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...

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.

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 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?