Boba_Fett1138 The movie "Ivan Groznyy I" from 1944 was already made in a terribly outdated style, even for its era. "Ivan Groznyy II: Boyarsky zagovor" is no different. Sergei M. Eisenstein's style of featuring long stares and extreme close-ups worked out extremely well and effective for his silent movies but in 'talkies' it only slows the movie down. Sure it's fine and artistically impressive looking all but it's not halve as effective as would be the case with a silent movie.Even though this movie got released 14 years after the previous movie "Ivan Groznyy I", it still got shot at the same time as the first movie. Reason why it got released so much later was because Stalin banned it because he wasn't too happy about the portrayal of Czar Ivan IV in this movie, who's more dark side is shown and besides shows a more crazy side of him, as he slowly slides into madness. Guess we should be lucky that this movie still exists today and that it didn't got completely destroyed during Stalin's reign.Because of the fact that the movie its story and main character are much darker, the movie becomes also more interesting to watch, when comparing it to the first movie. It's darker approach also makes its old fashioned style of film-making more tolerable. It suits its story better, even though its still far from ideal. I just can't imaging people still liked watching this in 1958, no matter how great and big Eisenstein was, who had died 10 years prior to the release of this movie.It's an interesting watch for those interested in history and for the fans of Eisenstein's work. It would had been interesting to see part III being completed but Stalin halted production and showed destroyed most of the already shot footage, since the movie once more didn't showed Ivan to his own liking and the movie was supposedly also a protest against Stalin own current regime, that showed some parallels to the tyrant methods of Ivan the terrible, as got portrayed in that movie.Already an outdated movie during the time of its production but still an artistically interesting movie to watch, that works out better than the first movie.8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Spondonman Part 2 followed on from Part 1 without a gap – the 2 put together would make one colossal movie. The only trouble being that the last 90 minutes or so would still be missing (Part 3). This has a 16 minute colour sequence near the end plus the last 2 minutes that added a new dimension to the story, and although the spotlighting was a bit ropey it all worked well with the usual fantastic camera angles and ugly brooding people.Ivan vacillates between doing it his way and relying on Mother Church for help. Either way the plotting aristocratic boyars have to be sorted out for once and for all, this he sets out to accomplish with the help of the Men Apart – his NKVD. In reality Ivan was going mad at this period, the similarities to Stalin still resound. Eisenstein pulled his punches but must have known Part 2 would end up in trouble, which it did – it wasn't released from the metaphorical gulag until 1958, and Part 3 was aborted. Intensely absorbing and startlingly melodramatic by turns it still hasn't got the same energy as Part 1, but that only makes it a lesser classic. Again, it resembles a sedate silent film with sound (with a bit of red this time), the simple tale powerfully told by a master propagandist using sledgehammer symbolism at every turn. Intelligent film-making is hardly the phrase to use – a previous post compared Eisenstein correctly to Kurosawa – very different styles but with the same results.Wonderful sequel, much better to be watched on the heels of Part 1. At least the people who didn't like that won't watch this and comment adversely on it, right?

MartinHafer It just so happens that IVAN THE TERRIBLE, PARTS I and II both had entries in the 50 Worst Movies book by Harry Medved. Now, I do think that declaring they are among the worst movies ever is an overstatement, though they are still both pretty poor films--particularly the first one, as it featured more eye rolling and "googly eyed looks" than I have ever seen before!! Director Eisenstein and an awful lot of other people out there thought this made the film "artsy and profound"--and since I am legally sane, I must say that I hated this first film!! The second, while still very incomplete-looking, is a vast improvement, as eye rolling is minimal, though overacting and long boring scenes are present in this film just like in part 1! While part 2 looks pretty incomplete and needed at least another hour (especially since it never gets to Ivan's insane behavior later in life--like killing his son and heir while in a fit of anger). Since both parts 1 and 2 were commissioned by Stalin to both excuse his own murderous reign and glorify him, it's no surprise that Ivan's life story is left very incomplete. Even without all the truly awful behaviors of Ivan, apparently the supremely evil Stalin STILL didn't like the film and wouldn't allow its release during his lifetime. Maybe he didn't allow this because he was more worried people would see what a HUGE waste of money and resources the film was instead of seeing Stalin as a crazy guy just like Ivan! By the way, there was one segment of this tedious film that was just so cool that the film merits a 4 (without it, a 2)--and that's the scene with Prince Vladimir at the banquet! It is well-done and pretty funny in a dark way. And, the scene was done in a Russian version of 2-color Technicolor. This is VERY odd, by the way, because by the mid-1930s, a vastly improved true color process was developed by Technicolor that no longer made everything look all orangy-red and greenish-blue. So, this film during the color sequences looks a lot like a silent or early sound color film. Very odd indeed for the 1940s.

atrolleynatrain part two is undoubtedly the best half. not just for the entrancing colour scenes that flash before our eyes as a most generous gift, but also because the eerier ivan never gives in to the monster he seems to have become. ivan is depicted like a forgiving evil spirit and these opposite natures make the character the puzzling critique to despots and other scum of the sort it is. one of the works of art that has haunted me since i was a teenager and hasn't lost its spell. furthermore, the invocation of the tsar's childhood offers one of the best acting performances of both movies (part 1 and 2): ivan, the young orphan. in a way, we're eventually disarmed through the strange beauty of the boy, already the tsar, already the god-like figure. the love and care deprived angel grows into the grey bearded nocturnal predator with his thugs in black hoods only to concede damnation to his aunt, conceding her a bit of well-deserved distorted muliebrity in the lush portrait of the demented pietá. but both young and adult ivans are truly and deeply the depiction of righteousness, no matter what kingdom, no matter what purposes, and revenge itself takes the frame of sacrificial salvation with the Shakespearian counter-plot against his foes. to sum up, cherkassov's strabismus and thick eyelashes are just superficial baits to a huge masterpiece of film-making.