Watch Ivan the Terrible, Part II: The Boyars' Plot For Free

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Both of Eisenstein's Ivan films are extremely impressive, though it is part two that makes them a water-shed moment in film, and to a degree twentieth century, history.Aesthetically, perhaps the most impressive thing about the films is the art direction. That sounds like a strange thing to say about a film as intricately constructed as this one but I'll stick by it. The set pieces are not just impressive, but constitute brilliant and unique works of art in and of themselves. The nightmarishly icon-covered walls of the sets, the gorgeous but sinister props representing stupendous luxury and power, but also id-infused terror, could fill the halls of a major museum and wow in their own right, even if they were not part of a watershed-film.This is the only one of Eisenstein's films, that I know of, to be composed almost entirely of interior scenes. This gives a very claustrophobic quality, and makes the "leader of the people" seem utterly cut-off from the land and people he represents. The incredible chiaroscuro lighting also leads me to believe that Eisenstein had managed to watch the then only 7 or 8 year old Citizen Kane. Eisenstein's famed close-ups are juxtaposed with Wellsian deep focus and disorienting angles including those of ceilinged sets.And yes, that sense of detachment is what becomes, much more pointedly in part 2, the work's famed political commentary. Eisenstein had surely been prepared to die when Stalin saw the second film. It's depiction of the leader is unmistakable and, indeed, was not mistaken. Stalin repressed the second film and the planned third installment was never begun. Ivan is depicted as not so much monstrous, but trapped by power. By the second film he is more pathetic than terrifying. A man who is left desperately lonely because he has murdered all of his friends.

The movie "Ivan Groznyy I" from 1944 was already made in a terribly outdated style, even for its era. "Ivan Groznyy II: Boyarsky zagovor" is no different. Sergei M. Eisenstein's style of featuring long stares and extreme close-ups worked out extremely well and effective for his silent movies but in 'talkies' it only slows the movie down. Sure it's fine and artistically impressive looking all but it's not halve as effective as would be the case with a silent movie.Even though this movie got released 14 years after the previous movie "Ivan Groznyy I", it still got shot at the same time as the first movie. Reason why it got released so much later was because Stalin banned it because he wasn't too happy about the portrayal of Czar Ivan IV in this movie, who's more dark side is shown and besides shows a more crazy side of him, as he slowly slides into madness. Guess we should be lucky that this movie still exists today and that it didn't got completely destroyed during Stalin's reign.Because of the fact that the movie its story and main character are much darker, the movie becomes also more interesting to watch, when comparing it to the first movie. It's darker approach also makes its old fashioned style of film-making more tolerable. It suits its story better, even though its still far from ideal. I just can't imaging people still liked watching this in 1958, no matter how great and big Eisenstein was, who had died 10 years prior to the release of this movie.It's an interesting watch for those interested in history and for the fans of Eisenstein's work. It would had been interesting to see part III being completed but Stalin halted production and showed destroyed most of the already shot footage, since the movie once more didn't showed Ivan to his own liking and the movie was supposedly also a protest against Stalin own current regime, that showed some parallels to the tyrant methods of Ivan the terrible, as got portrayed in that movie.Already an outdated movie during the time of its production but still an artistically interesting movie to watch, that works out better than the first movie.8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

It just so happens that IVAN THE TERRIBLE, PARTS I and II both had entries in the 50 Worst Movies book by Harry Medved. Now, I do think that declaring they are among the worst movies ever is an overstatement, though they are still both pretty poor films--particularly the first one, as it featured more eye rolling and "googly eyed looks" than I have ever seen before!! Director Eisenstein and an awful lot of other people out there thought this made the film "artsy and profound"--and since I am legally sane, I must say that I hated this first film!! The second, while still very incomplete-looking, is a vast improvement, as eye rolling is minimal, though overacting and long boring scenes are present in this film just like in part 1! While part 2 looks pretty incomplete and needed at least another hour (especially since it never gets to Ivan's insane behavior later in life--like killing his son and heir while in a fit of anger). Since both parts 1 and 2 were commissioned by Stalin to both excuse his own murderous reign and glorify him, it's no surprise that Ivan's life story is left very incomplete. Even without all the truly awful behaviors of Ivan, apparently the supremely evil Stalin STILL didn't like the film and wouldn't allow its release during his lifetime. Maybe he didn't allow this because he was more worried people would see what a HUGE waste of money and resources the film was instead of seeing Stalin as a crazy guy just like Ivan! By the way, there was one segment of this tedious film that was just so cool that the film merits a 4 (without it, a 2)--and that's the scene with Prince Vladimir at the banquet! It is well-done and pretty funny in a dark way. And, the scene was done in a Russian version of 2-color Technicolor. This is VERY odd, by the way, because by the mid-1930s, a vastly improved true color process was developed by Technicolor that no longer made everything look all orangy-red and greenish-blue. So, this film during the color sequences looks a lot like a silent or early sound color film. Very odd indeed for the 1940s.

This space can't afford me the kind of gargantuan platform needed to speak on Eisenstein's masterwork (both parts) with the sort of attention to detail and passion that the director brings to the story of the Russian tsar. This is the rarest of films that stands as a testament to how cinema can extend beyond an entertainment and exist as a singular work of art and a document that works to expand our knowledge of the human condition. Every frame is rich, every scene speaks far more than any written line or action. The production is a phenomenal achievement in the absolute totality of the collaborative effort; the actors, the set, the cinematography, the soundtrack - every facet of the film-making process has worked to create a seamless connection. While the approach of the actors, the lighting and the choices of camera angles frustrate our standard ideas of what a movie should look and feel like, there is a design here; it is precise and it is brilliant. This is a film for those viewers who, as Eisenstein famously said, read (not just watched) the images on the screen. One of the two or three true masterworks in the history of movies.