framptonhollis
Although the few talkies Eisenstein made are often noted as being much different than his silent, I did find many traces of Eisenstein's trademark visual style all throughout this masterpiece. Brief flickers of genius, artistic filmmaking were present multiple times, and much of it felt like a silent film with words (if THAT makes any sense). Eisenstein was no doubt an extremely visual filmmaking, and although his few talkies certainly DO have a lot of talking, sometimes their visuals convey even more.Various images sprinkled throughout this film shall likely remain in my cinematic memory for years to come. Ivan's haunting shadow looming behind him in an almost ghostly manner, the many close ups of Ivan, showing off actor Nikolay Cherkasov's bizarrely creepy and unique face. These Gothic images tell a story of conflict and pain that is at times relentlessly dark and tragic. This is a powerful and haunting epic, a film injected with an indescribable real-yet-somehow-surreal type atmosphere, and the same mood as a German Expressionist horror film crossed with a David Lean blockbuster
chuck-526
Part I of Eisenstein's masterpiece "Ivan the Terrible" (Part III of the intended trilogy wasn't completed). (Also see my review of Part II for additional comments.) The storyline may be unfamiliar and the film is heavily "episodic". So first skim Wikipedia articles "Ivan the Terrible" and "Ivan the Terrible (film)", and understand the terms "Tsar" and "third Rome".This is not just a simple wartime morale booster. It explicates Eisenstein's personal theories of "what made Ivan tick?" (although this theme may be obscured by censor-required changes, especially in Part I): childhood trauma, the heavy burden of power, great power inevitably corrupts, force of personal will overpowered good sense, "Great Rusian State" too abstract and unrealistic a goal, even a possible Faustian bargain. The recently prominent biological possibilities (sublethal dose of his wife's poison; near-death illness; regular use of mercury-based pain medication; inherited manic-depressive cycles) aren't even considered.The Netflix DVD contained an early transfer from Corinth Films, Inc. The barely acceptable sound quality did no favors to Sergei Prokofiev's excellent score, and the hard to read subtitles were burned right into the picture itself. A DVD from Hong Kong (via eBay) was the same mediocre transfer with the same burned in English subtitles, and again no commentary nor bonus materials. The Criterion version image transfer was much better, and the sound had more consistent loudness and less hiss (but the net sound quality -apparently inherited from the original- still wasn't very good). New similar (if somewhat more literally translated) subtitles are easier to read and control. There's both a commentary and lots of helpful bonus materials, including some lengthy alternate sequences.(The Criterion version is part of "Eisenstein: The Sound Years" - avoid the titles "Ivan the Terrible, Parts I and II" which are the old Corinth transfer!)
felixoteiza
While still a remarkable production, ITT-1 doesn't nearly reach the peaks of excellence of its namesake and sequel ITT-2. Technically is still great, a visual masterpiece, but there are several factors—natural or logical, fruit of the circumstances, etc—preventing it from becoming the classic the later is. For one thing, its episodic nature, which robs the film of an adequate building up of tensions, an emotional crescendo, culminating in a spectacular denouement as we see in the sequel, in those unforgettable dance & Church scenes. That's the problem with episodic plots, that much of the tension generated and accumulated in each episode, or that lingering from previous ones, dissolves during it, even more when closure comes with that ending, which leaves for the next episode the task of starting building tensions and focusing once again. We may compare both ITT-1 and 2, with two race cars starting both from the same point and then car 2 accelerating until reaching its maximum speed while car 1 goes stopping every hundred feet. That's what happens here with ITT-1 and its sequel. That's why the sequel is more exciting to watch, at it's far more focused, more tightly weaved as a story.The best ex. of what I'm saying about ITT-1 is the war on Kazan. It happens, then we never hear of it again, not even as a memory, its only contribution to the main plot line having been that establishes Ivan as a smart, strong and powerful conqueror, and that also informs us on the origins on the great trust he'll put later on the three men on which he would base his Oprishkina, the Basmanovs and Malyuta. That's very informative, of course, something we had to know, but it shows also the price ITT-1 pays for having come out first; for making possible for the sequel to be such an epic, as it's the one in charge of preparing the terrain for it, developing those themes and elements that will come to heed in the second part, the conflicts that will come clashing to the open. Different, unrelated, elements have to be gradually brought together to complete the required palette of characters and events. That's the task of ITT-1 and that's what makes its writing so dispersed and its action so unfocused.But apart from that there are also some flaws in the editing, the directing, that at times practically take us out of what should be the mood of the moment. For ex., the brush of Ivan with death comes immediately after his victory in Kazan; there's absolutely no transition there, no triumphal return to his people, like we see in Alexander Nevsky. Ivan wins the battle and next he's dying in bed (BTW, it's just me or that was just a trick to weasel out those he shouldn't trust? Come on, one moment he's dying and the next he's running around making speeches). Also the whole sequence is way too long, with and excruciatingly slow pace at times, which works against the pacing of the whole movie, as it totally clashes with that of the previous, the assault of Kazan. So, transitions are not always smooth here, many are even bumpy, abrupt, as if entire scenes had been edited out. That happens for ex. with Anastasia's death: she drinks the poisoned liquid and next we are already in her funeral.Despite all its faults, ITT-1 still makes for one movie worth watching, especially if you have already seen the sequel. Technically is still impeccable, the same attention to detail by the director; the same allegoric surroundings we see in ITT-2—after all both unfold in the same environment, the Czar's palace, the church, etc. Also present here are the trademark close ups on the purposely lighted faces of the actors, the focus on their expressionist eye movements and the middle shots exposing them against a background of deliberately chosen imagery—-as the fresco of a cadaverous face, a human skull, on a wall during funeral; the ever present combinations of light and shadows to create the expected mood. Also, contrary to other reviewers, I love these pompous, grandiloquent characters, so self-conscious all, who when talking seem to be pronouncing every one of their words for the Ages; each one seeming to believe they have some transcendental truth to communicate, some divine mission to accomplish, as they keep mentioning God as if certain that God was on their side. For someone more or less familiar with the works of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, nothing less than what we see here is what we expect from a Russian epic, in the acting department. The only one I didn't quite like it is Nazvanov. He overacts most of his scenes, so much so at time he gave me the impression of watching a mime, a ballet dancer, rather than an actor.In all, technically as great as the sequel, and so the acting, but the pacing, the editing, the score, suffer somewhat, not the least because of official State meddling--Eisenstein wanted to begin the movie with the scenes of the young Ivan, but Stalin considered too depressing. 7.5/10.
denis888
Mind it - this is a film of a genius Eisenstein that is sadly full of clear pro-Stalin sentiments. Joseph Stalin wanted a film that will show him as a symbol, as a heroic figure, but through a historical allusion, through an allegory, and thus Ivan The Terrible was made. It is obvious that Ivan the Tzar is a precise copy of Stalin of that time - cruel, wanton, merciless and straightforward. Anyway, all the political sentiments aside, the film has another big drawback - the over the place, rather exaggerated play of many actors. They goggle their eyes so funnily, they over react and over play so often that it cheapens the film's potential. Even with all this in mind, we must admit that the film is still worth the watching. It is grand, majestic, especially in the battle scene when the Russian army seizes the Tartar city of Kazan, or the deeply tragical scene of Ivan's wife's death by treacherous poisoning. The very figure of Ivan is a great plus - he is strong, wild and so openly psychotic that convinces from the word Go. Other great character is his loyal companion and main murderer Maluta Skuratov, a terrible merciless bloody tyrant, who kills in the name of, just like having some drink. The excellent inclusion of color on the scene of the Feast is such a warm surprise and such a great welcome, here we see Ivan and his team in a tranquil, peaceful mood, even though the feast song is violent and creepy. Watch it without prejudice, forget about mistakes and goofs, just enjoy the tense and dark atmosphere of this understated master work.
