Awesome visuals, as in part one, but with a meatier plot. It was still rather slow for me, and I disliked the scenes shot in color. But if you watch part one, you must watch part two.

Better than the first one. But the acting style is still way too theatrical for it's year.

Not a good movie to watch when you're sleepy, despite being only 85 minutes long. This continues Eisenstein's meditation on the shape of Ivan's beard, the geometry of costumes, and the mysticism of the authoritarian ruler who is one with the land. It almost sounds a little like Hero, except without all the ass-kicking.

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, there's probably even more. I am completely floored by Eisenstein (finally).

157

Looks great but has a shitty and boredom inducing story.

#169

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.

# 140

Ivan the Terrible Part Two is exactly like its predecessor; a movie that keeps you staring and entertained by the amazing acting and the mindblowing and unforgettable visuals that Eisenstein created. There's not much I can say about this one that I haven't said for Part One, because in my opinion, they are pretty much one movie.

The unfortunate influence of Stalin-era aesthetic demands prevents Eisenstein from soaring as high as he could. Truly unique.

Very similar to the first, which was great, though the visual tone is a little less consistent and the film as a whole gives in to fits of flamboyance a bit more. The plot is captivating despite being a bit drawn out, but once again it's the stunning visuals that dominate. Nikolai Cherkasov is amazing as Ivan.

I was apprehensive at the beginning as the score didn't seem to create the crescendo the drama of the scene required; something Part One did exceedingly well. But as the film progressed, the master of light and shape prevailed. Each frame its own statue, each scene a work of art. // I am certain my rating would be even higher now I am without the worry of this initial detachment. I look forward to seeing it again.

150

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.