There have been some interesting user-reviews so far. Two that I believe are worth mention are "A Puzzling World Classic" (10 September 2009, Flak_Magnet) and "From Meyerhold to Nevsky" (20 March 2012, chaos-rampant).One problem with elite artists (i.e., Eisenstein, Prokofiev) making a propaganda film like "Alexander Nevsky" is that there is no way it can compete in the hearts of free minds with cinema that isn't as laden with message. So, most people will prefer other 1939 releases such as the "Wizard of Oz" and "Gone with the Wind" to "Nevsky" by virtue of the fact they are more liberating. "Nevsky" would have been more impressive it had been made about five or six years before it was, because of how it resembles silent movies.If we remove Hollywood from the discussion, there is a lot to like about "Nevsky." Eisenstein's quirky and distinctive visual style is on display, and watch out for his trademark jump-cuts. "The Battle on the Ice" is in the conversation for best movie battle scenes ever. (However, it clearly has been surpassed by Orson Welles' Macbeth and Akira Kurosawa, multiple times.) Eisenstein doesn't move the camera much during the Battle on Ice, or indeed, for much of the film. He achieves his results by jumping to and from similarly composed shots. He also likes to move from sheer pandemonium to close-ups of actors, isolating them from the craziness, making them vulnerable to it.When we first meet Nevsky, he's considerably taller (Nikolai Cherkasov was 6'6") and commanding than the fisherman he is with. Unarmed, Nevsky convinces a group of invading Mongols to leave without destroying their fishing community.Nevsky's military reputation is so well known that even his rivals for power concede that Nevsky is the man to defeat the Germans. This never happens in real life. History is filled with examples of the Joseph Stalin vs. Leon Trotsky mold, where the individual who offers the least for a nation removes the one who offers the most from power.My favorite part of The Battle of Ice is in the beginning when Nevsky, ignoring advice to guard his safety, arrives at the location which is believed by his commander (Buslai) to be unsuitable for battle. Nevsky lays down the law: They are fighting on the ice. This gives Nevsky more depth; instead of being a one-note orator he's also a military tactician.The "bravery competition" between Buslai and Gavrilo for the affections of Olga interjects needed humanity in the story, and is a source of humor.Prokofiev's music is superb, one of the greatest film scores ever. I am not as fond of the music near the end when Nevsky returns to Pskov; it seems too obvious. However, up to then I think Prokofiev is in fine form.The scenes where invading Germans burn babies alive unfortunately remain in the viewer's mind afterward. That's another problem with propaganda: People tend to remember the ugly side of it more than the beautiful.I saw 'Alexander Nevsky' with the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra and a Russian soloist performing. The symphony experience is the best way to appreciate it.I recommend 'Alexander Nevsky', but swallowing the central message is not all that fun.

Not being a student of film history, this bored me. An obvious bit of Russian propaganda in a time when Germany's belligerence was causing more than a little worry in Europe. While it did hit the class warfare buttons a few times it, was far more a nationalist propaganda film than a Communist one. That is a bit interesting, since Communism was supposed to be anti-nationalist. (Hence the Soviet anthem, The Internationale) Communism was supposed to be about class only, and nationality was not supposed to matter. But then again, Stalin killed and dislocated millions of people to Russify the outlying areas of the Soviet empire, even though he was not himself Russian. I guess he knew which side of the power bread was buttered.

I believe anyone who enjoyed Eisentein's Ivan the Terrible movies would enjoy this well crafted movie. This movie played out like "Lord of the Ring: Return of the King", but without the special effect but as good and better drama.We have the German, who dressed like KKK, conquered Novgorod of Russia. The Russian summoned Nevsky to lead them to fight the German to save Russia. Nikolai Cherkasov, who played Ivan in the Ivan the Terrible films, was charismatic as Nevsky. The first 10 min how he handled the passing by Mongol was captivating.Many of the scenes were beautiful even in black and white. The anticipation of War did not require any dialogue such as "how many enemy we will be killing", etc. Except for a few speeches, the film can basically be played out as a silent film. The fighting scene can hold up to those of the Civil War fighting scene of The Birth of a Nation.Another strength of the movie is the great musical score, by Sergei Prokofiev. The music gave an epic feel to the movie in those scenes without dialogue.

It is important to realise that Eisenstein was a committed Marxist film maker who held some very specific and particular theories about what film could achieve, and how.It is simply idle to compare Alexander Nevsky negatively with anything from a similar period in the US; this film comes from the oldest film school in the world, from another continent, from an entirely different approach to cinema.To appreciate this film a little more, try finding out about Pudovkin's and Kuleshov's theories of montage, for example, or read the Wikipedia entry on Marxist Film Theory. If you're feeling really bold, you might even investigate the triadic forms of Hegelian dialectic.It follows that if you watch this film without some understanding of Eisenstein's ideas and ideals, you probably won't get it. In Alexander Nevsky the main characters aren't playing themselves, they are meant to be distillations of their nation's character. Nevsky and his generals are deliberately shown larger-than-life, because they represent stylised, heroic aspects of the entire Russian people.The acting isn't wooden, it's meant to be slightly mannered. It represents a completely different school from the more naturalistic, narrative style which Hollywood was rapidly adopting. Eisenstein's films are especially designed *not* to be realistic. If anything seems somewhat "obvious", whether lighting or language or a pose struck by an actor, it's meant to be that way. Eisenstein was one of the early proponents of film as an art form, not just as entertainment.If the editing sometimes seems to consist of a clash of images, well, that's the idea. Shots are meant to contrast with each other, Eisenstein's films contain and embody elements of a political/philosophical argument, namely Marxist dialectic.So sit back, shout hurrah for Russia and her folk-hero defenders, boo at the cowardly nobles and the Teuton invaders, and enjoy the difference.