Watch Tsar For Free

Pretty Good

People are voting emotionally.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

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

"Nothing destroys authority more than the unequal and untimely interchange of power stretched too far and relaxed too much" (Francis Bacon Sr).Pavel Lungin's film, promoted at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, absorbingly develops some aspects of the reign of tsar Ivan called the terrible which spanned a considerable period of time in the 16th century Russia. Unlike the famous Siergiei Eisenstein 'trilogy' that drew parallels to its difficult period of time it was made in, and, consequently, did not see its full realization, Lungin's production, as an attempt to bring this hard time to screen, does not much echo its masterful predecessor. It rather occurs to create an image of a ruler who himself stretches his power too far and destroys his authority. Yet, a viewer might be led to wrong assumptions through the title: it is not solely a film that should be called 'a tsar' but rather 'a ruler and his voice of conscience.'The director manages to develop the figure of the ruler (powerfully played by Pyotr Mamonov) and his 'prophet' the voice that helps him turn to God, that is Philip Kolychev (played by Oleg Yankovskiy). Philip, for some time a metropolitan, reveals to us the true face of the ruler who is power obsessed and a man rather weak innerly but very much disguised as a powerful tyrant. Metropolitan Philip is a man of God who confronts the never ending conflict: church and state. By wooing the ruler, he deceives his conscience, by telling the truth, he places himself in fatal dangers. Yankovskiy does an excellent job in the role making the character deeply religious, powerfully touching and uniquely convincing. He is a sort of combination of Thomas Becket/Thomas Moore/biblical prophet Samuel who reprimands the ruler and pays a high price. This relation between the tsar and his metropolitan seems to evoke above anything else, seems to be a key drama of the entire story.Divided into four parts, THE PRAYER OF THE TSAR, THE TSAR AT WAR, THE TSAR'S WRATH, THE TSAR'S FUN, the movie sometimes seems to skip continuity. The dramatic resonance of the story is intensified by the period the action is set (the 1560s), the Oprichnina and Livonian War, a particularly cruel time that marks the Russian history with notorious cruelty. In the part TSAR'S FUN, we see the tools of torture, we get the pseudo-pagan games with a bear that kills a man in an 'arena' and, being the most disturbing, an innocent girl with the icon of Madonna. While Eisenstein's movie sometimes seemed to glorify the courage and power of Ivan (especially in the first part accepted so powerfully by Stalin), this movie marks the clear contrast between the cruel ruler and men of God.But the movie's flaw lies in the fact that it does not really build upon some psychological image of a man, some sophisticated depiction but rather divides the characters into the good and the bad ones. Except for the Oprichnina who are, naturally, all bad, the pinnacle of that approach is Maria Temryukovna, Ivan's second wife (not depicted by Eisenstein), the tsar's evil genius and seen as a 'whore of Babylon' having fun at the cruelty.TSAR is a film worth seeing as a slightly different approach, perhaps most, however, because of excellent performances. Clearly, the cast did all their best within the frame of their possibilities. And the emotional crescendo of the finale touched by lonesome tragedy offers every viewer a moment of profound thought deprived of any commercialism.Highly worth seeing!

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.

We all know Ivan the Terrible was a mad tyrant, and many know that Philip was a Saint. The film shows little more, and little depth to Ivan, and none to any other character beyond Philip. Why does Ivan act the way he does? Is it just madness? Or is it related as some say to the death of his wife? Or to religious extremism? The film doesn't say. Why do the lesser characters behave the way they do? The film doesn't hint at any explanation. Why is such a mad tyrant able to rule? The film doesn't say (hint: he actually accomplished a lot in the earlier part of his rule). The film implies all the churchmen were saints, when in fact many (understandably) collaborated with Ivan. It is beautifully filmed, and well acted, but ultimately shallow.