Michael Malak 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.

mepontoni 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.

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."

ssvfolder-1 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.