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...

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."

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?

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.