VidMate
Free YouTube video & music downloader
ACTOR
Pyotr KislovMichal ZebrowskiArtur SmolyaninovVioletta Davydovskaya
DIRECTOR
Vladimir Khotinenko
SYNOPSICS
1612: Khroniki smutnogo vremeni (2007) is a Russian,Polish,Spanish,Italian,German,Latin movie. Vladimir Khotinenko has directed this movie. Pyotr Kislov,Michal Zebrowski,Artur Smolyaninov,Violetta Davydovskaya are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2007. 1612: Khroniki smutnogo vremeni (2007) is considered one of the best Adventure,Drama,History,War movie in India and around the world.
More
1612: Khroniki smutnogo vremeni (2007) Trailers
Same Actors
1612: Khroniki smutnogo vremeni (2007) Reviews
Not too bad, not too good
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.
Lighten up, folks, it knows it's not "history"
I always watch films BEFORE coming to IMDb to read comments. If I dislike a film or am unmoved by it, I never end up here anyway. But when I really like a film, I slide over here hoping to find some fellow travelers who can help me appreciate more what I just viewed, knowing there will always be some folks who hate everything and delight in finding ways to pile on. When it comes to reviews of 1612, however, I am a bit stunned at all the negative attention this film has brought. Most of it seems centered on historical inaccuracies in the film. As I was reading them I kept asking myself...did these folks notice the unicorn? If you're watching this movie as some History Channel documentary, you're going to have problems with it. There's a unicorn playing a major role! This is not to say there are not problems with this film. There are noticeable editing nightmares that have us jumping into what looks like the middle of an intended scene. Several times we're forced to conclude "oh that must have happened even though it's on the cutting room floor." This was the most disappointing part of the film. As for the story and art of telling it, I very much enjoyed it. The winged Polish cavalry was thrilling enough to keep me going. I felt like one of the peasant children when I yelled to my wife in the other room "Lisa...they're angels!" The reproduction of Repin's "Barge Haulers" painting in one of the opening scenes was also a treat. As for the storyline, I had no trouble whatsoever following it and appreciating it. This film is part history, part fantasy, part love story (and a good one at that!), and part vehicle to bring utter mayhem to the screen in new and bloody ways. If you want only one of these you're not going to like this film. If you can put your historic snobbishness aside, however, you can appreciate the splendid qualities of this film.
Terrifically entertaining historical fantasy
This is a terrifically entertaining action-adventure fantasy from Russia. I say "fantasy" instead of "historical epic" because as the movie proceeds the story and the main character, a serf who rises to superhero, become increasingly larger than life. This boldly heroic storytelling makes 1612 seem very old-fashioned, in the best way, even as the film-making is state of the art, with some amazing action scenes and superbly staged battles. The hero is played by Pyotr Kislov, Russia's answer to Orlando Bloom; the antagonist, a Polish warlord intent on marrying the kidnapped daughter of Boris Godunov and making himself master of Russia, is played by Poland's #1 leading man, Michal Zebrowski, who has headlined some impressive action films himself, such as With Fire and Sword. The initial set-up is a bit wordy, but once the action starts it just gets better and better. Great fun (though be prepared for some startling battle gore).
That'll Do
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."
unrealistic but extremely enjoyable
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.