Am I Missing Something?

Absolutely the worst movie.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

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 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.

Unlike some people in modern Russia I am not a Monarchist, which means my view towards the historic Russian Monarchy is mostly negative.But the way Tsar Ivan (Vasilyevich) Groznyy, called the "terrible" in the Western world, was portrayed in this film is just absurd. The years in the film were 1565-66, Ivan IV was born in 1530, which means he should have been about 35 years old. Although the actor playing Ivan in the film was no younger than 50 years of age. Ivan in the film is too old.And that is only part of the problem of the film. Events portrayed in the film are either in the wrong year or simply never happened. The film presents the year 1565 as disastrous for Russia, Poland is successfully conquering the country and numerous military disasters have led Ivan to believe the Russian people are turning against him.Ivan himself is presented as a delusional psychopath that spends his time sitting alone speaking to "god". And when is not doing that he is finding people to torture and kill. He talks about Armageddon and that he believes it is near. His guards(the Oprichniki) wear dark and red clothing and look like some kind of Satan worshipers. And as the film progresses more and more people are killed or tortured in cruel ways, Ivan even instructs his men to build a massive torture exhibit where hundreds of people presumably were to be tortured at the same time.By the end of the film Ivan has become an Anti-Christ figure, his men are shown burning people alive and they visibly enjoy it. While the Russian Orthodox Church is opposed to him, numerous special effects "miracles" are shown to "prove" the Church is not just mythology. I have a suspicion that the actual Church was involved in the production of this film.It seems like only a Polish take over of Moscow can save Russia from the cruel tyrant.Ivan IV was not an angel, but he was not a psychopath like the one shown in the film. He could do cruel things, but today Russia owes its vast territory and influence thanks to the actions of Ivan Groznyy. I don't think he deserves to be shown as some kind of Anti-Christ, this is counter-productive for Russia's future.

I saw that this film had won the Nike award (Russian equivalent of Oscar), so took advantage of a showing on the Russian channel on DirectTV (unsubtitled). I checked out the "Hollywood Reporter's" review of the showing in Cannes, and the first line of that review corresponds to the first comment I would post myself, relating it to Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev"(1967) and Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible." (1944)While the title of the film is "Tsar," the personality of the Metropolitan Fillip, played by Oleg Yankovsky, really dominates. Ivan is viewed through Andrei's eyes, and is judged by his values. Like Tarkovsky's "Rublev" Fillip attempts to find spiritual meaning in the harshness of his times, and Ivan at first come across as an object of pity to whom the church father attempts to give spiritual guidance. The film presents of trinity of "Holy Fools" (Iurodyvye), who traditionally speak prophetic truth to power - in the persons of Fillip, the little girl, an the jester (whose revelations of Ivan's cruelty are for the film-viewers alone). Ivan tells Fillip to speak the truth to him, but becomes progressively more opposed to the holy truth and therefore more and more "terrible."Stalin found confirmation for the "great man" approach to history in Eisenstein's earlier historical epics, but Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible,Part II" was banned when the historical necessity argument gave way to grotesque depiction of the oprichniki and the murder of a young pretender to the throne. Lungin's gritty realism is the director's means of unmasking the tsar's barbarity. The magnificence of the regal costuming and sets do not startle the viewer with pageantry, but rather offer a grotesque contrast between the mask of wealth on display in the presence of masses violently spilled blood.What may appear as "straightforward storytelling" is in many ways a polemic with historical narratives of the past. Ivan is most terrible in the power that he wields through insanity and belief in his role as God's appointed servant.