Rating: 
Summary: Criterions's Finest Offering!
Review: "Ivan the Terrible Parts I and II" is a film of greatness, so great in fact that after seeing it only once I would probably include it among the ten finest films I have ever seen. It is a work of bold compositions (visual, aural, verbal, rhythmic, textural, political, etc.) arranged into a dense and exciting network of sensual and intellectual information. The interaction of motifs and ideas, symbolism and iconography into a sort of cinematic Russian fresco is absolutely thrilling. This often has a bizarre effect. The actor's movements are so deliberate as to be completely alien; after all, these are not human beings, they are representations of human beings on a screen, like portraits on a canvas, an idea which adds greatly to the purity of the film's artifice (of course, this is actually even more complex, having something to do with biomechanics, a theory I know too little of to discuss here). The film is completely engrossing, and is really a treasure trove hidden references and information, which really makes it fascinating. Honestly, I can not praise this film enough. It is grandiose and spectacular, a stunning work of depth and complexity.
"Alexander Nevsky" on the other hand would seem to be a very simple film, simple to the point of being stupid. In fact it is very complex (if not quite so much as "Ivan"), and only seems stupid because of a ridiculous political purpose and mindset that weighs it down. Its embarrassingly propagandistic, and politically compromised, something which greatly dulls the films underlying brilliance. "Ivan" is a complete reversal and a far superior film, at least in my view, in that it is able to subvert political expectancies, transforming what was intended as Stalinist propaganda into a disguised Stalinist and Communist critique, even lament. "Nevsky" lacks this independence, and while it is still fascinating as a work of form, structure, and motif (among many other Eisenstinean devices) it is ultimately too compromised to be as great a piece of art as "Ivan."
In spite of that, Criterion's treatment of both films (or three, depending on how you look at it) is absolutely grand. The transfers, aside from some rather rough spots on "Nevsky," are really quite good, the extras are fascinating and deeply insightful, and the packaging is far more attractive than it looks on amazon's picture. I probably own around 20 or more discs by Criterion, and all absolutely fantastic packages, but this one is the best! Absolutely one of the most solid purchases you'll ever make! And it's so wonderful to see these kind of films being given the royal treatment usually reserved for the more recent, popular, and... cough-shallow-cough releases. Long live The Criterion Collection, and God bless the soul of Sergei Eisenstein!P.S. Oh, and God bless Sergei Prokofiev, composer of these films' beautiful and justly renowned musical scores.
Rating: 
Summary: Awezzzome.
Review: 'Ivan The Terrible', the story of the first true Russian tsar, is Eisenstein's most theatrical film - with a couple of brief exceptions, every scene takes place indoors, with the theatrical space and decor hanging turgidly over the dehumanised human action. Long rhetorical speeches are performed by actors with grotesquely stylised movements and poses, oritund declamation and popping eyes. Whispering consists of shouting in crowded, silent halls. This already static film (which seems closer to Shakespeare's history plays and Russian opera like 'Boris Godunov' than cinema) often petrifies into interminable tableaux. All this barnstorming and grandstanding seems more Victorian than we'd expect from a modernist master. It's all thematically relevant of course - like Shakespeare, Eisenstein is concerned to analyse the politicking, the construction of symbolism and myth behind apparently 'natural' official pomp. If this is a Shakespeare history play, though, it's more 'Richard II' than 'Henry IV', a talkative, humorless pageant (with the exception of one bizarrely homoerotic scene in a chessboard-tiled throne-room, where a traitor unsheathes his sword for the Polish King, who fondles and returns it for a kiss). 'Part 2' is famous for having two reels shot in colour, but their quality is over-rated; shot in seeping orange and neon blue, their drunken revels aren't exactly 'An American In Paris', and having convicingly created a 16th century world with compositions that echo carved woodcuts, tapestries, paintings etc. the move into more modern, 'abstract' colour is an unsatisfying shock. Motifs that worked brilliantly in monochrome - the swans, the disapproving religious murals, the black cowls of the priests - lose all their definition and impact in colour, and to regain its power and suspense, the film has to return to black and white. For a confirmed classic of World Cinema, 'Terrible' is an easy film to dislike, and even mock (you have to see some of these beards). With the exception of a couple of crowd-scenes recalling the montage-frenzy of earlier classics like 'Battleship Potemkin' or 'October', this slow film depends for its dynamics too often on Prokofiev's amazing score, with its mixture of pastiche and commentary, scuttling action and brooding menace, even wistful emotion - this music is perhaps irretrievably lost judging by the poor soundtrack on this otherwise essential DVD set. 'Alexander Nevsky' opens brilliantly on a plain of warrior skeletons, but as the film continues, you understand that the idea is less the futility of war than the futility of invading Russia. The oppressive stench of propaganda - the film, made in a period when Hitler was expanding eastwards in the search for Living Space, shows 13th century Rus discarding internal struggles, uniting under a saintly, strong leader, and defeating the bucket-visored Huns (as allegories go, it's not exactly subtle) - is not the only reason to baulk at this unlovely film. Like 'Ivan', it is faithful not just to the historical look of its period (costumes, buildings, language [here translated into the silliest cod medieval Yoda-speak], but its representational modes also, in this case the Scandanavian warrior sagas, with their formal speeches and boasts, their breaks for chants, marches and laments, their insistence on lineage etc. After the relentless interiority of 'Ivan', the sunny outdoors of 'Nevsky' is a great relef, but Eisenstein's narrative still proceeds by an accumulation of static, exhaustingly 'awesome' tableaux, in the rather tedious manner of late Kurosawa. The battle-sequence itself offers intriguing tensions, balancing a view of combat as a graceless mass squabble with individual feats of heroism - the result is ridiculous and endless. Individual scenes are staged with magnificent power, especially the massacre of Russian villages, the Huns burning babies while scaffolds loom in the smoke and humiliated prisoners litter the square. The pre-battle sequence is a remarkable feat of logistics, geometry and space, the two armies dehumanised as ominous lines on a vast landscape. There is a marvellously funny shot that seems like a parody of 'Lawrence Of Arabia' a quarter-century before it was even made, as two riders emerge from dots in the snowy wastes, racing towards the camera, only for one to slip on the ice!Unlike 'Ivan', the irritating lead performance is marginal and emblematic; once again, Prokofiev's multi-layered score is the film's saving grace.
Rating:
Summary: Ivan The Terrible...a bizarre classic
Review: Alexander Nevsky is a lively pro-Soviet propaganda piece partially intended as a warning to Hitler at the time not to invade Russia. The epic battle on the frozen lake is justly famous and the sheer scope of the logistics of filming are impressive. Some of the characters are somewhat cliche stock creations of the time including the two soldiers fighting for the love of one woman who must prove themselves in battle, but overall it's a modest success. The real prize in this three film Criterion set however is of course Ivan the Terrible parts 1 and 2, a great masterpiece, Eisenstein's most "enjoyable" film(s) and indeed one of the oddest works to emerge from Soviet cinema of the time. Highly expressionistic visuals combine with a melodramatic (and slightly revisionist) take of Ivan's life to create one of the stranger filmic experiences one will see. Eisenstein clearly had a very highly developed visual style and the numerous extreme close-ups of faces are extraordinary as are the sets and costumes. Part 2 doesn't quite live up to the promise of part 1 but nevertheless brings the characters to an appropriate conclusion. Bizarrely humorous (perhaps unintentionally at times) Ivan is nevertheless a film more for afficionados than for the casual viewer looking for another classic in the mould of Casablanca. Regarding the transfers, they are superb and anyone expecting better prints is simply not being realistic regarding the age of the material and the conditions in which they were kept. While not as pristine looking as other recent releases of 40's films on DVD such as Shadow of a Doubt or Monsieur Hulot's Holiday they are more than adequate considering given the circumstances.
Rating:
Summary: Superb and unusual Eisenstein sound films
Review: Alexander Nevsky: For those familiar with this classic of the Russian cinema, little need be said. For others, here are the high points: the story is set in medieval Russia and it essentially is about a great warrior who is drawn out of seclusion to lead the fight to defend the homeland against invading barbarians, who are German; there is much bravura acting from the loyal patriots, who deal not only with a vicious enemy from without but also with insidious traitors from within; the hero-warrior who leads them is suitably understated and dignified, striking a memorable portrait of nobility and grandeur. All this is dramatically heightened by some of the best cinematography ever, climaxing in a final battle over the ice which is done entirely with striking visuals and music-only sound. The result is one that rises far beyond the level of a mere costume picture or any cartoon story of battling types. This is a rich treasure from cinematic history, with all talents (including Sergei Eisenstein, one of the greatest directors ever, seen at his best) in brilliant form. Don't miss it. Ivan the Terrible, Parts I and II: During World War II, with Russia in the grip of Stalin and with Hitler at its door, the greatest Russian director of his day, and perhaps ever, joined the greatest Russian actor of his day, to depict the dark and brooding story of the rise and fall of a ruthless Russian Tsar who tyrannized Russia during the 1500s. While the story hardly amounts to movie uplift, the joy and fascination here lies in the details. Straightaway, in episode one, there is perhaps the most amazing movie opening ever filmed, in the coronation of Ivan the Terrible. Those familiar with Theodor Dreyer's "Passion of Joan of Arc" in 1928 will appreciate what fascination can lie in watching the camera cut skillfully from one grotesque image to another in endlessly imaginative ways, almost as if the gargoyles themselves were about to speak. The fascinating imagery proceeds non-stop from there, in the hands of master craftsman and director Sergei Eisenstein, like a medieval masterpiece come to life, though part two does not quite rise to the exceptional quality of part one. A taste of the high production standards is gleaned from a musical score composed by the great classicist Sergei Prokofiev. A very, very Russian production -- dark and grim, but full of amazing levels of interest, just the kind of production spoofed by Woody Allen years later in "Love and Death." Not necessarily to everybody's taste, but a great treat for connoisseurs.
Rating:
Summary: Transfer Below Criterion's Usual Standard
Review: Classic Russian films. For people not familiar with Eisenstein's work, I would suggest listening to the audio commentary to "Alexander Nevsky" *before* watching the film. You'll appreciate the film quite a bit more. The video transfer is, to me, not up to Criterion's usual standard. I understand that the source material is quite poor: however, the visual flaws are abundant and obvious. The soundtrack on "Nevsky" is clearly recorded but poorly performed (this is Stalin's fault, as you'll learn from the commentary). Even with a flawed picture, these films are essential for film buffs.
Rating:
Summary: Finally, a restored version of "Ivan"
Review: Criterion did an excellent job at restoring the movies in this collection. The English subtitles are also readable and I loved the extras that came with this DVD, including the whole prologue to Ivan, Part I, that the Stalinist censors made Eisenstein remove. The prologue explains the entire reason why Ivan became the monster he was. I also thoroughly enjoyed the essay of the movie by Joan Neuberger, director of the Center for Soviet Studies in Austin, TX. If you are a fan of "Ivan the Terrible" or Eisenstein, this collection is a MUST HAVE!!!
Rating:
Summary: genius
Review: Eisenstein: The Sound Years is the best Criterion release I have ever purchased, which is saying a whole lot, concerning that I also have such other Criterion masterpieces as The Third Man, The Passion of Joan of Arc,The Grand Illusion, and several others. The pictures are better than they have ever been. The sound is as great as it could be from the sources (which is, to say, not all that great). The extra material is enormous. If you didn't like any of the three films, their essayists will be happy to convince you otherwise. I bought the set for Alexander Nevsky, but the two Ivan the Terribles are even better, if that is possible.
Rating:
Summary: CINEMA MASTERPIECES
Review: Given Criterion's attention to picture and sound quality, this three-DVD set of Eisenstein's sound films 'Alexander Nevsky' and 'Ivan the Terrible' parts One and Two, should rank as one of the great DVD releases of the year. View them alongside Leni Riefenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will' which is being released by Synapse, and see how totally opposed propaganda viewpoints created cinematic history. These Eisenstein movies created a new kind of cinema -- operatic cinema, each frame carefully composed for great rhetorical effect. And Russian composer Prokofief worked alongside Eisenstein to create some of the most powerful music ever composed for the cinema to this day. These films are not just an indispensable part of cinematic history. They are films you will return to through the rest of your life.
Rating: 
Summary: Very good transfer but not up to Criterion's usual standards
Review: I confirm another viewer's observation of Criterion's Alexander Nevsky: The visual restoration is excellent when it is done, however Criterion seems to have NOT been THOROUGH in restoring the ENTIRE film. There are countless sequences which appear to require simple digital clean up but wasn't done. The demonstration of the restoration, though impressive is simply ignored for too many sequences. Nonetheless, it is the very best version one will ever see (so far) or own. An amazing film. The full length commentary and extras are excellent.
Rating:
Summary: Nevsky: Great Film? Maybe. Great Propaganda Film? Absolutely
Review: I'll let others debate just how great a film Alexander Nevsky is; I don't know. But it certainly is one great propaganda film. It was made in 1938 when Stalin and Hitler were thinking about dancing on each other's grave. The story is how the Order of the Teutonic Knights invaded Russia in the 13th century and were defeated by the bravery of the Russian people under the inspired leadership of Prince Alexander Nevsky. The heart of the movie is the great battle to defeat the Germans; everything before the battle really is prologue, and everything after is a quick tidying up.
The knights are menacing and scary: armored men on big armored horses, wearing white, flowing robes with crosses and featureless helmets. They look like merciless automatons. The Russians are brave people of the soil, determined to protect Mother Russia and wanting only inspired leadership. They find this in Prince Nevsky.
The great battle between these two forces, held in the depth of winter, is the movie. The battle goes on and on, but you never get lost and never get bored. Eisenstein moves from masses of hacking, slashing soldiers to the actions of individuals in the melees, individuals whom we've come to know. He sets up the battle by having Nevsky explain clearly to his commanders (and to us) exactly what he wants them to do...let the charging wedge of knights penetrate his main force, then hold them at whatever cost, while he attacks from both flanks. At the start of the battle the Russians are massed with long pikes awaiting the knights. In the distance across the snow we see a long line of mounted knights, all with their white robes flowing in the wind. They gradually move faster and faster, growing larger and larger on the screen, until they crash into the pikes. The Russians give way in places creating corridors within their ranks where the knights are forced, and then all hell breaks loose.
The fighting is brutal, and not just with pikes, swords and arrows. Long hooks are used to yank the knights from their horses, then foot soldiers attack with heavy axes to smash through the armor. There are no great gouts of blood and spilled intestines, and this is long before Computer Generated Overkill, but there is no doubt about how brutal the fighting is.
At one point Prince Nevsky engages in one-to-one sword combat with the Master of the Teutonic Knights, humiliating him with his skill and then defeating and capturing him. The priests who accompanied the knights are all shown as venal opportunists, and all are slaughtered by the Russian fighters when the knights' camp is overrun. The Germans retreat, the Russians break through, and the remains of the German knights gather for a last stand on the ice. This is one of the great scenes in movies. As the Germans gather, the ice begins to break. The knights and their foot soldiers slip and crash into the water, some try to hold onto the ice and are overturned, some try to flee but the cracking ice catches them. We see helmeted men sinking below the surface, and then just their flowing white robes trailing behind them out of sight. It's something to see.
Throughout the movie Eisentstein creates great visual images. Some are vistas of snow and mountains, some gatherings of soldiers around a camp, some corpses strewn on a battlefield, some just two or three people talking. By modern standards this might sound arty, but I quickly became immersed in this style. It gave a kind of dignity and weight to the movie.
Eisenstein had Sergei Prokovief, one of the great composers of the 20th century, write the score for the movie. It is hugely effective, in my view.
Is this a great movie? I really don't know. But I'll bet Goebbels hated it.
The DVD is from Criterion's Eisenstein: The Sound Years which includes Ivan the Terrible parts I and II. The transfer looked great. There are several extras which I haven't listen to yet.
|
