Kirpianuscus more than a film. it is a form of visual essay about power and religion, about solitude and about the roots, laws and vision of tyranny. it is a fight against Russia's history. a parable. portrait not of Ivan Vasilievich but for a manner, an usual manner of East to use the authority with high force and profound fear. Pyotr Mamonov gives a strange, cold, unpredictable, vulnerable Ivan. a Tsar looking for himself, lost in good intentions and noble projects. but, maybe, the hero is Philip. the voice of Church and good sense. the voice of conscience in a dark circle of confusion. the Metropolit is a splendid role. the last for great Oleg Ynkovsky and that status impose a special status to it. more than a film. maybe, useful subject for reflection. about power. in our time. in each period of history.

Marcin Kukuczka "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!

m_white I saw this film at the Seattle International Film Festival last year. I know a little bit about Russian history and had even read a biography of Ivan the Terrible years ago. Even so, I was a little lost as the story went on. Eventually I could see that this film covers a very short period in the middle of Ivan's reign, where he contends with his hand-chosen Metropolitan (church leader guy) Philip, a la Henry II-versus-Thomas a Becket. Ivan wants a rubber stamp for his brutal goings-on, Philip refuses. It doesn't end well, as you can imagine.Script-wise, some action was mystifying and inexplicable. Just a little more explanation would have helped a lot. I had to go home and look up the deal about Ivan's use of whipped virgins to do his cleaning, for example.There was not as much blood and guts as there could have been. Compared to what's on TV these days, it wasn't bad.Whoever translated the subtitles must have been drunk. They're awful.Where this film SHINES and is WELL WORTH your time and money is with the visuals: the setting, the costumes, the cinematography in general. I couldn't take my eyes off the colorful, detailed costumes. Those crazy hats! That gorgeous embossing and embroidering! And though I deplore the use of animal skins as garments, all that fur was just gorgeous.The film's lighting is brilliant. The play of light and dark is artful: glowing candlelit icons, flickering torches in the night, warm summer afternoons on the golden steppes. A cold bluish light on Ivan's face when he is raving, transmuting him into a madman.There is a wonderful opening sequence where Ivan is praying in his bare, ascetic cell wearing only a plain shift, like a penniless monk. But then he must go out to greet his people, and as he strides along the corridors, men step forward to adorn him with magnificent robes and jewelry. The further he gets from his cell, the more he looks like a tsar. It's a nifty visual analogy for his mental state.I really enjoyed seeing the mostly wooden structures they lived in -- basically log cabins with Russian ornamentation. Those Russian forests provided wood aplenty: we see huge palisades, bridges, magnificent sleds and sleighs. They did a great job of recreating the look without having original locations to use.It's got a lot of great "look and feel" details too: poor dental hygiene, smoky interiors, people who look like they bathe twice a year.Very few characters emerge as much more than placeholders, but the actors playing Ivan and Philip are both very good. We get no real insight into either man, though.So while it's not a great film, those interested in Russian history will enjoy aspects of it. When it comes out on DVD, I will probably buy it because I enjoyed the look of it so much.

v_dayzip An impressive work, for someone acquainted with Russian culture and history. The acting is superb and the reality imposed by a bloody Russian King is overwhelming; as well his evil deeds were unfolded in the movie respecting all the historical facts. Its really marvelous to encounter in the movie the Christian orthodox struggle with the absolute power of the King and his outlawed deeds. If u really want to see what church meant in Russian past you are really invited to watch the movie, I can assure you it will shock your mind. I watched it and I have seen what a twisted mind with absolute power can do to humanity. By any means it is truly a masterpiece, definitely a must see.