Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

ochichornye A fine historical drama in a great Shakespearian tradition. There may be historical inaccuracies, and there may be miraculous occurrences that would clearly be impossible in real life. But that is beside the point. We don't chide Shakespeare for being historically inaccurate or for events taking an unlikely turn. What matters is the insight he gives us in the human condition with all its failings. Ivan is the classical image of a dictator that is sucked down in a negative spiral of his own making. The people who speak up against him are violently dealt with. The flatterers and opportunists who play along with him cause him to be more and more detached from reality, and more and more lonely. The parallel with Stalin is obvious, but somehow the greater distance in time makes the message more abstract and therefore more powerful.The metropolitan is slow to grasp the depth to which his childhood friend has sunk, but when he does the way in which he stands up to Ivan in word and deed is both moving and inspiring. Since this is a movie and not a stage play, the effectiveness of the storytelling is helped more by beautiful cinematography and evocative music than by profound dialog. In the end I found it inspiring and disturbing at the same time.

Alexei Kalinov 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.

plamya-1 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.

maqs The plot of the movie covers a short term of the rule of the Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible during one of the most controversial periods of Medieval Russia – Oprichnina. Many Russian aristocrats with whole families were put in disgrace, exiled and executed. Sigismund, the King of Poland, invaded western borders of the country, Novgorod the Great has risen against the Tsar. Being terrified by Oprichnina, old and week Metropolitan Afanasiy resigned and left Moscow. The Tsar, feeling lonely, rushing about his obsession of the forthcoming end of the world and Judgment Day, being on the verge of insanity called for the Solovetsky Monastery abbot Phillip Kolychev, his childhood friend. Phillip has moved to Moscow and against his will was appointed on the metropolitan see. Being shocked by the bloodthirstiness of Tsar's party, Phillip bravely tells Ivan the Terrible the truth. Wrathful Tsar put the metropolitan into disgrace, exiled him and later killed secretly, as well as Phillip's nephew and his fellow warlords for the false accusation of yielding up Polotsk to Sigismund.In my opinion this movie is more likely a simple narration without any deep moral message in it, being less successful work of Pavel Lungin then previous "Ostrov". Lungin made a colourful historical novel, though leaving an incompleteness of the plot, without evolving the drama to the logical completion.