Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

m_white I saw this film at the Seattle International Film Festival last year. I know a little bit about Russian history and had even read a biography of Ivan the Terrible years ago. Even so, I was a little lost as the story went on. Eventually I could see that this film covers a very short period in the middle of Ivan's reign, where he contends with his hand-chosen Metropolitan (church leader guy) Philip, a la Henry II-versus-Thomas a Becket. Ivan wants a rubber stamp for his brutal goings-on, Philip refuses. It doesn't end well, as you can imagine.Script-wise, some action was mystifying and inexplicable. Just a little more explanation would have helped a lot. I had to go home and look up the deal about Ivan's use of whipped virgins to do his cleaning, for example.There was not as much blood and guts as there could have been. Compared to what's on TV these days, it wasn't bad.Whoever translated the subtitles must have been drunk. They're awful.Where this film SHINES and is WELL WORTH your time and money is with the visuals: the setting, the costumes, the cinematography in general. I couldn't take my eyes off the colorful, detailed costumes. Those crazy hats! That gorgeous embossing and embroidering! And though I deplore the use of animal skins as garments, all that fur was just gorgeous.The film's lighting is brilliant. The play of light and dark is artful: glowing candlelit icons, flickering torches in the night, warm summer afternoons on the golden steppes. A cold bluish light on Ivan's face when he is raving, transmuting him into a madman.There is a wonderful opening sequence where Ivan is praying in his bare, ascetic cell wearing only a plain shift, like a penniless monk. But then he must go out to greet his people, and as he strides along the corridors, men step forward to adorn him with magnificent robes and jewelry. The further he gets from his cell, the more he looks like a tsar. It's a nifty visual analogy for his mental state.I really enjoyed seeing the mostly wooden structures they lived in -- basically log cabins with Russian ornamentation. Those Russian forests provided wood aplenty: we see huge palisades, bridges, magnificent sleds and sleighs. They did a great job of recreating the look without having original locations to use.It's got a lot of great "look and feel" details too: poor dental hygiene, smoky interiors, people who look like they bathe twice a year.Very few characters emerge as much more than placeholders, but the actors playing Ivan and Philip are both very good. We get no real insight into either man, though.So while it's not a great film, those interested in Russian history will enjoy aspects of it. When it comes out on DVD, I will probably buy it because I enjoyed the look of it so much.

jlpicard1701E What can I say but that Eisenstein would be honored to see what this movie represents.In fact, and in my own personal view, if Eisenstein were alive these days, he would probably have filmed this movie the same way.The light and shadow play, evident homage to Sergei Eisenstein, the tenuous colors, always kept at very low intensity, not to make it to vivid or bright, but clearly reminiscent of the only color palette included in the Ballroom scene in "Ivan the Terrible", add all the glory and respect to the lineage of its two predecessors.I would even go further. This can be considered the third chapter, or the third installment to "The Boyar's Plot" and "Ivan the Terrible" by Eisenstein, concluding thus the intended trilogy.The actors are all excellent, particularly the two principal figures, Pyotr Mamonov as Ivan (whose looks strikingly resemble his predecessor, Nikolai Cherkasov), and as Philipp, the Orthodox Metropolitanate, Oleg Yankovskiy. One can guess that most of the cast comes from a true and solid theatrical background, but their theatrical skills are well put into use in this masterpiece of a movie.The director, Pavel Semyonovich Lungin, is a worthy follower in the enormous footsteps of his legendary predecessor, Sergei Eisentein. His style and his technique are immaculate and show a sense of artistry uncommon these days.I can only say a loud Bravo, to everyone involved with this movie, since they have given us the ideal ending to "Ivan the Terrible" and in such a way, as not to disrupt the continuity of the trilogy.In the words of Pavel Lungin, it is a warning to the ever changing world we know today, not to relapse into the same mistakes of absolutism of the past, but work toward a more tolerant future.I salute you, Pavel Semyonovich, and hope you will direct some more movies like these.

ochichornye A fine historical drama in a great Shakespearian tradition. There may be historical inaccuracies, and there may be miraculous occurrences that would clearly be impossible in real life. But that is beside the point. We don't chide Shakespeare for being historically inaccurate or for events taking an unlikely turn. What matters is the insight he gives us in the human condition with all its failings. Ivan is the classical image of a dictator that is sucked down in a negative spiral of his own making. The people who speak up against him are violently dealt with. The flatterers and opportunists who play along with him cause him to be more and more detached from reality, and more and more lonely. The parallel with Stalin is obvious, but somehow the greater distance in time makes the message more abstract and therefore more powerful.The metropolitan is slow to grasp the depth to which his childhood friend has sunk, but when he does the way in which he stands up to Ivan in word and deed is both moving and inspiring. Since this is a movie and not a stage play, the effectiveness of the storytelling is helped more by beautiful cinematography and evocative music than by profound dialog. In the end I found it inspiring and disturbing at the same time.

cwmacdougall We all know Ivan the Terrible was a mad tyrant, and many know that Philip was a Saint. The film shows little more, and little depth to Ivan, and none to any other character beyond Philip. Why does Ivan act the way he does? Is it just madness? Or is it related as some say to the death of his wife? Or to religious extremism? The film doesn't say. Why do the lesser characters behave the way they do? The film doesn't hint at any explanation. Why is such a mad tyrant able to rule? The film doesn't say (hint: he actually accomplished a lot in the earlier part of his rule). The film implies all the churchmen were saints, when in fact many (understandably) collaborated with Ivan. It is beautifully filmed, and well acted, but ultimately shallow.