An action adventure. The picture of the screenwriter and director Oleg Ryaskov, who is known to the general public only by two TV series "Notes of the forwarder of the Secret Chancellery", but before that he shot this full meter. And I can say with confidence that he took into account the mistakes of this work. For the first time I looked at this picture more than ten years ago, and then I almost did not remember it, and now I understand why it happened - boredom. And here's my brief opinion for you - Do you speak rashshan? The picture had both pros that should be mentioned, and cons that dragged her to the bottom of Russian cinema. This concludes the much-needed introduction, and let's get to the point.
So, the pros:
1. Costumes and scenery - the picture is centered around the Northern War, specifically around the Battle of Poltava, the victory in which was the most massive and significant in Russian military history before Borodin. The uniforms of Russians and Swedes exactly correspond to historical prototypes, and the costumes of the French nobility and especially ladies' outfits are perfectly seen on the representatives of the beautiful half of humanity. The scenery, although budget-friendly, creates a sense of mass character and generally immerses in Europe and Russia of the early eighteenth century. The specialists in costumes and decorations have worked out their money one hundred percent. There are no complaints here (unless, of course, you are an expert in the military history of this period, who may notice technical flaws).
2. Battle scenes - the Battle of Poltava itself is shown well (although some key points are omitted), and create the effect of involvement in what is happening for the viewer. Explosions, shots, hand-to-hand fights, especially fencing pleased. You can see the refinement of movements, training and a kind of grace, if the fights can be called that. It is clear that these technical specialists were there, so the viewer will be delighted with such scenes. These scenes look good even now, in our digital age.
3. Alexander Bukharov is the only actor who is able to interest the viewer and who causes at least some emotions, because his character is very charismatic, and he at least tries to speak the way they did at that time, and in general the only one who is sorry. The rest - well, so-so.
So, the cons:
1. Scenario - two aristocrats quarreled in Paris on a far-fetched pretext, it came to a duel, which is prohibited by decree of the king, and then His Majesty decides to punish the fearless insolents. He sends one to Charles the Twelfth, and the second to the Russian tsar Peter the Great literally on the eve of the Battle of Poltava, so that they both would be observers and report all the most interesting things to their monarch. But these letters of recommendation contain something else. Here they also brought in a line of Polish mutts who kill Russian soldiers in the near rear, the line of the beloved of one of the duelists. In general, it turned out to be such a mess that you don't even want to look at. I implore you - rewind immediately to the Battle of Poltava and imagine that you are watching a kind of short film, because this battle is not a frequent guest in the cinema.
2. Logic - oh oh oh! There are big problems with her here, and they begin with a fatal duel, the pretext for which looks so far-fetched that you already want to laugh. The relationship between "our" Frenchman and the hero Bukharov is just a joke to the chickens. And this is just the beginning. If I paint everything thoroughly, then the review will be in fifty parts. And the finale will finish you off with its illogicality.
3. English credits - Oleg Ryaskov and company! Who did you make this picture for? Just if for the Western market, then the abundance of stamps and rigid stereotypes about Russia are clear, and if you did it for the Russian market and the CIS countries, then this whole set will cause irritation rather than patriotism, because it feels that it was the patriotic education that was aimed at, but you turned the other way. It's good that at least the "Notes of the forwarder of the Secret Chancellery" turned out to be good, and all the nonsense of the "Servant of the sovereign" is missing in them.
4. Speech - why do Russian soldiers talk as is customary now, in the twenty-first century? No one said that back then. Maybe at least Mr. Ryaskov would have read the documents before writing a script for a historical picture!
5. Characters - they are dummies who perform only functions. No one is remembered, although there are Chadov, Chindyaykin, Arntholz and so on. There was potential, but they didn't have time to realize it, it's a pity, because the result is more than modest.
6. Boredom - when the characters don't cling, then the viewer stops following the script, which almost happened to me. It was painful to watch this nonsense, but I overcame it. But he yawned very loudly at the same time.
In general, we have another failure of Russian cinema, which had good makings, but they could not really develop them. The script and the character buried him. I'm sorry for the time spent on it.
As a result, we have a failed action adventure, with a frankly bad script, missing acting. Great costumes and scenery, such music.
My rating is 4 out of 10 and I do not recommend this picture for viewing!
