Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

Melanie Bouvet The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Fulke Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Kirpianuscus a film who could not be a real surprise. heroes and fairy tales, the brave Russian, the week enemy, the love story and few beautiful scenes. and the only error remains the ambition to use to many levels of story without any link. the beauty of images are not enough in this case because to many parts are out of sense. and it is not real a surprise because, like in many other Russian films, the purpose is only expose the heroism as the basic virtue. short, an useful film for the connoisseur of the historical events. and nothing more because the mixture of myth and history , in that case, is almost confusing. good intentions and fight scenes. a fresco about the rising of Romanov dynasty and nice characters.

Daniel Rodrigues 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...

kombaat 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.

Dmitry 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.