D. B. This is a film that aims to create action entertainment, with great historical costumes to be sure, but it is not a "serious" historical drama. Broadly speaking, the action is not less realistic than say, many of the James Bond movies, and it is not intended to be. The hero protagonist and his "ethnic" sidekick really draw on cop buddy films as much as anything else, and it is modern action/adventure films with which this movie should be compared.There are not an enormous number of films with which this movie compares, but in general, if you wouldn't like Zorro, you wouldn't like this one.I would argue that where this film really excels is in its use of tragedy and the mystical/magical. Neither of these elements are dominant, but the elements are well done, and they add weight and a touch of meaning to an otherwise light film, without desecrating religion or the folk traditions of Russia. If I was a person who normally watched this sort of film, I would rate it higher, but as a matter of taste, I am simply giving it a 6, meaning that I think it is objectively, a bit better than average.The crucial point about whether you should watch this film is really whether or not you like fairly light entertainment of this sort. This is a movie that has the costumes, but not the spirit or atmosphere of the average American or British costume drama.

jlpicard1701E 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...

victorboston 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."

aermakov For someone who is not prepared to handle this movie on the first try, like myself, it would be logical to suggest watching it again. Trouble is, you don't want to. The movie is all over the place with a very vague storyline. I agree that the special effects were descent, the rest of it was borderline horrible. The language used, is "bydlorussian" in many instances. Almost nothing in the movie is remotely believable. Many commented had pointed to a leather cannon, well, it has been done with some success, even reproduced in our time. Such a cannon takes several weeks to produce and a lot of patience. Some would not believe it, but Germans used reinforced cardboard mortars in WW1. As others had noted,the script sucked, actors would look OK in a "clean" porno movie, but are completely unfit for what was attempted as a historical film. I gave it a 5, based on the fact that, even barely, it prevented me from changing a channel, thanks to commercial-free transmission.