Talk:1612 (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force.

Background and interpretation[edit]

Biased and just plain foolish. So Becuase a movie is pro Russian makes its propaganda. Brave heart must be Scottish separatist propaganda. By that logic also ever american movie is propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mescovic (talkcontribs) 06:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Too many innotable speculations for just an action movie. Every film about war features antagonists that are from some country opposed to protagonist's, it doesn't make movie a propaganda. Was Three Musketeers anti-english propaganda? or Krzyżacy anti-german?
Ummm, WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN, the Three Musketeers was pretty heavy with anti-English propaganda, or at least has elements of it. Similarly for Krzyżacy. Of course, a piece of literature or art can sometimes be BOTH propaganda and of high aesthetic quality (as the two mentioned works are). Since I haven't seen the movie myself, I have no idea if that's the case here.radek (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Historical Accuracy section, though, I would like to keep. Garret Beaumain (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The section on the supposed anti-Polish sentiment as well as pro-Kremlin interpretation was well-researched, properly referenced and based on reliable sources, including Russian sources. Still, people keep deleting them and thus decreasing the quality of the article. And for no good reason. What do you serve guys - the quality and impartiality of Wikipedia, or some hidden agenda? Dawidbernard (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As for historical accuracy this movie is utter crap, but there is still a little formality which is wrong with this article. when it mentions the halt of the Polish army before Moscow, the article assumes that the movie never states that the Poles have captured Moscow. But the movie does assume that. Very briefly, but it is said that they're holed up in the Kremlin and sieged. Which is the objective truth. Also it is true that Polish troops coming to relieve their blocked comrades were rebuffed. So please change the article. I would bring some sources too, but I just can't be bothered. Thx in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:EA2B:4B80:28E5:E34C:7943:5FD (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Great Movie, where are the subtitles[edit]

HI!!!!!! It is a gr8 movie. Where can I find subtitles in English?

Yes. What subtitles does this film have? English, German, Polish, Ukrainian ect. We should include this to the article. Also if this film does have English subtitles, please let me know as i want it ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Other Russia[edit]

"The Other Russia" is a fringe, extremist group whose ranks include crypto-Nazis like Limonov. It is not to be treated as a serious source or reflective of public opinion in Russia. RZimmerwald (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

  • What in the world the Other Russia, or any other political party, has to do with an action fantasy movie? --Garret Beaumain (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


it is sometimes a fantasy storry, sometimes. If you counte the seconds, where fantasy elements dominate the storry, there will be more or less 5% of it. The maint point is about the independence war of russia against polen. watch the movie for see how much of it is fantasy. In main its a historical war movie. -- (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)