Audience Member
excellent, entertaining, and easy to watch
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
01/12/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Amidst extremely stagey, exaggerated melodrama is some of Eisenstein's finest design work. But he is so obsessed with his calculated design that it's at the expense of a film which can actually perform. Everything about Eisenstein's montage theory works in silent film, but dialogue dramatically changes pacing and rhythm, and it's not something he adjusted to well. The acting is so phony at times that even with such gorgeous cinematography and production design, even with the weight of Prokofiev's majestic score, I just have to laugh, otherwise I take myself and my studies too seriously. Played silent, there's still a masterclass of montage to study here, as well as cinematic geography. Eisenstein's montage is often thought to be a counterpoint to mise en scene, but I think this film especially proves that to be untrue. This being the latter part of his career, he's left food for thought for future filmmakers to dwell on, a scientist who presented the beta product that others would later perfect. Eisenstein's films are ultimately propagandist; it's hard for the strong minded to be totally engaged. Unless you're behind these passions, you won't be moved. You see beauty, but you don't experience it. There is not a strong sense of humanism or existentialism in his films. Nevertheless, I still admire his grand cinematic concepts, regardless of how thin they were running by the 40s. What Eisenstein achieved in both theory and execution is some of the most crucial evolution to this craft, and to this day we see his influences pervading the film and video landscape.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
01/12/23
Full Review
s r
1001 movies to see before you die. I saw this on YouTube.
Epic and creative. Good music. However, it was long winded, overly dramatic with close ups and a confusing narrative at times.
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
03/31/23
Full Review
William L
I am unsure about the claims that Ivan the Terrible was designed as a critique of the Stalinist policies rampant at the time (bringing any accuracy to a portrayal of the complex, vioent, and tempermental titular character would seem to inevitably result in some for of comparison to the dictator, a model that many of the absolutist rulers of the region have emulated to a degree), though the film is certainly rich in symbolism and vividly portrayed. Eisenstein's compelling cinematography is what stands out the most to the viewer, with angular shots and well-designed use of lighting. However, the acting seems to be a sticking point for me; slow and deliberate, with long pauses, characters often throw their heads back with exaggerated flourishes to look down at those around them, in a manner that comes off as more melodramatic than sincere, even for the pre-1950 era. (3.5/5)
Rated 3.5/5 Stars •
Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars
08/12/20
Full Review
Audience Member
I’m not all that familiar with history, but a good movie about a historical figure or event can be quite fascinating for me because I can learn more while being entertained. Ivan the Terrible Part One filled me in on the titular character’s rise to power. I liked that they used the early scenes to frame the story from a personal angle. It helped the rest of the movie to have Ivan established as a sympathetic figure with friends he cared about and a bride he loved. This also increased the level of betrayal because those he trusted were not always there for him. At times the film plays like a series of vignettes from Ivan’s life, which threatened to negate the personal feel of the story. I was afraid it was becoming clinical and boring, but there was enough grounding early on that I still felt a level of investment in his journey. Most of Ivan the Terrible Part One felt like a silent film, which isn’t necessarily a compliment. Many scenes were slow-paced and seemed to relish in showing every detail. This pace is established from the first scene, because the coronation is very long and drawn out. Also, the acting performances were all big and melodramatic. Even moments where a character just needed to appear for a second on screen and give a reaction shot, they would exaggerate it to the extreme. I also find it weird in some of these old movies how people do certain things in an obvious fashion where many people would see them, and yet it’s treated like they’re sneaking around undetected. It always throws me off, but it’s a common thing from movies in this era, so it’s hard for me to hold it against this film in particular. The best thing about Ivan the Terrible Part One was set design and shot composition. They had some elaborate sets and props that heightened the authentic feel of the film. They also included some shots in outdoor locations for the battle scenes, and they did a great job of making it look like a massive war. I imagine a huge army like this was quite challenging to emulate 50 years before CGI was a thing. Also they did a lot with forced perspective, shadows, and other tricks in order to create some amazing visuals. You could see the artistic hand of Sergei Eisenstein planning out how things would be shot in order to tell the story not just in the words spoken, but with visual symbolism as well. Ivan the Terrible Part One didn’t blow me away, but I was impressed enough that I am curious about the rest of the story.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
10/10/18
Full Review
Audience Member
Esta película hace mérito al hecho que se denomine al cine como "arte" puesto que lo es, pero la manera en que se realizó esta película, lo es realmente.
Lo más impresionante es la partitura de Sergei Prokofiev, siendo sincero, no se aprecia del todo en la película...El sonido en ese aspecto limita mucho la visión de Prokofiev. Por fortuna para todos, muchos directores de orquesta han reconocido lo grande de la partitura por lo que no escasean grabaciones y conciertos sobre Ivan El Terrible.
Para Prokofiev era elemental estar detrás de la producción para saber como relacionar su música con las escenas, el director de cine Sergei Einsenstein declaró que Prokofiev estuvo presente durante el rodaje y que no parecía estar dispuesto a dejar a merced de la industria cinematográfica sovietica su partitura. Es por ello que el compositor influyó bastante en el reconocimiento universal de esta obra.
El actor principal Nikolai Cherkasov debe ser el equivalente a Humprey Bogart en Rusia, puesto que sus interpretaciones son memorables. Mal no recuerdo que fue el quien encarnó a Lenin, Alexander Nevsky e Ivan. Al menos los últimos dos son papeles famosos en el cine.
Algo hermoso es la simbología en una película, en este filme se aprecia mucho en las sombras de cada personaje y sus expresiones y obviamente las referencias históricas aportan mucho a entender como era todo un tiempo atrás. La escena en que se corona Ivan como zar de toda Rusia es bastante interesante y por interesante me refiero a las tomas, el vestuario, la música, el guión etc...
Otras películas memorables por su simbología son por ejemplo "La Leyenda del Indomable" con Paul Newman y pues volviendo a lo anterior, la simbología en una película es un factor que el espectador disfruta mientras intenta deducir algo de la trama.
Recomiendo verla. El puntaje que tiene si es el correcto 100%
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
01/29/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
>
