Home > Drama >

1612: Chronicles of the Dark Time

1612: Chronicles of the Dark Time (2007)

November. 11,2007
|
5.6
| Drama History

The czar of Russia has died and a power vacuum has developed. This period in the late 16th and early 17th century has been called "The Time of Troubles." There are many impostors who claim to the right to rule, but there's only one heir, the Czarina Kseniya Godunova. She has married a Polish military leader who wants to claim the Russian throne in her name so he can rule all of Russia. As the Poles move in on Moscow in an attempt to install the czarina on the throne, Andrei, a serf with a life-long infatuation of the czarina attempts to save her from her brutal Polish husband.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Pluskylang
2007/11/11

Great Film overall

More
FuzzyTagz
2007/11/12

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

More
Kaelan Mccaffrey
2007/11/13

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

More
Deanna
2007/11/14

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

More
denis888
2007/11/15

I understand, patriotic cinema must exist, so that it can instigate deeper feelings of love to Motherland, of pride and of decency. Sometimes, filmmakers succeed. Thus, we have Ogniem i mieczem or Gettysburg. Often, they fail, like here. The movie was shot with a certain purpose to establish totally illogical 4th of November holiday in Russia, which, as it was said, is about defeating Polish invaders of 1612. OK, but 4th of November has nothing to do with that defeat, all happened a bit earlier. The movie itself is rather pathetic one-timer which is about to produce deep hatred to all foreign invaders, and to create deep loyalty to all things Russian. That is OK, but the way it was done is very clumsy. To mention the few - there are many goofs and anachronisms that make us laugh. The very appearance of sliding trombone in 1612 is hilarious, as well as very modern language figures and awful mistakes in Spanish or German usage. Well, you can watch it only for Michal Zebrowski's sake, as he is great anyway, but then forget this second rate creature as a very vapid and weak attempt to make some cash on a vibrating patriotic topic

More
kombaat
2007/11/16

The movie was terrible. There were very big holes in screenplay and direction... The most important problem was the characters. They, especially that Polish knight, were totally not consistent. You don't know what actually drives him, whether it is love, passion, greed, hate or power... the director actually didn't have any logical concept on that. The makers also didn't have a consistent idea on how to put fantasy moments into the movie. The unicorn, the oracle and others could be, without a doubt, removed causing no loss for the movie. But the stupidest moment was when the Russian defenders almost destroyed the whole Polish army with a gun made of leather during one night. That made me laugh for a few minutes. But it wasn't funny... it was pathetic. One thing I liked were parts of battle scenes. They were pretty realistic (considering the way they were filmed, not their probability). But this is not enough to make make this film worth watching.

More
Dmitry
2007/11/17

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.

More
Grzegorz
2007/11/18

It was my first impression after watching this movie. If someone decides to spend serious amount of money on costumes, special effects, on employing the best Russian actors... well, one would assume the producer got also at least semi-decent scenario. It was definitely not the case here.Without giving out too many details, the main plot of "1612" is a little similar to that of "Patriot". Just move the action to the early 17th century in Russia, and replace British troops with those from Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The problem is that "Patriot" was somewhat realistic (even if one might have some doubts if all Brits are really brutal sadists), and "1612" is not. Frankly, I have not seen such BS story since I quit watching American B-grade action movies and it was so bad even the best actors could not help it.Do you know who would be able to build a cannon from leather and then use it with marksman accuracy? Maybe MacGyver? Well, no, but if you want to know the answer for this (and many other, but equally absurd) question, just watch "1612". Otherwise, do something else. I still give it 4 of 10 - mainly for decent historical costumes, great cavalry charges, and other secondary details.

More