Best movie ever!

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Although Eisenstein has never been among my favorite directors, I must admit his unfinished trilogy about Ivan the terrible proves his great talent, sincerity and bravery as a filmmaker.Part 2 of the trilogy was criticized by Stalin and banned, the production of part 3 was stopped.Stalin,who idealized Ivan 4 as a founder and a leader of a powerful Russian State, suggested(namely, ordered) Eisenstein the biopic about him. Eisenstein planned to make it as a trilogy to make from "ordered" subject matter cinematic works of art. As a whole trilogy must have been represent three stage of Ivan's life: the heroic youth of "Tsar of All Russia', his middle age with the suffering and the beginning of moral decline as a results of never-ending conspiracy, and the beginning of last period of his life with a massacre in Novgorod and battles in Livoian War,where all of his supporters were killed and he was left alone at last.I've recently read the scenario of part 3 and found there both apparent similarities with previous parts and logical development of the plot after the events depicted previously. Among these 3 parts, the plot of part 2 is the pivotal one, so the contrast with part 1 naturally turned out to be very keen, and probably that's why Stalin and his fellows saw in it unpleasant contradiction with heroic part1. The composition of the trilogy is so dramatic and complete in its tragic sense that somehow reminds me of "Godfather" trilogy, but it is based on historical facts. And author's intention seems to represent the tragic life of this unique historical person with no bias of propaganda. Eisenstein was so sincere as an artist that he couldn't simplify the complex and dramatic life of his hero. And he was so brave in front of real political power that no compromise was made in creating the most uneasy part 2.

Although Part I had won public and state acclaim as a tribute to 'great Russian power' under one strong uniting ruler, Part II reveals something different to us. While its primary content deals with the conspiracy of the boyars and the church representatives against tsar Ivan, it is filled with a more psychological study of what happens with a man that carries unlimited power. Consequently, the film appears to prove Eisenstein's contradictory targets. The historical tsar Ivan, turning more into a bird of prey, as Christopher Palmer nicely puts it: "an autocrat whose vision of a great united Russia justified ruthlessness and brutality," clearly mirrors the monstrous head of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin, so much in power in the mid 1940s. No doubt Part II is labeled 'anti-historical and anti-artistic' and its distribution doomed to negligence and considerable delay (14 years)...As we watch it today, there is, seemingly, no striking detachment from Part I. No need to repeat those things I have already written in my review on Part I. One can address similar points with reference to theatrical performances, the storyline's depiction. Nevertheless, the outstanding feature here is its attempt to skip the so much imposed propaganda. In what aspects? THE BIBLE: A daring point as it may seem, I would like to invite readers and viewers to identify this universal source – the Bible. Where do all the sources for man and his analysis lie if not in this Book? Eisenstein takes some unbelievable risk with primary biblical contributions to the whole story. The relation between church and state, between the spiritual and the political leaders, between Phillip and Ivan clearly resembles king Saul and prophet Samuel from the Old Testament. The man of God wants to take the supreme role over the ruler and force a spiritual pressure on him in order not to allow for a 'pagan god.' The ruler wants to make his own decisions and turn them into law. In the visual scene of Ivan asking Phillip to stay with him depicts this desirable dependence that helps the tsar get rid of this tremendous fear of being alone. Another reference to the Bible is the scene with the chalice...anti-sacrifice to say the least or a sheer manifestation of an unrestrained desire for revenge? It is an unbelievably memorable moment as the empty chalice is being brought to Efrosinia, the murderer of Anastasia (Part I). The open biblical reference, finally, is the Furnace Play, a liturgical drama performed in the 'old Russia' with its story of three boys being sent to flames by the pagan ruler. The Russia of tsar Ivan seems to mirror the Babylonian captivity.SUPPORTING CHARACTERS: Although many of the characters are the same as in Part I, some supporting ones call our attention because of their parallels to the story. Firstly, it is delicate and almost girlish prince Vladimir, a victim of his mother's sickly ambitious scheme (accurately depicted in 'The Song of the Beaver' lullaby). His weak, naive nature leads him to tragedy in one of the significant scenes of the movie. Secondly, it is the aforementioned Phillip of the Kolychev family whom the tsar makes the metropolitan of Moscow, who serves as tsar's conscience. Yet, within dirty politics, the church with the patriarch aim at sacrificing him as a 'saint martyr,' who cannot be defeated by the ruler. Thirdly, it is king Sigismund II Augustus of Poland in the opening scene. The king with the royalty make a primary manifestation of 'foreigners' and their vision of Russia. In the rhythm of polonaise, with bizarre costumes, a striking throne of the king ruling the country in its 'golden age,' the scene at the Polish court is one of the most stunning moments of the film that boasts of many visual merits. Therefore, let me highlight some other artistic visuals more explicitly.VISUALS: Eisentein's visual language, an aspect developed by Yuri Tsivian, seems to reach its pinnacle in symbols. Part II develops conspiracies so the tsar appears on the screen, approaches supporting character whilst opening the closed door and coming at the most 'unexpected' moments. The icons serve as the backdrop of the rational and emotional climaxes. The two famous flashbacks begin and end with smoke. The flashbacks need special attention because they, psychologically – which was very rare for the films in Soviet Union – justify tsar's hatred to the boyars and his belief in strong reign. Great visual meanings! Although as a prince seated on the throne, he could not yet touch the ground with his feet, he understood corruption among aristocracy. Apart from Vladimir's procession, the demonic banquet with the scenes in color where red dominates, a striking visual backdrop is the scene of mourning at the dead bodies of the Kolychev. Whilst glorious chants, the image of an agonizing human behind the patriarch touches the core meaning of the hidden message.The music by Sergei Prokofiev, perhaps the most unnoticed aspect about Eisenstein's movie, may boast of its operatic moments in this part, too. The aforementioned polonaise in the Polish court scene, the motifs in relation to the Oprichniki, 'Song of the Beaver,' all affect viewer's musical tastes. No wonder that their fruitful collaboration ended with the unfinished trilogy... Eisenstein considering Prokofiev 'not only one of the greatest composers' but also 'the most wonderful film composer' and Prokofiev stating in 1948: "with the death of Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein, I consider my cinematographic work to have come to an end once and for all." And once and for all their collaboration was buried... Strong leader... no one and nothing could flee from his shadow... but even the shadow slowly vanished and what is left? The unique language of artists... 8/10 The source for some information about the score have been derived from the text 'Stalin the Powerful: Prokofiev, Eisenstein and IVAN THE TERRIBLE' published in Film Score Monthly Online (August 2007) Thank you for reading

Eisenstein's use of light, shadow and poses to create what was essentially a moving frieze was converted to the Opera Stage in the 1970s by the Metropolitan Opera who scheduled "Boris" with Jerome Hines who had studied Eisenstein intently. The effect was stunning visually as well as vocally. It remains one of the best Met presentations as a whole (visuals, dance, music acting and singing) I have ever seen. I have one friend who called it at the time the closest thing she had seen to a great drama on the Opera stage. Usually that almost precludes great singing, but that was not true in this case.Thought you might have an interest. All performance eventually ties together. Somehow.

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?