Ivan the Terrible - Pt. 2 (1946)

• 
  
  March 30, 2008

  tsigur

  Maybe I need to see the first one.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  April 21, 2010

  gator681

  [font=Century Gothic][color=red]Sergei Eisenstein made a two part epic about Ivan the Terrible in the 1940's in the USSR. Both films are good and recommended.[/color][/font]
  [font=Century Gothic][color=red][/color][/font]
  [font=Century Gothic][color=red]The first part starts wi... read moreth Ivan's coronation and shows his continuing battles with the boyars. In this segment, Ivan places a great deal of emphasis on why he should have absolute power. This can be seen as a defense of Stalin's absolute hold on his country at the time this film was made. It's ironic because Eisenstein is using a Tsar to defend the rule of a Communist leader.[/color][/font]
  [font=Century Gothic][color=#ff0000][/color][/font]
  [font=Century Gothic][color=#ff0000]The second part is about the end of Ivan's battle with the boyars as he starts to use peasants as his enforcers in a brutal crackdown. Now, Eisenstein is starting to examine some of the negative aspects of absolute rule. The film climaxes with a delirious banquet scene filmed in color.[/color][/font]

  Share This Review
• 
  
  December 29, 2010

  simeondeutsch1

  Unlike the first half of Eisenstein's two part biopic of Ivan the Terrible, this one can't really stand as its own film. It begins with a little "Previously on Ivan the Terrible..." and then starts off of where the first half left off, and shows as the characters develop even fur... read morether; Ivan's friends desert him and he is encompassed by loneliness, and he also deals with family tensions. Part 2 only covers a seemingly very short amount of time, where as Part 1 tells a tale of several years or so.
  
  This, of course, gives the actors more room to show off their superb acting, and because not as much happens, Eisenstein is able to prove his genius through the cinematography; and each camera-shot is brilliant. The film itself is very short, and since nothing monumental happens in the plot, it really seemed like it could have gone without being made, also seeing that Eisenstein originally meant for there to be a third in the series. There's even a shockingly out of place color scene in the midst of this black-and-white film, and though it was beautifully shot, it was unsettlingly out of place.
  
  A much deeper masterpiece than its predecessor. 92/100

  Share This Review
• 
  
  May 30, 2010

  HuskersNC949597

  Con'td: the things I didn't notice while watching. Namely the actors and the animals they were portraying, i.e. Ivan as eagle, the most obvious example. It occasionally pays to watch a few minutes of the special features, I guess.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  December 16, 2008

  tamandocomando

  this wasnt as good as the first 'ivan the terrible', but cherkasov is still impressive as the tyrannical czar. i would have liked the use of color at the end of this movie, but the contrast was so bad i could hardly see the actors! but on the other hand, in the color part, the su... read morebtitles were easier to read!

  Share This Review
• 
  
  July 27, 2008

  thrusz

  And this is where the meat of the movie is.
  
  This is an absolutely goregous film and I'm extremely happy to have finished these films. Mind you, I only watched them a week apart, but I wasn't as fired up as you would have thought about concluding a Russian epic. Regardless, t... read morehis movie is a visual treat that really deserves attention.
  
  I talked about this in the review of the first film, but this is the movie that really deserves this kind of critique. I know that Ivan the Terrible, to some extent, is a biopic. But there are so many themes compared to Hamlet it is ridiculous. The only difference is that the protagonist (despite the title, "Horrible") is actually the Tsar as opposed to Prince Hamlet trying to kill King Claudius. Ivan is surrounded by scoundrels and usurpers and he has to be as shrewed as Hamlet to rid his court of these traitors. I mean, there is some really heavy stuff going on in this movie and that should be noted. This is a complex film. I don't know if this is the normal connotation, but I know that a lot of people think of early cinema as being light and full of fluff because they are still trying to get past the novelty of the medium. Eisenstein seems never have to have dealt with that issue. I know that the movie says 1959, but this movie was made decades before it was released. This movie is a breakthrough in filmmaking
  
  This one is far more political than the first part. It takes a few minutes to realize what is going on and without an in-depth knowledge of ancient Russia, I can imagine that you'd be a little lost. But the story quickly makes sense and then you realize that, despite the political overtones, that this is a character drama full of intrigue and murder. I mentioned this in the review of part one, but you really have to commend the visual choices when it come to makeup and costumes. The villains look villanous but not completely as dark as Ivan does throughout the movie. There's an interesting juxtaposition showing Ivan as a child. He is as strong-willed as he is in the future, but the look that Eisenstein chose for that little boy is so full of innocence. He has only been betrayed once and that betrayal has affected him only to relive the same moment over and over again.
  
  While I applaud the visual choices that Eisenstein made in the first movie, this is the one that is really powerful aesthetically. Towards the end of the movie, Eiesnstein switches between monochromatic and full color. Now, I've seen The Wizard of Oz. Screw that. Oz never flip-flopped back and forth. Going from color to black and white is a bold movie and quite effective. Honestly, this film really shows the impact of choosing a palate for your film. At one point, it almost seems like two separate films contained in one. I almost didn't recognize characters in either light. It was fantastic.
  
  The end of this movie is to die for. Literally, there's so much angst and cruelty in these characters. Yes, you see it coming in the last five to ten minutes, but that's what makes it perfect. You want this plan to go forward. You want to see these villains get their just desserts and they do. What's bizarre is that their downfall comes from a man obsessed. His obsession is proven valid and his darker desires are never removed, but rather satisfied. I mean, the ending is practically cathartic. I felt my own vengeful nature satisfied and that creeped the hell out of me.
  
  This really is a fantastic film that earns its "classic" title. It is innovative, and that's all well and good, but the movie itself is objectively fantastic. This is the one Russian film that everyone needs to see.

  Share This Review

• Nikolai Cherkasov as Ivan the Terrible
• Serafima Birman as Boyarina Efrosinia Staritskaya
• Pavel Kadochnikov as Vladimir Andreyevich Staritsky
• Mikhail A. Kuznetsov as Fyodor
• Mikhail Zharov as Malyuta Skuratov
• Andrei Abrikosov as Philip the Metropolitan (Fyodor Kolychev)
• Alexander Mgebrov as Pimen the Bishop of Novgorod
• Vladimir Balashov as Piotr Volynets
• Alexei Buchma as Czar's Guard Alexei Basmanov

Click a thumb to vote on that suggestion, or add your own suggestions.

• 
  Ivan Groznyy (Ivan the Terrible, Part One) (100%)
• 
  Secha pri Kerzhentse (100%)
• 
  Andrei Rublev (100%)
• 
  Aleksandr Nevskiy (Alexander Nevsky) (100%)

No quizzes for Ivan the Terrible - Pt. 2. Want to create one?

No video clips yet. Want to upload one?

• Epicouros
• papachewie
• Etceteras
• majusculepouf
• josephchaina
• ElCochran90
• staup2005
• ephender

No recent headlines. Got one?

• 

  Movies I Own (A-M)

  by Agustin1986
  331 Movies
• 

  Sight & Sound Poll 1962

  by kurosawian
  11 Movies
• 

  Sight & Sound Poll '62

  by kurosawian
  11 Movies
• 

  Sight & Sound Poll '62

  by kurosawian
  11 Movies
• 

  Sight & Sound Poll '62

  by kurosawian
  11 Movies

No skins yet. Interested in creating one?