And this is a serious film? A history lesson? A true depiction of real events? I am sorry, but some on, this is a real mess. It is so awful, so in-cohesive, so terribly poor that I was laughing. Well, everything is painfully wrong here - choice of Pyotr Mamonov as a Tsar Ivan The Terrible is the first and worst error - he just is a mere buffoon and horrid performer, overplaying almost every aspect, and instead of a paranoid tyrant we see a psychotic idiot with whimsical ticks. The great late Oleg Yankovski as Fillip is pale and bland, while Ivan Okhlobystin as a Tsar's jester is a simple clown with no merit. And the list goes on - the film is excruciatingly slow, painfully boring, stale and languid. Even the battle scenes and execution scenes are just a twitching mess and a true throwaway. What happened? Poor casting, poor script, poor pacing, poor camera work and very vapid message. No message. What we got was a tepid fetid livid stale pale brew. Awful and weak

I agree completely with the author of "Sergei Eisenstein honored" in calling this film the third part of Eisenstein's intended trílogy of the most debatable of all Russian tzars. Eisenstein had planned a third film to his great "Ivan the Terrible" project but never came to fulfill it since already the second part was forbidden by Stalin, and Eisenstein died before Stalin. However, this film would have satisfied Eisenstein completely as a fulfillment of his last cinematic dreams.Of course, it has flaws. Pyotr Mamonov is not quite convincing as the tzar and does not stand up to a comparison with the incomparable Nikolai Cherkasov as the leading actor in Eisenstein's masterpieces. While Eisenstein's films are monumentally theatrical with every scene a masterpiece of composition and every face unforgettably impressive in pictorial portraiture, Mamonov as the tzar is too much of a caricature and is overdoing it in a grotesque way that falls out of the personage that the tzar really was. This twisted interpretation of the life on the throne is worsened by the revolting presence of the fool, who pushes the exaggerations far over the top of any credibility.All this grotesqueness, which really was part of Ivan's reign but only one side of it, is wonderfully balanced by Oleg Yankovsky as the metropolitan and childhood friend of Ivan, who the tzar desperately appeals to for friendship, which his ways make impossible. Here you have the full integrity of a real man who just can't compromise with his conscience and sense of right and wrong, while Ivan is way beyond any hope of insight in this matter. The metropolitan dominates the film, and the film is a masterpiece mainly because of him.Of course, there is very much you miss of Ivan's other aspects as a tzar. Neither Eisenstein nor Lungin included the episode of the slaughter of his son Ivan, and concentrating exclusively on the personal relationship between the tzar and the metropolitan, the film feels more episodic like a rhapsody than like an accomplished epic. There is certainly room in the future for a part IV of the complex, gigantic and humanly unfathomable story of the most debatable of Russian tzars.

I saw this film at the Seattle International Film Festival last year. I know a little bit about Russian history and had even read a biography of Ivan the Terrible years ago. Even so, I was a little lost as the story went on. Eventually I could see that this film covers a very short period in the middle of Ivan's reign, where he contends with his hand-chosen Metropolitan (church leader guy) Philip, a la Henry II-versus-Thomas a Becket. Ivan wants a rubber stamp for his brutal goings-on, Philip refuses. It doesn't end well, as you can imagine.Script-wise, some action was mystifying and inexplicable. Just a little more explanation would have helped a lot. I had to go home and look up the deal about Ivan's use of whipped virgins to do his cleaning, for example.There was not as much blood and guts as there could have been. Compared to what's on TV these days, it wasn't bad.Whoever translated the subtitles must have been drunk. They're awful.Where this film SHINES and is WELL WORTH your time and money is with the visuals: the setting, the costumes, the cinematography in general. I couldn't take my eyes off the colorful, detailed costumes. Those crazy hats! That gorgeous embossing and embroidering! And though I deplore the use of animal skins as garments, all that fur was just gorgeous.The film's lighting is brilliant. The play of light and dark is artful: glowing candlelit icons, flickering torches in the night, warm summer afternoons on the golden steppes. A cold bluish light on Ivan's face when he is raving, transmuting him into a madman.There is a wonderful opening sequence where Ivan is praying in his bare, ascetic cell wearing only a plain shift, like a penniless monk. But then he must go out to greet his people, and as he strides along the corridors, men step forward to adorn him with magnificent robes and jewelry. The further he gets from his cell, the more he looks like a tsar. It's a nifty visual analogy for his mental state.I really enjoyed seeing the mostly wooden structures they lived in -- basically log cabins with Russian ornamentation. Those Russian forests provided wood aplenty: we see huge palisades, bridges, magnificent sleds and sleighs. They did a great job of recreating the look without having original locations to use.It's got a lot of great "look and feel" details too: poor dental hygiene, smoky interiors, people who look like they bathe twice a year.Very few characters emerge as much more than placeholders, but the actors playing Ivan and Philip are both very good. We get no real insight into either man, though.So while it's not a great film, those interested in Russian history will enjoy aspects of it. When it comes out on DVD, I will probably buy it because I enjoyed the look of it so much.

We all know Ivan the Terrible was a mad tyrant, and many know that Philip was a Saint. The film shows little more, and little depth to Ivan, and none to any other character beyond Philip. Why does Ivan act the way he does? Is it just madness? Or is it related as some say to the death of his wife? Or to religious extremism? The film doesn't say. Why do the lesser characters behave the way they do? The film doesn't hint at any explanation. Why is such a mad tyrant able to rule? The film doesn't say (hint: he actually accomplished a lot in the earlier part of his rule). The film implies all the churchmen were saints, when in fact many (understandably) collaborated with Ivan. It is beautifully filmed, and well acted, but ultimately shallow.