Ivan the Terrible, Part One

Audience Reviews

View More

Cate H @RT84102114 Nov 30, 2025 At first I wondered wth I'd stumbled into, but so far, it's intriguing and interesting! See more Jan 2, 2022 excellent, entertaining, and easy to watch See more Mar 2, 2021 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. See more s r @ScottR Apr 4, 2020 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. See more William L @RT77267842 Mar 18, 2020 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) See more Oct 10, 2018 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. See more Read all reviews

Ivan the Terrible, Part One

My Rating

Read More Read Less WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW POST RATING