Ivan the Terrible, Part One

I'm not sure that any film has felt more singularly influential on the aesthetic of so many filmmakers that i love (aside from maybe Godard), from Hartley to Maddin to Greenaway... it almost feels like ground zero for the entirety of a particular brand of anti-naturalistic, formalist, stylized cinema (how Stalin was sold on it completely boggles my mind). Also, dare i say it feels more genuinely psychedelic and hallucinatory than any of Jodorowsky's bullshit.

Absolutely appreciated is the time taken to craft a scene. The cinematography of light and shadow, the sets, the costumes, the smoldering facial expressions, all genius and captivating. Call me crazy, but I actually wish the film was longer, with more effort to show the passage of time and draw out the plot.

Very Expressionist, very stagey, Stalin definitely touched himself while watching this.

There is not much of a script here. The text is tightly wrapped around a rather thin plot-line. The magic lies with the execution; the loud, wide-eyed, manneristic acting, the spastic staging, the static but dramatically framed photography, the luxurious sets and costumes. I couldn't keep my eyes off. It's a classic example of truly artistic formalism, and the grabbing atmosphere that it creates. My favorite Eisenstein film.

It's just amazing how many levels this film works on - the fascist influence, operatic/expressionist flavor, Eisenstein's own subversion of Stalin, the intricate mise-en-scène, and constant symbolism. I haven't even mentioned the actual story, and there's probably even more. I am completely floored by Eisenstein (finally).

The imagery is incredible, and I appreciate the layers of complexity. Still, I was fighting boredom and was restless and distracted. Oodles of respect for Eisenstein's brilliant eye, but I still think he needed work on his storytelling.

A formal masterpiece, dwelling on ornamentation and ritual, deliberate and theatrical performances. The cinematography is as well composed as in any film I've ever seen. But even as someone who typically loves a highly mannered film as such, this fails to bring me any closer than arm's length. The entire thing feels like a preamble to greater depths of madness and treachery.

Narratively it's little on the slow and incoherent side, but visually it's a feast, with Expressionistic set design, strong, experimental uses of shadows and composition in order convey additional subtext, a strong emphasis on symbolism and religious iconography, and clever editing. Both narratively and visually it's far more interesting than Eisenstein's other sound-film, Alexander Nevsky, and is less explicitly propagandistic as well.

This historical film gets points for being of such historical interest, by which is referred to its genre only a little, because of far more interest are the [insert stuff already mentioned by others]. That said, it dragged at times to the point of coming close to boredom. Admittedly, I was floored by Eisensteins Battleship Potemkin due to its heavy use of symbolism, parts of which I might have missed or not understood here and that would have mitigated that near-boredom as it did in Batteship.

Beautiful, stark, expressive, with unrivaled close-ups that speak of power and fury, yet still ridiculous in its pathos and self-importance. Of its time, of its country.

So, apparently, Eisenstein said to all of his actors that if they use gratuitous amounts of eyebrow movement that it would make everyone in the world understand the movie even if they don't speak Russian. You get the point...bad acting, boring story. bad movie.

Looks great but has a shitty and boredom inducing story.

Eisenstein has a clear eye for composition, making the various shots engaging in and of themselves. The problem comes for me in the way those shots have been put together, as the montage approach becomes terribly(!) constraining. Eisenstein is certainly the forerunner of the modern blockbuster, with its emphasis on short shots and creating interest through continuous edits. The shots themselves are gorgeous and terrifying--I just wish I had more time to look at each of them.

Awe-inspiring visuals, but there's not much plot to speak of, and the pace is very slow. The opening scene is absolutely incredible. Definitely worth watching.

Visually stunning, but it really runs a bit slow. Part 2 is much more worth viewing, so I suggest getting through this one.

Some really cool visuals, especially with shadows. And such intense eyes! But painfully slow for the most part

Every aspect of the image is top notch. The performances, however, have not advanced at all since Eisenstein's silent years.

I might revisit this rating at some point. The acting is a little (okay, very) theatrical for my taste, as it sometimes seemed like they were having a competition as to who could chew the (lavish) scenery the most. This is a masterclass in how to use camera angles and lighting to accentuate facial expressions to get the impact you want. Very stylized and technically masterful. I'm honestly unsure how much I liked it, but this feels about right.

Absolutely beautiful staging of a story that perhaps needed a bit more explanation for those of us not well-versed in its historic context. The acting is still stuck in silent-movie mode with a lot of long, lingering glances and raised eyebrows; you could take still pictures of all that and montage it into a pretty good movie. I'm just trying to figure out why they built all those doors for Hobbits.

artistically masterful, ideologically and contextually shitty film. In a claimingly communist society, it is shit to praise bloody tsars of the past

This is a stiff movie. You can almost hear the actors creaking each time they move. I enjoyed all the costume styles though - it reminded me of the palace scenes from Flash Gordon.

No idea what was going on most of the time, great atmosphere, Good/7

an incredible fever dream that multiplies in its dimensions as you're reminded that it's (based on) historical fact

Ivan the not so bad, Maybe I missed something but this film has very little to offer. Considering other movies released the same year "life boat" "Gaslight" "Henry V" this one is pretty average.

POWERFUL, as always from Sergei M. Eisenstein. Oddly felt like a haunting and dark puppet show with the way it was staged, using all the varieties of sleazy caricatures. I really loved the aesthetic here.

88.00

Brilliantly crafted and beautifully photographed. With a strong German expressionism influence. But there is too much exaltation and christlikeness in this Ivan. His thirst for power and domination and his eagerness to go to war are off-putting. His fight, as representative of the people, against the nobility that is clinging to its privileges is great though. Overall, I prefer Alexander Nevsky.

eisenstein musical, the sounds swell and diminish like an orchestra, ivan literally conducting during some scenes (e.g. the battle about halfway through, with the canons). i hope the second keeps this up.

Deslumbrante.

Star Rating: ★★★★1/2

Great photography, music, staging and acting. Intriguing to watch even though the plot and the storytelling would not be enough to make a film with lesser technical qualities interesting in many respects.

directing is a bit more interesting than in alexander nevsky, but these sort of historical epics aren't really my thing.

Visually amazing. I couldn't help thinking of Abel Gance's Napoleon while watching, in that both attempt to both humanize and lionize a national hero. I think this falls short of Gance's work in this regard, however. The appeals to nationalism here are majestic but sometimes seem a bit empty, as if they are substituting for character rather than flowing naturally from it. I'm going to rank this separately from part 2, which I enjoyed quite a bit more.

Great classic

VHS

#174

The film is rather slow but it's got a good but depressing story. I'm really looking forward to the second one but it's hard to find.

Marvelous film of the master of the soviet cinema S.M. Eisenstein, at least, his last film

superb! the great tarkovsky captures old russia

Magnificent, sprawling, sometimes infuriating--but always a great film.

164

Eisenstein's awesome -- almost to the point of unapproachable -- two-part history lesson, done in operatic style, stiffened, inflated, and inflamed. It is especially expressive (or maybe just excessive) in its employment of tapered beards, bulging robes, horrific shadows, crazy-house tilts, hypnotic glowerings.

The intrigue and drama make for an interesting story but it is the stunning images that give the film its life. Eisenstein uses close-ups and shadows very effectively and beautifully to convey not just emotions but thoughts, ambitions and everything else about the characters. So much of the film's depth lies not in what is said and done, but what is shown and hinted at through the visuals.

Eisentein captures the era perfectly.

149

Simply put, Ivan the Terrible is an amazing film. From start to finish, it has this aura around it that keeps you mesmerized for the entire duration of the film. The set and costume designs are incredible, even for todays standards. The incredible use of shadows, and light always keep your eyes glued to the screen. This film really showed me the genius of Eisenstein past the Battleship Potemkin. The performances are great, but Cherkasov lights up the screen as Ivan. A Masterpiece.

# 138

What an absolutely brilliant film. Eisenstein captures the era with a sophisticated and striking look with some of the most breathtaking black and white set designs I've ever seen before. The acting is what drives the movie to the top as it is some of the best you could ever hope to see. The movie is extravagant while still remaining subtle. Everything about it is nearly flawless. Ivan the Terrible is a masterpiece.

Gorgeous photography, but the Stalinist propaganda is piled on so thick that it really detracts from the visual beauty of every scene.

Brings new meaning to the term "costume drama" as the costumes are the only thing you remember