Very well executed

Truly the worst movie I've ever seen in a theater

So much average

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

"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!

The famous Russian producer Pavel Loungin paints a grim - though realistic - picture of the brutal rule of Ivan the Terrible, the first self-proclaimed Tsar of Russia. The depth and sophistication of the movie are obvious to everyone familiar with Russia's bitter history (and, sadly,) present. It is not so difficult to identify the contemporary realities of Russia (autocracy, iron fist ideology, contempt and perversion of justice) with what you see in Moscovy of 1570s. On top of that, the critical parts in the movie are played by the outstanding actors Oleg Yankovsky (metropolital Philip Kolychev) - one can only wonder how a 21 century actor can portray a saint and Peter Mamonov - a chilling representation of the maniacal Tsar Ivan, who does not give you a minute of rest throughout the movie. The movie is surely a landmark in filming history. The current mediocre rating is surprising to me and is apparently based on the votes of Russian iron fist sympathizers.

Pavel Lungin's flawed power house film is more a film for the head for the heart-then again it grabs you by the throat and squeezes.Nominally the story of Tsar Ivan (the terrible) battling with his Metropolitan (head of the church). The film is a battle between vengeance and mercy, its an allegory between belief and certainty, a reflection of self vision and the vision of mankind, a look at the Stalin years in Russia, and the madness of rulers in general.Its a kick in the chest.More interested in making a point the film is more an essay or fantasia or poem rather then straight narrative. There is a plot, its just that some of the details are lost and people represent things more than are characters, the Jester is Satan, the little girl grace... There is graphic realism and yet there are miracles that seem both right and wildly out of place (the floating icon) I'm kicked to the curb and I know this one is going to haunt me for days.supposedly this won the Russian Oscar...Not for all tastes...but manna from heaven for those it clicks with

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.