Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

shusei Although Eisenstein has never been among my favorite directors, I must admit his unfinished trilogy about Ivan the terrible proves his great talent, sincerity and bravery as a filmmaker.Part 2 of the trilogy was criticized by Stalin and banned, the production of part 3 was stopped.Stalin,who idealized Ivan 4 as a founder and a leader of a powerful Russian State, suggested(namely, ordered) Eisenstein the biopic about him. Eisenstein planned to make it as a trilogy to make from "ordered" subject matter cinematic works of art. As a whole trilogy must have been represent three stage of Ivan's life: the heroic youth of "Tsar of All Russia', his middle age with the suffering and the beginning of moral decline as a results of never-ending conspiracy, and the beginning of last period of his life with a massacre in Novgorod and battles in Livoian War,where all of his supporters were killed and he was left alone at last.I've recently read the scenario of part 3 and found there both apparent similarities with previous parts and logical development of the plot after the events depicted previously. Among these 3 parts, the plot of part 2 is the pivotal one, so the contrast with part 1 naturally turned out to be very keen, and probably that's why Stalin and his fellows saw in it unpleasant contradiction with heroic part1. The composition of the trilogy is so dramatic and complete in its tragic sense that somehow reminds me of "Godfather" trilogy, but it is based on historical facts. And author's intention seems to represent the tragic life of this unique historical person with no bias of propaganda. Eisenstein was so sincere as an artist that he couldn't simplify the complex and dramatic life of his hero. And he was so brave in front of real political power that no compromise was made in creating the most uneasy part 2.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU This double film is a masterpiece in many ways. It took two years of research before starting to come out of thin air and being filmed. The first part came out in 1944 and the second part in 1945. This means the research was done when the USSR was down under the feet of the Nazis. The first part came out when the tide had turned and the Russians were already advancing in Poland. The second part came out after the fall of Berlin or close before. The political meaning at the time was clear. The first part was singing the praise of the man who unified Russia, just like it was necessary in the war years to reunify the USSR for the last push to Berlin. The second part is slightly different since it was the time when Ivan the Terrible had to face the plots and conspiracy from the Boyars, the nobles and the top echelon church people and he had to defeat them with wise schemes more than just plain violence. That was of course essential after the war to face the various groups of people who could have spoken out of unity now the outside danger was eliminated. But we have to go beyond this immediate and historical value of the film when it was shot. It is a masterpiece because Eisenstein uses rather simple means to produce an epic film whose every scene is poignant, powerful, impressive, etc. Eisenstein uses all the possibilities his know-how and experience provide him with. Of course he uses black and white to play on shade, shadows and contrast so that some scenes are frightening and quite in the line of the big masters of horror of the late 20s, Fritz Lang or Murnau. He uses the body language and the composition of the scenes and setting to make every single square centimeter meaningful and active. The hands, the faces, the bodies are among the best actors of the film along with the actors themselves, quite in the line of what Eisenstein was doing in the 20s, but even better because he was able to use their lips in order to make them speak. The soundtrack is prodigious. He composes a real symphony with voices used in the most dramatic and expressive way, with all kinds of sounds and noise that give a real depth to the pictures on the screen and the voices of the actors, and finally the outstanding music score by Prokofiev: probably one of the best film music ever and that music totally avoids the repetitiveness of the music of the old silent films to create a fully developed universe of its own that amplifies the voices and the sounds and noises. That creates the epic atmosphere the story itself needs. What's more, in the second part, the use of color for two reels of the film shows the force of the black and white reels, and at the same time shows how Eisenstein can use the color of these reels in order to create a different but similar contrast, this time centered on red dominating the various other colors that are essentially, white, black and yellow. The red of these reels becomes the expression of life and at the same time of some oppressiveness coming from some danger that red also designates (and surprisingly enough we cannot find any "revolutionary" meaning to that red, but we may be missing some inside meaning in the USSR of the time). The films have been digitally re-mastered but not in any way changed: we still have the jerky pictures of those days and the blurry sound track of before digital sound (even the music that could have been re-recorded). And it is good because we really have the impression to watch an old film from the 50s. By the way do not believe what the historical presentation of the bonuses tell you, in English, at least in my edition, because it is purely there to pacify those who may see Stalin behind Ivan.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

OldAle1 Ivan returns to Moscow and begins the film in much the same way as we saw him in Part I, consolidating his power and attempting to break the control of much of the wealth of the country by the hereditary landowners, the boyars; the film is subtitled Boyarsky zagovar or "Boyar's Plot", so we know that this struggle will be central to the film. Ivan looks older and more tired, and there is even early on a glint of madness and fear in his eyes. Cherkassov is just as impressive as in the first film and conveys both age and growing paranoia subtly and broadly as the scenes demand.The intricate plot involves Ivan's growing suspicions of both his aunt Efrosina, who he (correctly) believes poisoned his wife and plots his own death, and his onetime friend Kolychev, who became the monk Philip in Part I. Philip has now agreed to become the Metropolitan of Moscow, essentially Ivan's link with the church -- here we have many opportunities to see the corruption of religion, which no doubt Stalin approved, though the rest of the film obviously appealed less to him as he had it shelved for the rest of his life -- and he is frustrated by what he sees as Ivan's misuse of power. Eventually the boyars get through to him, and in a truly magical and glorious kinetic celebration of dance, music and even color (red-tinted apparently 2-strip film from the Germans) Efrosina's and Philip's plots come together in the person of Efrosina's idiot son Vladimir....I won't spoil the ending, and will just finish my remarks by noting that the film also contains flashbacks to the Tsar's childhood, showing the justifications for his paranoia and hatred of the boyars as we see how his parents were both murdered at their behest; the young Ivan in these scenes (Erik Pyryev) is particularly notable; and the musical/dance sequences that occupy the last third of the film allow us to see Eisenstein at his Hollywood-gaudiest, a potential director of Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire, a mounter of neo-Busby Berkley spectaculars. What films those might have been! It's impossible for me to pick a favorite between the two films; Part I is in some ways closer to an action spectacle, an old 30s serial; Part II is wilder and woollier, more expressionistic and less real but just as involving...for me the progression of Ivan's character is quite believable, the performance of Cherkassov perfectly suited to a man who is aware that he is, in the minds of his people and the limited political conscience of a medieval world, more than a man though far less than a God or an angel.The Criterion DVD is, like the disc for Part I, absolutely splendid; it's hard to imagine the film looking better than this, or indeed any film from the era looking better.

ritamaduro Ivan Grosnyy, Part II is the movie of my life; the Part I is also a very good film. It is the masterpiece of Sergei Eisenstein. Unfortunately we can never see the Part III of this meant to be trilogy. The performances (especially Nikolai Cherkasov), the photography, the wardrobe, the scenarios and the shots are the most beautiful I have ever seen in the history of film-making. However, it is necessary to watch the Part I first to understand the history. I suggest to all the people who like this genre of film to see another very good film of Sergey Eisenstein: Alexander Nevsky once again with Nikolai Cherkasov in the main role. I recommend to all the people who want to see these movies to by the Criterion DVD box set, which contains also first part and, Alexander Nevsky. Don't die without seeing these masterpieces.