from slavery to almost become tsar and his unfulfilled love for the tsarina who barely knows he exists, but for whom he is nevertheless prepared to risk and suffer all. Frankly this romantic element seemed rather tiresome to me. Then there is the perennial villain, who is totally despicable, with not an ounce of good in him. We have also the simply unbelievable acts of derring-do which might be appropriate to a fantasy film, but are not credible in the context of historical drama - such as constructing a cannon out of leather or enduring countless heavy lashes on one's back without uttering a sound.

On the whole, I think its better to take this movie as being an epic fantasy adventure and enjoying it as such. There are no doubt echoes of the realities of those times in this story, but they seem too distorted by magnifications to take that aspect seriously. So while I enjoyed watching the movie once, its lack of any real depth would keep me from being a repeat viewer.

Based in history, 1612 tells the true tale, which has now grown into legendary proportion, of the fight for Russia in the early 1600's after the country fell into choas following the murder of the czar and his family. With a 'cast of thousands' portrayal, and mysticism cast throughout, the tale is centered on the saving of a young princess by a young boy. However, the epic battles compete with the best epic battles in film history, and the stunning filming is simply glorious to experience.

If you are a fan of history, this is a spectacular epic to view. If you are a fan of epic battles, this is a must-see experience, from the heated cannonballs to the man-to-man fighting.

1612 was sanctioned by and underwritten by the Kremlin, so important a film it was to be created.

"1612" is a sprawling epic in the mold of "Braveheart" and "Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan." Russia is facing its bloodiest conflict. As a volunteer army faces off against Polish-Lithuanian invaders, the Russian government lies in shambles. The assassination of Tsar Boris Gudunov, his young wife, and his son and heir has thrown Russia into a relentless power struggle. The only witness to the murder of the Tsar's family is a young servant boy, Andrey. Infatuated with the Tsar's beautiful daughter, Ksenia, Andrey hopes she might still be alive amid the chaos that has become the norm in Moscow. As lawlessness rages while power passes from one usurper to the next, Andrey sets off to find the missing princess. The personal story of Andrey's quest against the background of violent anarchy makes for an exciting action drama that depicts the physical and emotional toll of war on the common man.
The Widescreen edition contains more than 40 minutes of bonus extras, including a making-of featurette.

I watched the movie 1612 in Russian with no sub titles in PAL format when I was in Ukraine during the summer of 2008. I know very little Russian therefore I had to go by the action of the movie & ask questions along the way. Basically the movie was about the time when the Czar's seat was empty after the death of Czar Boris Godunov. The Polish-Lithuanian government/army with the help of the Roman Catholic church moved into the political vacuum & tried to influence Russian culture, religion, & political leadership. The hero of the story Andrey was once a friend of Princess Ksenia, the daughter of Godunov, who was taken as a political prisoner by the Polish-Lithuanians & Andrey was made into a slave or serf. Later when they see each other from a distance, Andrey has himself sold to a Spanish Mercenary who is hired by the Polish-Lithuanian army to perfect their cannons. Later the Spanish Mercenary teaches Andrey to fight & when the Spanish Mercenary meets an untimely death, Andrey pretends to be the Spaniard. The story continues with a love triangle & large battle for the city of Moscow.

The year 1612 is to Russians as 1776 is to Americas: freedom from an outside power & development of ones own cultural identity & purpose. The Unicorn seen in the movie is a symbol of old Russia before the Double Eagle symbol of the Czar & is shown several times as a dream scene to convey what was lost & could be regained.

The war scenes are top notch with lots of stand-ins with fantastic Polish-Lithuanian Calvary with angel wings. The movie does get a little bloody during the battle scenes, but isn't that real war?

History versus Movie Making: In the movie the Russians are defending Moscow from the Polish-Lithuanian army, but historically the Russians attacked a Polish-Lithuanian garrison within the Kremlin because the Polish-Lithuanians were already in Moscow.

Controversy: the movie was commissioned by the Kremlin & may hold certain Russian political ideals because it was released on November 1, 2007 to help with the new "National Unity Day" to celebrate the retreat of the Polish-Lithuanian troops from Moscow around November 4, 1612. This new holiday replaces the old Soviet November 7 celebration of the 1917 Revolution.

Rating PG-13 or R?: Russian films don't go by our system of rating. There is some female nudity in the movie when young Andrey sees the princess take a bath with her female court, but the scene is not too offence. Normally any movie about war will included a certain level of violence which should be considered.

What makes this movie so profound is the portray of a Starets, which is a Russian Orthodox spiritual director who normally is clairvoyant, who is also a Stylites, which is a Christian ascetic who stands on a pillar preaching, fasting, & praying. One day a Roman Catholic monk who is clean shaven with a crown hair cut, a finely dressed cowl, & who is the advisor from the Pope to help the Polish-Lithuanians against the Russians, comes across the Russian Starets who tells him to pick up his cross which are contain in a basket. This changes the Roman Catholic monk who then becomes a wandering hermit & when he returns to Rome with ragged clothes & full beard, the Pope almost faints.

There are still Starets in Russia as well in other parts of the world including America, but a Stylite ended in the mid 1400's in Russia. Therefore to join both concepts of Orthodox monasticism in the 1600's is not historically possible but makes a good movie image. To see what comes close to a real Starets see the Russian film Ostrov (The Island).

I am no expert on Russian or Polish history, and I have no interest in the continuing argument between the partisans of the various sides. I do like good films, however, and this one is a real gem! Excellent acting, beautiful cinematography, a nice story and an inspiring vision. The battle scenes are as good as any I have seen, the characters are well defined, and the little touches of fantasy are inspiring, rather than irritating. I got the symbolic meaning of all those little scenes, and frankly, they were so beautiful to watch, I would not have cared if I did not. I bought this film as a curiosity and because I was hoping for some interesting historical battle reenactments if nothing else. What I got was one of the best movies I have seen in the past several years. I recommend this to anyone who likes historical costume epics, fantasy film fans, and those who like their films to have a little poetry in them. Five stars for this one.

For me to read subtitles...it has to be not just a good movie but a great one, one
that will not give me the chance of falling asleep ....
And for this jewel of a movie...it did'nt give me the chance. What we have here is
told in the trouble days of Russia where there was no real leadership and all
wanted to rule..Poles...Russians....
And when you want to rule, blood will be spilled and pain will take over the land.
In this movie you have great armies...great costumes...great acting...and great
battles. There is lots of gore...but well done.
What makes the story even better, is that we have a good guy and a bad guy.
You really want the good one to win, even with the incredible odds againts him.
Also the movie passes the 2 hour mark, so it has time to give you all its has.
Once finished with the movie, by checking out the extras you can see a bit
on how they made this movie.....great directing.....great casting.....

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, July 10

This film is set at the beginning of the 17th century when Russia had a severe crisis over who was to inherit the throne after the Tsar died. There are many contenders but none too genuine. This was called the time of `chaos' as the people are leaderless, and the Poles had invaded Russia. Their Hetman (Michel Zebrowski) has captured the Tsarina Kseniya Godunova. He has fallen in infatuation with her and sees marriage to her as a way to legitimise his false claim to the throne. Throw into the mix a lowly serf Andrei played by Pyotr Kislov, he really does love the Tsarina and through guile and cunning sets about saving her and in the long run, Russia too.

The opening sequences start in 1605 and we get a pocket `history' lesson to take us up to date. This is not a true history lesson though and quite happily mixes up faith, mysticism and myth with all the action. We have a holy man who won't come down from his tree until the chaos has ended, lots of iconography (very Russ indeed) and a recurring theme of Unicorns. Whilst we are thrown into the current plight of the characters, the missing detail is told in vivid flashback, so by about half way through you get to understand the real histories of those involved and the attraction Andrei has for the Tsarina.

This has been criticised for being anti -Polish, well of course it is, this is a Russian film and the Poles are the enemy. They do get the best costumes though, they are all armoured up and wear wings to give them the look of avenging angels. That is one of the many strengths of this film, the costumes are stunning. Add to that the overall excellent cinematography and attention to detail and this makes for a real visual feast.

There is buckets of action too and it is done really well, the CGI that had to be used in places is so good that you really don't notice and as good special effects should do, it actually adds to the emotional upsurge that was intended. Look out for the siege sequences, they are brilliant. My only complaint is around the subtitles, not everything is translated especially the Italian parts; and on occasion the Russian translation is over the English translation, making it virtually impossible to read.

That aside, this is a rollercoaster of a film, with action, intrigue, romance and a ruddy great story with excellent performances all round. Vladimir Khotinenko has done a masterful job in the direction of this film, and at 143 minutes has done superbly to keep the momentum up throughout. If you like action films based on historical events, then you will not be disappointed. If you want a history lesson this is not for you, but I thought it was just excellent and intend to watch again very soon.

I found this film very entertaining. However, it is not faithful to history at all and some characters and dialogues are simply not believable. For example, the Spaniard in the story keeps saying "Andaluces de dinamita" = "Andalucians of dynamite", well, dynamite was invented in 1816 by Alfred Nobel, so it could hardly be mentioned in 1612; the main character evolves from being a slave into a sword master and a skillful blacksmith in a week, and builds a wooden cannon that almost detroyed an entire army.... and so on. There is some magic element floating around, and it would bridge the inconsistencies.
On the other hand, the film is rich in portraying some typical Russian characters: the orthodox Hermit, the dangerous country dumb guy, the stupid prince, the overprotective Russian mother, and some others.
The film is also very visual and it will be found fun by those who, like me, enjoy epic movies without computer generated images.