Alexander Nevsky

It has three major problems that keep it from being a movie I would want to see again: 1) The acting is pretty awful, 2) the propoganda is utterly lacking in subtlety, and 3) for the most part, it's dull as dirt. However, it so packed from start to end with astonishing, gorgeous, memorable images that I have to admit that from a photographic standpoint, it is truly a great film.

To say this lacks subtlety is to miss that it made no attempt to be subtle. It's not a historical epic with propaganda thrown in, it's blatant propaganda with a historical veneer to tie things together, and that veneer is a dull badly told story. But the images are striking, the battle scenes rousing and the score magnificent. Whether that makes this worth watching depends on how strongly you feel about proRussian antiGerman propaganda, and how much boredom you can take for technical proficiency

Shameless propaganda has never looked so good...

"Alexandre Nevsky" is as historically important as it is lethally boring. Not as visually audacious as Eisenstein's previous alleged classics ("Bronenosets Potyomkin" and "Oktyabr") and containing absolutely zero interesting elements -the plot is borderline, the characters nonexistent and the heavy-handed Russian patriotism distracting, this glorification of a legendary 13th century warrior fills film historians with glee and leaves everyone else yawning.

This is a poorly made propaganda film, it had almost no script. The characters are cartoon like and lack any personality. The battle scenes are built around lots of repetitive hacking.

Hideously awful. Imagine Ed Wood doing a historical battle epic. Even the Prokofiev score sucks

zzzzzzzzzzzzz .... oh that's the famous Ice battle? Thats kind of neat I gu---zzzzzzzzz

Really hard to take seriously once they start lobbing babies into pyres.

The stilted moments of drama unfortunately undercut this film's qualities. Even rewatching Nevsky now after many, many years, back at college, have past, it still falters when Eisenstein's silent films were completely succinct, pure cinema. Still, there is a charm to Nevsky, and it's still the creation of Eisenstein, moments where his gifts for visual composition are allowed to shine.

I have no idea why people like this movie, there's nothing about it that was done right. The action is clumsy and unrealistic, the acting is miserable, the subtitles were translated by somebody who had terrible command of the English language, it was boring and untastefully propogandic. The only good thing I can say about it is that the music was pretty decent.

Potent cinema, silly dialogue, even dumber history.

If it wasn't for the last 20ish minutes, this would have been my favorite Eisenstein. It's a joy to watch him play with sound and image together, especially during the climactic battle. However, it really drags and becomes joylessly manipulative at the end.

A gem of a silent film with a fantastic score by Sergei Prokofiev.

I just love Eisenstein's direction, with his long beautifully lit still shots and his editing consisting of skewed zooms. There's a lot to say about the nationalist agenda of the movie and the portrayal of Russian leaders as brave soldiers, but the accusations of jingoism are misguided as the Russians in this movie are only defending themselves, when jingoism is based on an aggressive foreign policy. Spoiler: they even release the German foot soldiers at the end.

Eisenstein's propagandistic tale of the 13th-century Russian hero (Nikolai Cherkasov) who defeated the Teutonic Knights has many merits; a brilliant score by Prokofiev, a stunning battle sequence which remains exciting even today, and superb cinematography throughout. But outside of that sequence it's pretty rough going at times, with a weak, thin script, one-dimensional characters, and a surprisingly uneven sense of pacing. Worth at least one viewing for any serious buff, but probably only one.

Passable but underwhelming Russian historical epic. It's all really building up to the big battle. While the battle is impressive in scale, the execution leaves something to be desired, as it very much looks like people pretending to fight, complete with obviously pulling back to not hit people too hard, etc.

Heavy-handed Stalinist propaganda, but the music is great, the costumes and sets are wonderful, and the battle sequences--featuring a goodly percentage of the Soviet army--are simply amazing.

As a piece of Anti-fascist, Anti-Church, Anti-Bourgeois, Pro-Military, Nationalist Propaganda it's phenomenal; but as a piece of art and entertainment viewed through a modern lens it's pretty atrocious. There's repetitive, boring scenes, sound design years behind what Hollywood was making at the time, cardboard characters with no development, and a script so over-the-top in it's message and tone that it actually becomes laughably bad at times.

Propaganda is fun.

Sergei Eisenstein's ponderously surging epic has a famous score by Prokofiev and a stunning battle on ice. When it's great it's very great, but there are long deadly stretches (which isn't the case with Eisenstein's other films). The plot has something to do with the 13thcentury invasion of Russia by German knights; needless to say, the Russians drive the invaders out. The propaganda isn't Communist but nationalist: the medieval story was used to warn Hitler to stay out.

85.50

the last two minutes of this movie are great ☭

Half the film seems like it's extras swinging swords and axes at each others' shoulders, and Nevsky comes off as an aloof prick. Admittedly the Teutonic helms look fun.

The first half has incredibly boring buildup where it's mostly grandiose platitudes and nationalistic catering. The battle scene that follows is technically impressive in terms of its scale and composition, but a lot of the choreography is just awkwardly swinging swords at each other which ends up looking pretty stale due to how static the camera is. The aftermath of the battle is strangely poignant and beautifully shot, which elevates its idea of Russian pride and what that stands for.

A war movie unlike any other. Here Eisenstein has nearly perfected his singular aesthetic (he did that with Ivan the Terrible). I tend to judge cinema foremost as a narrative art. By those standards, Nevsky is nothing but rabble-rousing nationalism; it glorifies battlefield heroism and revels in death. Eisenstein mainly saw cinema as a visual and theatrical medium, though, and there lies his mastery. The staging, dramaturgy, compositions and photography are breath-taking.

222

I thought the action was good for a propaganda movie. Music was good and those Teutonic Knight costumes were super cool. Bad: it sure is filled with propaganda. We get it, Hitler is evil, Japan is evil, Stalin is good, Religion is for the Bourgeoisie, real men like to fish after a glorious battle.

Remember being fairly bored by this at the time, but I like Prokofiev. Score might be off.

The main flaw is that it's characters are very sterile. It doesn't help that the Germans have the coolest helmets ever used in movies! Because the main attraction is that headgear! So I ended up rooting for the wrong team in the battle! And it's that colossal battle that is what this movie is all about. Countless faceless warriors fighting it out with swords, spears and axes. Definitely spectacular! The biggest quality for me was the cinematography. Accompanied by a complimentary soundtrack.

"Nazis! I hate these guys."//-Sergei 'Indiana' Eisenstein//Blatant propaganda, but who cares?

Despite the narrative flaws, it is a beautifully photographed film. The opening images of skeletons, both human and animal, littering the landscape is chilling. The scenes that rely solely on the images to communicate the film's message are the most effective. Eisenstein definitely shows his skill as a filmmaker but is handcuffed by so many questionable elements that it's merely a good time capsule film; a lesson on technical prowess.

As with Battleship Potemkin, Eisenstein displays his ability to create magnificent visual sequences with dynamic and expressive camerawork and with fantastic editing (both aided by a wonderful Prokofiev score), but as a storyteller he is very flat and dull.

Heavy-handed anti-Catholic communist propaganda depicting medieval Russia's stuggle against the (who else?) sadistic Germans. Will give it some points for style, sets, and costumes, though the action scenes and music during the final battles are laughable.

217

#232

The acting is awful and the propaganda about as subtle as a kick in the teeth (the story of inhuman Teutonic invaders defiling the great mother Russia? In 1938? Difficult to see the parallels there!), but Alexander Nevsky is wonderful for two reasons: the beautiful direction by Eisenstein, and the utterly magnificent score by Prokofiev. Worth a butcher's.

too boring for me.

Desperately, Sergei needed a film. The authorities offered one last chance, and they gave him a list of subjects. With Russia's delicate political situation in 1937, the friends of Sergei assessed the list more carefully. They opted for the story of Nevsky's defeat of the Germans in the 13th century. Why? asked Sergei. Because no one knows anything about him, said the friends, but it's pro-Russia and anti-Germany. A done deal. I know, it is a masterpiece, but it is a very silly masterpiece.

An impressive film for it's era although the action is not amazing, it's still grand. The closed captioning is good if you're trying to learn Russian too, because the translation is almost literal.

# 220

Near-overpowering jingoism renders Alexander Nevsky as one-dimensional as would be expected of any Stalin-era production, but this never diminishes the immense scale and spectacle of Eisenstein's propagandist epic. At the film's centre is one of cinema's most memorable battle sequences, which makes the very best of some smart camera techniques, a rousing score and the forced but expressive acting for a spectacularly satisfying dose of medieval warfare.