1612: Chronicles of the Dark Time

2007 "The Tsar is dead. Chaos reigns."
5.6| 2h15m| en
Details

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.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.
Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews
Cleveronix A different way of telling a story
Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.
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.
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.
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.
daeris History is my field of interests. I am in a historical re-enactment society, read quite a lot about the European history etc. This was wrote to point, that I do treat history as an important part of my life. I also like fiction and fantasy literature and I like when there is a solid border between fiction and historical scenarios/books/etc. I particularly despise productions, where “historical costume” is used only as an excuse to tell quite present-day politically correct stories about love and patriotism. And I was really worried this could be such a production especially since it was made “by the order” of Kremlin. But it was not. On the contrary – there is love, there is patriotism, there is pride of being a part of Russian nation and even some political correctness (a little) but all of it is served in the funny, warm and definitely not serious way and not the standard pathetic Hollywood-style. As for the history in the picture it is treated similarly, I mean not to serious. There are historical figures and historical events but they are mixed with fiction and fantasy. To do such a thing without losing the “spirit” of the period requires a great deal of talent and is almost impossible. But they have done it and they have done it great! But when I wrote that they treat history not too serious I did not mean “without respect” since there is a great deal of such respect that shows in costumes, characterisation, armament and in the commentaries throughout the movie. Well – there are some mistakes especially in polish cavalry (especially for me – this is the part I am interested the most J) but one can live with that. Treat it as a half historical half fantasy-adventure one and you will have a great time. The actor playing main character adds a lot to this adventurous mood – I think he has a potential for being next Johny Dep! His young and some times it shows that he need practice but he definitely has a talent. Small warning – movie might be a fantasy-adventure one but hen people die there they die, well…, realistic enough, so this is not a “family” movie. In my opinion it’s 9 out of 10 since there are some minor imperfections like the beginning is a little to slow and to mystic sometimes, there are some mistakes in costumes or armament I have mentioned above and some “wooden” background dialogs. Also this is another movie where the heavy cavalry really do not know what the charge should look like. But the movie is definitely a “must see” especially if you like historical and/or adventure shows.