Ivan the Terrible, Part Two

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.

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.

Looks great but has a shitty and boredom inducing story.

What i said about part one, except possibly even more so? Although if anything, this feels like nothing so much as an extension of the former (am i the only one who felt like this was actually way too short?) The color sequences are sort of a revelation in and of themselves, and this feels a bit more character-based and dramatically looser than Part One. I can't think of another filmmaker offhand, outside of Malick or maybe Bresson, who can make a dolly-in feel like a phenomenological event.

If part 1 was a good fit among those films like Potemkin which might uncharitably be called "national propaganda films", part 2 seems much more Shakespearean. Ivan becomes a much more flawed (though still impressive) character, and the power struggle between his court and the clergy is fascinating. There's suspense, tragedy and justice (of a sort). The ending scene is the only part that doesn't do the film justice, setting up a third part which will never be.

Expressionist pageantry, cheap but very stylized. Very political soviets!

Even more spectacular and visually astonishing than its predecessor. Just too bad Eisenstein never got to make part 3.

What raises this from the first part is the fever dream Oprichniki dance + mock crowning + mistaken assassination, all of which is incredible. Otherwise has the same issues of being very stagey.

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.

# 140

I didn't really get what Eisenstein was going for during Part 1, but I totally got it this time around. The disparate parts come together perfectly to create an operatic medieval political drama, complete with melodramatic acting and campy musical numbers, expressionist production design, experimental cinematography and Marxist interpretation of history to justify its position as propaganda. It's a very weird and unique concept, but it 100% works and I loved almost every minute of it.

The first part is horribly inflated by nearly unanimous praise from critics and film aficionados alike, this one has been treated equally. My distaste for this movie, however, equals the previous. It's boring and people are using their eyebrows as props, that does not make a good movie. The only thing I like here is the completely irrelevant color sequence to break up the tedium.

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.

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.

150

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

Star Rating: ★★★★1/2

88.50

lindeza. a parte colorizada é maravilhosa

Still as visually spectacular as the first part, but this time there's a bit more Shakespearean drama in the political plots (oh, and some color too). I certainly wasn't expecting a few musical numbers along the way. I enjoyed watching the two parts (and wish the third had been made), yet it's not quite something I'd rush right back to again.

Eisenstein's visual style makes it worth watching.

I guess it doesn't quite have the novelty that the first part did for me, but it's still a triumph of formal modes of expression used to their fullest effect in the service of an otherwise uncomplicated story. Together, I think these films constitute the height of Eisenstein's accomplishment, and it's a crying shame that he was prevented by Stalin from completing the third part.

I didn't finish it. Fell sleep twice before giving up. I wanted to watch it, but the narration approach didn't age well.

157

Made in the mid 40s but not released until later since Stalin figured out it was about him. Still has same issues and strengths as the first one (too theatrical, masterful technically.) A couple of scenes are in color (the Russians took a German colorization factory during the war) and those scenes are just beautiful. Might have been among my most aesthetically pleasing movies if the whole movie had been like that. The way the shadows and colors and lighting meld in those scenes is captivating.

Preferable to part one simply because it's lighter and looser. There's a playfulness to some shots that I haven't seen anywhere else, and even if that virtuosity is suppossed to accentuate the drama, the impact is mainly one of delight in cinema. The "content" plays a purely formal role.

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.

quite simply not as beautiful as the first film, but that gradual corruption is quite simply not the point either. the dramatic ironies are on point. the loss of national multiplicity paves toward dueling terrors. neither tragic but certainly one is more pathetic than the other

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

#169