The greatest operatic film that is not an opera, and Serafima Birman is the screen's best villainess. I know of nothing in cinema to match the intensity of the last two reels. Their pity and terror are overwhelming.
Merci pour ce chef-d'œuvre du cinéma. Eisenstein était un génie qui a su franchir le passage du cinéma muet au cinéma parlant en combinant l'expressivité de l'un avec les possibilités qu'offrait le second d'inclure de la musique et des passages chantés. Après cela nombre de films historiques contemporains vont nous sembler bien ternes. Au fait merci à mosfilm de mettre tous ces bons films soviétiques à notre disposition en 4k et sans publicité pour gâcher le plaisir.
the color sequence and the dances were pure art, that was a great wonderful movie, you can see how much talent and effort were put into this piece of art and how expensive this movie must have been.. all love and greetings from brazil
5: min & ff not only express the Russian viewpoint in the 1930's but the Polish king perfectly expresses the modern viewpoint of NATO & POLAND today as well. |Visually stunning and quite prophetic!
Perfectly sums up European mentality about Russia which has existed since centuries. Be it the Teutonic Knights, Poles, Swedes, French or Nazi Germans. God has inflicted humiliation on all of those for their arrogance.
Poland and NATO would like nothing better than to have the Russian Federation as a peaceful neighbor and prosperous economic partner. But Russia still obsessed with spheres of influence, domination and conquest. That's the reason it must be contained. Until Russia becomes a modern civilized nation, until it embraces democracy, until it rejects toxic nationalism, lawlessness, bigotry, paranoia and fascism, it cannot be trusted. For the next 20-30 years, all NATO countries will have to waste money on military expenditures to deter and, if necessary, to defeat Russian aggression. It's an unwelcome distraction from the great European Experiment, but it is a historical necessity. It's a lose/lose situation: Europe lags behind the US and China, Russia remains a primitive pariah state that the world fears and despises.
If only you could trust the word of the “Elite”… neither west or east… nor east or west… power attracts the corruptible and so shall it always be! Those of us on the bottom pay in blood for the ambitions of powerful uncaring and corrupt people. It’s a human issue.
WOW high on drama naturally, but I would imagine it is very real in a natural fashion. I was thrilled by the special effects and the shadow lighting is over the top. Xlent in every way. I will definitely pass this film along. Proudly speaking, I remain at 80 y.o., Sentebey in USA
I truly love melodramatic acting. What if we act like this in real life like a in home at work in shop 😂 such an rivalry to Colombian telenovella. In these days backstabbing, foul play and diplomacy, nothibg really changed. Thank you Mosfilm for movies to watch and understand old world and see also future 🤗
Eisenstein actually DREW the exact sketches of each scene before filming! Talking about a Grand Master! And he couldn't have found a more suitable composer for his films, Prokofiev! The latter, during the Soviet period, came to America but, after a while, he could not stand the lack of culture and went back to Russia-even under Stalin!
Фильм , который можно пересматривать много раз и каждый раз будешь находить что то новое! Какая многогранная картина... просто чудо! Каждый кадр - произведение искусства! Надо срочно почитать мемуары Эйзенштейна) Я преклоняюсь перед его гениальностью , мудростью и человеколюбием...
@unknown24242424 0 seconds ago I’m Australian but I’ve now watched both part 1 & 2 of this movie. A genuine piece of art and great insight into Russia - I follow Russia a lot and like to learn about its history. I highly recommend this movie - the olden day movies are great.
Why is Ivan IV Grozny, in English translation persistently called the Terrible? The exact, direct translation of the Russian word Grozny is "threatening".
Two things I just realized upon rewatching this film This scene at 57:49 confused me on my first watch as to why all of the guys behind the black robbed ones are tripping over and falling like a bunch of idiots but I think the guys wearing red and gold are not Oprichniki but like the Boyars and them tripping and falling on top of the unconscious guy represents their clumsiness and disunity. This guy in the white robes at 4:21 is also played by the same guy who played one of the bishops in Alexander Nevsky, Naum Rogozhin. I always assumed Cherkasov was the only one who was in multiple of Eisenstein’s films but I suppose I have been proven wrong. I wonder if he would have had a role in Part 3.
@@jestersareawesome4332 yes Cherkasov had the main role in part three and the entire film was completed but Stalin had it destroyed. I think 11 minutes of it survived somewhere.
It's a bit hard to understand the oprichniks' scene. Fedya is singing about oprichniks, who are supposed to be a kind of an army or police to kill the boyars (the stupid feodals all in gold). But as oprichniks are supposed to bring the good, they've brought the bad. They did evrth they wanted, as they were the closest to the Tsar. So they killed anyone they wanted and got all the gold from boyars to themselves. And the've become the second boyars, the same feodals after all. So the good turned into the evil it was supposed to beat. So people in black are oprichniks, the shadows of the Tsar. They're dancing, whilst people in red and white are falling, they are defeated. As l suppose it's a bit about the war between the white and the red, where the red were communists (the ordinary people, the aristocraths' slaves), and the white were the aristocraths (the monarchists). At the result, the red (the slaves), has won and they've created USSR, where there was no slaves and masters, there were only equal people. So here we can see that oprichniks weren't evil only for boyars (aristocraths, feodals, masters), but also evil for ordinary people. So you should understand this whilst watching, who's who. Amazing dance, amazing music, amazing scene between the black, the red and the white, amazing Fedya!! The Tsar's favourite.
@@woshinigegeduuuuudde I love what you just said. Given this film is relatively obscure (at least in the US, idk if it’s different in Russia) I don’t get to see many talking about this master piece of a film. So it was nice to hear your take on this film! 😊
It's a bit hard to understand the oprichniks' scene. Fedya is singing about oprichniks, who are supposed to be a kind of an army or police to kill the boyars (the stupid feodals all in gold). But as oprichniks are supposed to bring the good, they've brought the bad. They did evrth they wanted, as they were the closest to the Tsar. So they killed anyone they wanted and got all the gold from boyars to themselves. And the've become the second boyars, the same feodals after all. So the good turned into the evil it was supposed to beat. So people in black are oprichniks, the shadows of the Tsar. They're dancing, whilst people in red and white are falling, they are defeated. As l suppose it's a bit about the war between the white and the red, where the red were communists (the ordinary people, former aristocraths' slaves), and the white were the aristocraths (the monarchists). At the result, the red (former slaves krestyane), has won and they've created USSR, where there was no slaves and masters, there were only equal people. So here we can see that oprichniks weren't evil only for boyars (aristocraths, feodals, masters), but also evil for ordinary people. So you should understand this whilst watching, who's who. Amazing dance, amazing music, amazing scene between the black, the red and the white, amazing Fedya!! The Tsar's favourite.
Hey, how long AFTER Part 1 was this made? I thought it better than the first one. The writing was beautiful... at least I think, because the English translation was excellent. Part 2 seemed a maturity in storyline and entertaining value.
@@youtubedude09 Wow! I didn't know that at all! We really enjoyed the movie here in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. We speak only English, but STILL marveled at the writing, despite some being lost in translation.
@@youtubedude09 You are mistaken, Eisenstein died in 1948. The first episode of the film was released in 1945. The second episode was filmed almost simultaneously with the first, but was not released because it was actually banned. Both episodes of the film were released only after Stalin's death in 1958. Fragments of the planned but unfinished third series have been preserved.
Hope the director had completed the third part where he was to show the remorse that stuck Ivan of all his ill doings. Such a great movie. The 3rd part was meant to end with a confession scene in which Ivan kneels beneath last judgment fresco and offers his repentance for the evils of his reigns while a monk reads out an endless list of people he killed; Ivan bangs his forehead against flagstones, his eyes and ears filled with blood. Eisenstein said,” Stalin has killed more people and he still does not repent. Let him see this and he will repent”: Stalin liked the first part that got Stalin prize. Stalin reacted violently on second part’s screening and said it to be some nightmare. Film was banned and not shown until 1958, ten years after director’s death. Stalin called Eisenstein and said Ivan should have killed all boyar clans and god was hindrance to him in this respect and he should have been more ruthless. This way Russian times of troubles could have been avoided. - from Orlando Figes book The Story of Russia. 🙏🏽
If people like tsar Ivan and Stalin did not exist, Russia would not have become an empire.. if they didn't fight, not just the enemies from outside, but the enemies from inside Russia, Russia as we know, wouldn't exist today..
I thought that was pretty good, how he solved the dilemma of his aunt killing his wife. Apparently Stalin did not like part 2, Eisenstein was summoned to the kremlin, the conversation has been historically recorded, i just read it. Stalin wanted a more taking control character, like Alexander Nevsky, but there where so many machinations going on, Ivan had to bend with the wind to see what was really going on, and he did have a cunning plan in the end that cleverly resolved the dramas problems.
Young Erik pyrev had a true actor 's face and fab eurasian eyes...he had, (,in my opinion)something of younger johnny depp,but teenager russian actor was much more handsome and espressive than his american colleague,according to me
Tzar Ivan IV got both bad rap and facelift in posterity. The painting “Ivan the Terrible kills his son” has become iconic. Russian artists made him the grumpy bearded guy with a Gandalf stave draped in upholstery fabric, and with the permanent look of someone who has just seen a ghost. He waged a lot of wars, crushed Tatars, and worked on the amazing idea of moving into the Buckingham palace in London centuries before it was even built. On the other side, he pioneered the concept of Great Purges and left the country in a state of a terrible disarray that in a couple of decades resulted in the Time of Troubles. Stalin liked Ivan the Terrible and even commissioned a biopic, shot by the genius Sergei Eisenstein. Ivan was the first champion of modernization in Russia, which Stalin appreciated much. He also shared Ivan’s idea of expedited rotation of elites by means of imprisonment and assassination. The surge of nationalistic feelings in Russia makes Tzar Ivan the object of renewed debate. Many loyalists, Stalinists and imperial nostalgists say that he was a good guy, maligned by the enemies of Russia.
Это правда, Иван Грозный был не плохой правитель. Культ личности Ивана Грозного начали развенчивать во времена Петра Первого из-за внутренних политических противоречий. Иван Грозный символизировал старый уклад, а Петру Первому нужно было перестроить внутреннюю политику России. Так же поступили со Сталиным после его смерти. Новая политическая элита не смогла справиться с грузом ответственности, и чтобы не казаться неудачниками они решили унизить Сталина и развенчать культ его личности.
@@KpoyT Хрущев осудил Сталина по двум причинам: Избавление от сторонников Сталина в партийных структурах. Положить конец чисткам. Сам Сталин, придя к власти в 1920-х и 1930-х годах, отдавал приоритет избавлению от ярых ленинцев и троцкистов. По сравнению со Сталиным, у Хрущева была более сложная задача. Сталин мог просто составить списки всех, кто ему не нравился или публично не соглашался с ним в какой-то момент. Он поднялся на высший пост в эпоху свободных публичных дискуссий внутри партии. Его фотографическая память была очень хороша в сохранении малейших обид, которые он мог получить от товарищей через свой ритуал в Кремле. Вокруг Хрущева в 1950-х годах были только истинные сталинисты. В том числе и он сам. Все остальные исчезли в ходе чисток. Как выследить скрытых врагов? Это было решение Хрущева. Он заявил, что Сталин совершил преступления против партии, и следил за тем, кто осмеливается возражать. Интересно, что антисталинистский шар запустил не Хрущев. Наследный принц Сталина Георгий Маленков сказал следующее еще тремя годами ранее, в июле 1953 года: «Культ личности товарища Сталина в повседневной практике руководства принял нездоровые формы и масштабы. Методы коллективной работы были заброшены, а критика и самокритика полностью отсутствовали на высших уровнях нашего руководства». Другими словами, некоторая степень антисталинского натиска должна была произойти, с Хрущевым или без него. Почему? По второй основной причине. Авангардная партия не может допустить ротации выборов. Она потеряет сплоченность и идеологическую целостность. Демократический централизм может функционировать только посредством постоянных чисток, основанных на меритократии. Однако психологическое давление чисток создает все больший дискомфорт по мере того, как вы поднимаетесь в системе. Вот почему, казалось, существовал консенсус в отношении прекращения этих действий среди советского политического класса на момент смерти Сталина. Святые воины пролетарской справедливости, которые могли противостоять этой ереси, к тому времени были все искоренены. Именно поэтому ни одна из высокопоставленных схваток за власть в Советском Союзе, а позднее и в России, не включала массовые заключения или казни проигравших фракций. Правление Сталина привело к исчезновению коммунистических фанатиков из политического класса. Масса весьма прагматичных технократов - «глубинное государство» в сегодняшних терминах - захватила власть. Им не нравилась русская рулетка как протокол ротации власти, и они быстро ее разрушили. Никто из мужчин и женщин, изображенных здесь, не должен был умереть или сгнить в ГУЛАГе после того, как они потеряли власть. Оглядываясь назад, мы видим, что сталинисты и троцкисты были правы. Отмена чисток была несовместима с демократическим централизмом. Ротация власти медленно остановилась до полной остановки. Старая гвардия засорила систему. Их дети решили, что разумнее свернуть марксистский проект и приватизировать страну, чем убивать и сажать друг друга в тюрьму при каждой смене обстановки в Кремле.
@@KpoyT First of all, Ivan IV Vasilievich was not Terrible. He was Ivan Grozny. The Russian word Grozny (Грозный) is better translated as Formidable, Stern or Severe. When you call somebody Grozny, it implies caution, apprehension but also a lot of respect. There is a city that bears such a name, the capital of the Autonomous Republic of Chechnya. Can you imagine people living in a city named ‘Terrible’? Second, the nickname was not unique in Russia. Ivan IV’s grandfather, Ivan III, was called by his contemporaries as ‘Grozny’. However, he was not nearly as severe as his grandson, so he is now known as Ivan the Great. Two more princes had the nickname Groznye Ochi (Severe/Stern/Formidable Eyes). Third, well, after the first period of his reign, marked by successful reforms and external expansion, he showed himself to be really quite terrible. Ivan IV instituted a state terror machine known as oprichnina, executing many great lords that were critical of his reign. He devastated the city of Novgorod for perceived treason, murdering a great many people there. Ivan’s victims include the last appanage prince of Russia, the head of the Russian church and, according to some accounts, even his own son that he allegedly killed in rage. It did not help that he spent the meager resources of the state on 33 years of fighting for access to the Baltic Sea, finally losing the war to Poland and Sweden. Why then was his nickname ‘Grozny’ and not ‘Terrible’? Quite simple. Many people in Russia, not only commoners but lesser nobles as well, saw his reign of terror as a grandiose anti-corruption campaign. Great nobles were hated more than the Czar - and he was killing them and their old nobility could not protect them from his great severity. This is how Ivan IV became a hero of many songs and legends. Under the Romanov Czars, much more complacent to the aristocracy (it should be remarked that the aristocracy also became more timid after Ivan IV), the commoners liked to remember the Czar who knew how to make all those rich and powerful bastards tremble.
@@KpoyT Nikita Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization suspended an important part of Stalinism: the continual purges inside the ruling Communist party. A mistake? The answer whether it was a mistake depends on you being a true Marxist-Leninist, or not. If you are not a true Marxist, putting an end to Stalin’s reign of terror was the right thing. Neither you, nor your friends and family ran the risk of being arrested, tortured and executed anymore. Khrushchev called it “restoration of Lenin’s rule of law”. But if you dream of a world without private property like Marx and Engels wanted it, then the answer is: “YES, A FATAL MISTAKE”. Here’s the reason. No bourgeois democracy Marxism-Leninism does not allow democratic rotation of power in its bourgeois form. In “open and fair” elections, the immature, disoriented, selfish part of the electorate sooner or later votes into office someone who rolls back the achievements of Communist rule, and re-introduces private property. Any true Marxist must nip that possibility in the bud. Therefore, People’s Democracy must supplant “bourgeois democracy”. All elections under Communists need to be carefully managed. Democratic elections in their Communist form are assured to bring to power only those who are guaranteed to carry forth the torch of revolution. Alternative In the absence of the rotation of power in “free and fair” elections, something else must take its place to assure new blood, fresh talents and creative solutions at the top. The only way there for true Communists is purges, based on merit. Those who don’t pull their weight, must go. And since giving up power voluntarily goes against the spirit of Scientific Communism, the purges must involve a degree of violence and executions. In the winged words of Mikhail Gorbachev: “Despite the plethora of choices, we have no alternative”. Trotsky’s prophecy In the absence of purges, the Communists that form the upper crust of the Party, sooner or later clog the system with an intricate system of personal networks, cemented by clan loyalty. If this lasts long enough, already the first generation of Communist leaders starts converting their political power into a perpetual system of perks, personal benefits, and exclusive advantages. Trotsky called this process a “bourgeois transfiguration” of Soviet rule. This is why he advocated continued ripples of revolutionary expansion to the entire world. The permanent state of war would prevent such a transfiguration. The brutal logic of military successes and failures would create a clear gauge for who of the top Communists had to stay in place, or advance, or go down. As predicted The roll-back of the Marxist project in China in the late 1970s, and the demise of the USSR at the hand of Communist functionaries in 1991, proved Trotsky right. Looking back, we can trace the source of the ill-fated Perestroika to what was supposed to prevent bourgeois rot in its infancy-the Soviet secret police KGB, with its head Andropov as Perestroika’s godfather. Some even see in Beria a distant promise of China-like transformation of the USSR into state-oligarchical market-based one-party system.
@@KpoyT In the 16th century, Russia faced external pressure from Poland, the Ottomans, Baltic Germans, and the Crimean Tatars. Ivan IV's main problem was a weak financial base that could not compensate for his adversaries' technological advantages. The Russian taxable base was largely controlled by the landed aristocracy (“boyars”), who didn’t share his political vision. Ivan waged a protracted civil war against the bóyars. Along with external wars, this depleted resources in much of Russia's heartland. Think of a Magna Carta-like standoff that ends up in King John’s victory and WW2-scale devastation of the economy. Ivan VI has been vividly remembered for his opríchniki praetorians and his taste for boiling political opponents in oil and skinning them alive. Peter the Great followed Ivan’s vision with much more success. Peter opened a career path for the lowest of the gentry and even ambitious commoners. He also recruited foreign talents into his administration, giving the best of them the gentry privileges. This helped him modernize Russia and make it a top-level European monarchy. Along with Stalin, Ivan the Terrible was the ruler who chose the path of almost total eradication of the top oligarchy to ensure modernization would run with the least resistance. But he lacked Stalin’s bureaucratic genius. He disorganized the political class and greatly impoverished the country. Time of Troubles was his legacy. The Poles came dangerously close to taking over as new masters of Muscovy.
19 minutes in and so far this is WAY better than Part 1 that was just slow and annoying. At least here we get back stories and character development. I'm rooting for Ivan now
Unfortunately some beautiful scenes of very young and beautiful actor who played Ivan as child were cut....that boy was really espressive but I read (,Unfortunately)he died early and what a shame mister cherkasov cannot speak english....if those actors would had been american they would been known in each part of the world,and young Erik pyrev could be celeb too
@@annaritaranalli1791 Mr. Cherkasov was more than a celebrity. Sir Lawrence Olivier gave him an award in England, the NY Times has an obituary on the front page for him and in Saint Petersburg is a street named after him, in addition to all the fame he had in Russia. Actually, Hollywood offered him a role which he turned down to play the Ivan movies. And my guess would be that he did speak English.
"heavenly tamarind" how sour!!! hehehe... "tsarist kinship is sacred", the ironiacl lonely life of a tsar or any great leader who live for his nation...
Some people complain about the "musical number". The best way to understand the meaning of that scene is to have lived in a police state. All these guys who jump and and down and dance and laugh have their hands full of blood so their songs are not of pure joy or good will but more like the cries and celebrations of beasts of prey. We could even says they are celebrating their latest beheadings. so this is not innocent rejoicing but an unashamed display of brute force. Notice the absence of women. This is the XV century equivalent of a SS or KGB orgy or frat reunion, far from the public eye. If you understand that this Oprichnina of Ivan is the prototype of the modern Secret State Police you'll see the "musical scene" in its true meaning.
Not mentioning that Fyodor sings his "joyful" song about the "uninvited guests", who break the gates in two, take the golden goblets, and set the chambers on fire when leaving, in a rather menacing manner
Совершенно согласна. Радости там нет никакой. Похоже на сатанинскую пляску. Улыбка Басманова не добрая, а зловещая. Переходящая тут же в жестокое выражение лица.
Someone says nikolaj cerkasov took after his American colleague gary cooper....i think cerkasov was much more handsome and espressive than cooper(and i love American movies and most of his actors)....i think cooper's good look is very overrated
there is a russian movie about the decembrist revolt named "union of salvation" but without proper english subtitles,could you upload it with a proper one, please?
@@MichaelKurse how so? We defended ourselves in the 16th Century, we are still defending ourselves. We have to fight just to be considered humans. We must fight just to be allowed to exist. You were always the invader, we were always the defender
Russia has always been an imperial power, who expanded. How do you think you ended up across 11 time zones? America came to your defense in WW2, but you hate us because we weren't going to let you take over Europe.
![NISAMANEE - TADA (ท้าดา) [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hcQHEPMmJpU/mqdefault.jpg)
"i fear no knife no poison no betrayal, i fear for my great cause..." wow!!!
l'un des plus grands films de tous les temps
The greatest operatic film that is not an opera, and Serafima Birman is the screen's best villainess.
I know of nothing in cinema to match the intensity of the last two reels. Their pity and terror are overwhelming.
Merci pour ce chef-d'œuvre du cinéma. Eisenstein était un génie qui a su franchir le passage du cinéma muet au cinéma parlant en combinant l'expressivité de l'un avec les possibilités qu'offrait le second d'inclure de la musique et des passages chantés. Après cela nombre de films historiques contemporains vont nous sembler bien ternes. Au fait merci à mosfilm de mettre tous ces bons films soviétiques à notre disposition en 4k et sans publicité pour gâcher le plaisir.
Very interesting. Glad I watched it. After watching the polish king's speech-how little has changed over the last 700 years.
Polaks still think they are the defenders of Europe against the "Russian hordes". Too bad Germans think about them in the same way.
Yes,Russians still have completely the same paranoias.
One of the best movies of all times and probably the best.
the color sequence and the dances were pure art, that was a great wonderful movie, you can see how much talent and effort were put into this piece of art and how expensive this movie must have been.. all love and greetings from brazil
Sergei Eisenstein - provided all male actors the exemption , so that they would not be called to the FRONT.
@@ЕеРр-и7с what do you mean? sorry i couldn't understand
@@subyss В каком городе вы живёте в Бразилии? Мне нравится ваш комментарий
Meaning of the comment:- NO ONE WANTED TO DIE .
Film were made , from 1943 to 1944 .
I think the second part is even better than the first part.. And the colors sequence almost like dreaming.. Wonderful!! Thanks so much. 🎥🎥
Far better. Not that the first one is bad or mediocre but the second belongs in the list of the top ten movies of all times.
I agree totally
Outstanding
It's Shakespeare...Kurosawa...all wrapped up in a fox fur with a black beaver trim. Wonderful movie!
5: min & ff not only express the Russian viewpoint in the 1930's but the Polish king perfectly expresses the modern viewpoint of NATO & POLAND today as well. |Visually stunning and quite prophetic!
Perfectly sums up European mentality about Russia which has existed since centuries. Be it the Teutonic Knights, Poles, Swedes, French or Nazi Germans. God has inflicted humiliation on all of those for their arrogance.
Poland and NATO would like nothing better than to have the Russian Federation as a peaceful neighbor and prosperous economic partner. But Russia still obsessed with spheres of influence, domination and conquest. That's the reason it must be contained. Until Russia becomes a modern civilized nation, until it embraces democracy, until it rejects toxic nationalism, lawlessness, bigotry, paranoia and fascism, it cannot be trusted. For the next 20-30 years, all NATO countries will have to waste money on military expenditures to deter and, if necessary, to defeat Russian aggression. It's an unwelcome distraction from the great European Experiment, but it is a historical necessity. It's a lose/lose situation: Europe lags behind the US and China, Russia remains a primitive pariah state that the world fears and despises.
Big difference, Poland and NATO are now washed up have-beens overrun by legions of Muslims bent on eroding their societies.
@@stefan2292 The 1950s are begging you to come back, everything is forgiven. And say Hi to Ali and Leila.
If only you could trust the word of the “Elite”… neither west or east… nor east or west… power attracts the corruptible and so shall it always be! Those of us on the bottom pay in blood for the ambitions of powerful uncaring and corrupt people. It’s a human issue.
WOW high on drama naturally, but I would imagine it is very real in a natural fashion. I was thrilled by the special effects and the shadow lighting is over the top. Xlent in every way. I will definitely pass this film along. Proudly speaking, I remain at 80 y.o., Sentebey in USA
I'm ashamed to say I'm completely in the dark over this!
But I love this to no end!
I hope to learn more of this....
WONDERFUL MOVIE.... THE ROOT OF RUSSIAN CULTURE BY EISENSTEIN`S GENIUSES... GREETINGS FROM BRAZIL
Even if he eisenstein was a latvian with swedish roots
@@annaritaranalli1791 he just born in Riga, he was russian jew
@@annaritaranalli1791 it was Russian Empire
Brasileiro tá em todo lugar mesmo kkkk, eae
I truly love melodramatic acting. What if we act like this in real life like a in home at work in shop 😂 such an rivalry to Colombian telenovella.
In these days backstabbing, foul play and diplomacy, nothibg really changed.
Thank you Mosfilm for movies to watch and understand old world and see also future 🤗
Absolute masterpiece. Thank you so much!!! Mosfilm - the encyclopedia of masterpieces.
Eisenstein actually DREW the exact sketches of each scene before filming! Talking about a Grand Master! And he couldn't have found a more suitable composer for his films, Prokofiev! The latter, during the Soviet period, came to America but, after a while, he could not stand the lack of culture and went back to Russia-even under Stalin!
@@KaterinaStamatelos that's very interesting, thank you
Thank you for the legend, Mosfilm. The acting was convincing to the extent one feels the actors becoming the characters.
highly agree... scriptwriter and director are excellent...
That's very true - Eisenstein has even made a collection of post-shooting cuts of Cherkasov when he continued to speak like a czar
Do you know how gifted mister ezestain choose cerkasov and the others actors,?
@@gofar5185 script writer and Director are one and the same: Eisenstein
Фильм , который можно пересматривать много раз и каждый раз будешь находить что то новое! Какая многогранная картина... просто чудо! Каждый кадр - произведение искусства! Надо срочно почитать мемуары Эйзенштейна) Я преклоняюсь перед его гениальностью , мудростью и человеколюбием...
Fantastic and incredibly actual! A cinematographic masterpiece and a geopolitical master book!
Unglaublich!! Sehr sehr aussagekräftig.. Vergangenheit ist sehr gut dargestellt. Und was man heute sieht. Leid und elend und so weiter.
A timeless piece of art: BRAVO!!!
Masterpiece after masterpiece, Mosfilm rules.
Even if more stylish than realistic...however ezestain was a master and he(or producer)choose perfect actors for movie
Chorus's singing voices are so powerful and deep
L'histoire se répète! Grand film!
"enough clowning"... "poolish stooge"... excellent dialogues...
It really is a master piece!
EXCELLENT IVAN THE TERRIBLE/RUSSIA FILM... script, directing, performers, filmmakers as a whole...
Thank you so much for the reupload Mosfilm! Wasnt able to understand the film before without subtitles
It's Incredible how much this is similar to the current situation...
Yes, exactly.. history repeats itself, isn't.. it hasn't changed almost nothing, just different names..
You mean a cruel, paranoid, half-crazed despot in the Kremlin? I'm afraid so.
wonderful film every scene was art.
Великий фильм Мастера!
Brilliant and with decent subtitles
Loved part 1. Totally awesome. Though I did think his Aunt was a man. Lol . Her epithet " the ugly".
Mosfilm again did it.🙏🙏
A great film.
Best acting.❤
Lol from INDIA.🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳
What a great film! 👍
Thank you for this masterpiece
Pozdrav iz Hrvatske. Volio bih da znam više o caru Ivanu.
such a great movie , i'd been looking for it for years, thank you very much
@unknown24242424
0 seconds ago
I’m Australian but I’ve now watched both part 1 & 2 of this movie. A genuine piece of art and great insight into Russia - I follow Russia a lot and like to learn about its history. I highly recommend this movie - the olden day movies are great.
Serafima birman was a charismatic and goood drama actress like helen mirren,vivien leigh and glenn close (for example)
Great movie, discovered it on hbo max glad it’s here🎉❤
So beautiful, balletic. Bravo!
Thank you for this wonderful movies 🎥 🙏😍🌹
Why is Ivan IV Grozny, in English translation persistently called the Terrible? The exact, direct translation of the Russian word Grozny is "threatening".
The West has always been afraid of strong Russian rulers. Ivan was the first. There were a lot of rumors and fake news about Ivan.
fearsome
It also means awe-inspiring
Music's arrangement was (at least I guess)pretty revolutionary for the fortys
Two things I just realized upon rewatching this film
This scene at 57:49 confused me on my first watch as to why all of the guys behind the black robbed ones are tripping over and falling like a bunch of idiots but I think the guys wearing red and gold are not Oprichniki but like the Boyars and them tripping and falling on top of the unconscious guy represents their clumsiness and disunity.
This guy in the white robes at 4:21 is also played by the same guy who played one of the bishops in Alexander Nevsky, Naum Rogozhin.
I always assumed Cherkasov was the only one who was in multiple of Eisenstein’s films but I suppose I have been proven wrong. I wonder if he would have had a role in Part 3.
@@jestersareawesome4332 yes Cherkasov had the main role in part three and the entire film was completed but Stalin had it destroyed. I think 11 minutes of it survived somewhere.
@@isabelladelery5193 I didn’t mean Cherkasov, I meant the guy played by Rogozhin
It's a bit hard to understand the oprichniks' scene. Fedya is singing about oprichniks, who are supposed to be a kind of an army or police to kill the boyars (the stupid feodals all in gold). But as oprichniks are supposed to bring the good, they've brought the bad. They did evrth they wanted, as they were the closest to the Tsar. So they killed anyone they wanted and got all the gold from boyars to themselves. And the've become the second boyars, the same feodals after all. So the good turned into the evil it was supposed to beat.
So people in black are oprichniks, the shadows of the Tsar. They're dancing, whilst people in red and white are falling, they are defeated. As l suppose it's a bit about the war between the white and the red, where the red were communists (the ordinary people, the aristocraths' slaves), and the white were the aristocraths (the monarchists). At the result, the red (the slaves), has won and they've created USSR, where there was no slaves and masters, there were only equal people.
So here we can see that oprichniks weren't evil only for boyars (aristocraths, feodals, masters), but also evil for ordinary people. So you should understand this whilst watching, who's who.
Amazing dance, amazing music, amazing scene between the black, the red and the white, amazing Fedya!! The Tsar's favourite.
@@woshinigegeduuuuudde I love what you just said. Given this film is relatively obscure (at least in the US, idk if it’s different in Russia) I don’t get to see many talking about this master piece of a film. So it was nice to hear your take on this film! 😊
A masterpiece.
One of my fav historical.movies even if there are some huge mistakes
Best wishes to Russia the Great from Patagonia, Chile.
It's a bit hard to understand the oprichniks' scene. Fedya is singing about oprichniks, who are supposed to be a kind of an army or police to kill the boyars (the stupid feodals all in gold). But as oprichniks are supposed to bring the good, they've brought the bad. They did evrth they wanted, as they were the closest to the Tsar. So they killed anyone they wanted and got all the gold from boyars to themselves. And the've become the second boyars, the same feodals after all. So the good turned into the evil it was supposed to beat.
So people in black are oprichniks, the shadows of the Tsar. They're dancing, whilst people in red and white are falling, they are defeated. As l suppose it's a bit about the war between the white and the red, where the red were communists (the ordinary people, former aristocraths' slaves), and the white were the aristocraths (the monarchists). At the result, the red (former slaves krestyane), has won and they've created USSR, where there was no slaves and masters, there were only equal people.
So here we can see that oprichniks weren't evil only for boyars (aristocraths, feodals, masters), but also evil for ordinary people. So you should understand this whilst watching, who's who.
Amazing dance, amazing music, amazing scene between the black, the red and the white, amazing Fedya!! The Tsar's favourite.
Monumental.
Pentru amatorii de Istorie și de istoria Cinematografiei!
Большое спасибо! Мастерски!
Это была и есть Россия!
Слава России!
Слава России! меч над теми,кто извне посягает на величие России !
@@menastasiyat.3595 don't forget your Boy...., ruining Russia from inside.
Russians are murderers
@@frejafanRussians eat live children.
Wow this film could be about the SMO in 2024, brilliant.
This film is completely unhinged. About 20 years ahead of it's time surely ...
WOW!
Thanks
Thanks mosfillm
Hey, how long AFTER Part 1 was this made? I thought it better than the first one. The writing was beautiful... at least I think, because the English translation was excellent. Part 2 seemed a maturity in storyline and entertaining value.
14 years. The second part came out in 1958, according to google
@@youtubedude09 Wow! I didn't know that at all! We really enjoyed the movie here in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. We speak only English, but STILL marveled at the writing, despite some being lost in translation.
@@youtubedude09 You are mistaken, Eisenstein died in 1948. The first episode of the film was released in 1945. The second episode was filmed almost simultaneously with the first, but was not released because it was actually banned. Both episodes of the film were released only after Stalin's death in 1958. Fragments of the planned but unfinished third series have been preserved.
@@ОльгаГофман-о8у interesting. Thank you for correcting, Im always grateful to learn more about the amazing film
absolutely magnificent!
Hope the director had completed the third part where he was to show the remorse that stuck Ivan of all his ill doings. Such a great movie. The 3rd part was meant to end with a confession scene in which Ivan kneels beneath last judgment fresco and offers his repentance for the evils of his reigns while a monk reads out an endless list of people he killed; Ivan bangs his forehead against flagstones, his eyes and ears filled with blood. Eisenstein said,” Stalin has killed more people and he still does not repent. Let him see this and he will repent”: Stalin liked the first part that got Stalin prize. Stalin reacted violently on second part’s screening and said it to be some nightmare. Film was banned and not shown until 1958, ten years after director’s death.
Stalin called Eisenstein and said Ivan should have killed all boyar clans and god was hindrance to him in this respect and he should have been more ruthless. This way Russian times of troubles could have been avoided.
- from Orlando Figes book The Story of Russia. 🙏🏽
If people like tsar Ivan and Stalin did not exist, Russia would not have become an empire.. if they didn't fight, not just the enemies from outside, but the enemies from inside Russia, Russia as we know, wouldn't exist today..
Если Орландо был приближенным Ивана Грозного и Сталина одновременно, возможно, все так и было, а иначе это лживая западная пропаганда.
Hey, thanks for the insight.
@@AmrinderSinghHundal yes Part 3 was completed the way Eisenstein wanted but destroyed by Stalin for obvious reasons.
I thought that was pretty good, how he solved the dilemma of his aunt killing his wife. Apparently Stalin did not like part 2, Eisenstein was summoned to the kremlin, the conversation has been historically recorded, i just read it. Stalin wanted a more taking control character, like Alexander Nevsky, but there where so many machinations going on, Ivan had to bend with the wind to see what was really going on, and he did have a cunning plan in the end that cleverly resolved the dramas problems.
Do you remember where you read that conversation between Eisenstein and Stalin? I would love to read it
Der beste Trick des Teufels besteht darin, Sie davon zu überzeugen, dass er nicht existiert. 🧐
poor sacrificial lamb for OVERLY GREEDY AMBITIOUS mother and clans...
Young Erik pyrev had a true actor 's face and fab eurasian eyes...he had, (,in my opinion)something of younger johnny depp,but teenager russian actor was much more handsome and espressive than his american colleague,according to me
Your channel is fantastic, thanks for uploading all these amazing films, i am sick of hollywood kamehameha idiotic movies'
спасибо
Ivan formidable for enemies
روعه. روعه. روعه. روعه. روعه. روعه
😍😍😍😍😍😍 SLAVA ROSSIYA 🙏🙏🙏
меч над теми,кто извне посягает на величие России !
Tzar Ivan IV got both bad rap and facelift in posterity. The painting “Ivan the Terrible kills his son” has become iconic. Russian artists made him the grumpy bearded guy with a Gandalf stave draped in upholstery fabric, and with the permanent look of someone who has just seen a ghost.
He waged a lot of wars, crushed Tatars, and worked on the amazing idea of moving into the Buckingham palace in London centuries before it was even built. On the other side, he pioneered the concept of Great Purges and left the country in a state of a terrible disarray that in a couple of decades resulted in the Time of Troubles.
Stalin liked Ivan the Terrible and even commissioned a biopic, shot by the genius Sergei Eisenstein. Ivan was the first champion of modernization in Russia, which Stalin appreciated much. He also shared Ivan’s idea of expedited rotation of elites by means of imprisonment and assassination.
The surge of nationalistic feelings in Russia makes Tzar Ivan the object of renewed debate. Many loyalists, Stalinists and imperial nostalgists say that he was a good guy, maligned by the enemies of Russia.
Это правда, Иван Грозный был не плохой правитель. Культ личности Ивана Грозного начали развенчивать во времена Петра Первого из-за внутренних политических противоречий. Иван Грозный символизировал старый уклад, а Петру Первому нужно было перестроить внутреннюю политику России.
Так же поступили со Сталиным после его смерти. Новая политическая элита не смогла справиться с грузом ответственности, и чтобы не казаться неудачниками они решили унизить Сталина и развенчать культ его личности.
@@KpoyT Хрущев осудил Сталина по двум причинам:
Избавление от сторонников Сталина в партийных структурах.
Положить конец чисткам.
Сам Сталин, придя к власти в 1920-х и 1930-х годах, отдавал приоритет избавлению от ярых ленинцев и троцкистов.
По сравнению со Сталиным, у Хрущева была более сложная задача. Сталин мог просто составить списки всех, кто ему не нравился или публично не соглашался с ним в какой-то момент. Он поднялся на высший пост в эпоху свободных публичных дискуссий внутри партии. Его фотографическая память была очень хороша в сохранении малейших обид, которые он мог получить от товарищей через свой ритуал в Кремле.
Вокруг Хрущева в 1950-х годах были только истинные сталинисты. В том числе и он сам. Все остальные исчезли в ходе чисток. Как выследить скрытых врагов?
Это было решение Хрущева. Он заявил, что Сталин совершил преступления против партии, и следил за тем, кто осмеливается возражать. Интересно, что антисталинистский шар запустил не Хрущев. Наследный принц Сталина Георгий Маленков сказал следующее еще тремя годами ранее, в июле 1953 года:
«Культ личности товарища Сталина в повседневной практике руководства принял нездоровые формы и масштабы. Методы коллективной работы были заброшены, а критика и самокритика полностью отсутствовали на высших уровнях нашего руководства».
Другими словами, некоторая степень антисталинского натиска должна была произойти, с Хрущевым или без него. Почему? По второй основной причине.
Авангардная партия не может допустить ротации выборов. Она потеряет сплоченность и идеологическую целостность. Демократический централизм может функционировать только посредством постоянных чисток, основанных на меритократии.
Однако психологическое давление чисток создает все больший дискомфорт по мере того, как вы поднимаетесь в системе. Вот почему, казалось, существовал консенсус в отношении прекращения этих действий среди советского политического класса на момент смерти Сталина. Святые воины пролетарской справедливости, которые могли противостоять этой ереси, к тому времени были все искоренены.
Именно поэтому ни одна из высокопоставленных схваток за власть в Советском Союзе, а позднее и в России, не включала массовые заключения или казни проигравших фракций.
Правление Сталина привело к исчезновению коммунистических фанатиков из политического класса. Масса весьма прагматичных технократов - «глубинное государство» в сегодняшних терминах - захватила власть. Им не нравилась русская рулетка как протокол ротации власти, и они быстро ее разрушили. Никто из мужчин и женщин, изображенных здесь, не должен был умереть или сгнить в ГУЛАГе после того, как они потеряли власть.
Оглядываясь назад, мы видим, что сталинисты и троцкисты были правы. Отмена чисток была несовместима с демократическим централизмом. Ротация власти медленно остановилась до полной остановки. Старая гвардия засорила систему. Их дети решили, что разумнее свернуть марксистский проект и приватизировать страну, чем убивать и сажать друг друга в тюрьму при каждой смене обстановки в Кремле.
@@KpoyT First of all, Ivan IV Vasilievich was not Terrible.
He was Ivan Grozny. The Russian word Grozny (Грозный) is better translated as Formidable, Stern or Severe. When you call somebody Grozny, it implies caution, apprehension but also a lot of respect.
There is a city that bears such a name, the capital of the Autonomous Republic of Chechnya. Can you imagine people living in a city named ‘Terrible’?
Second, the nickname was not unique in Russia. Ivan IV’s grandfather, Ivan III, was called by his contemporaries as ‘Grozny’. However, he was not nearly as severe as his grandson, so he is now known as Ivan the Great. Two more princes had the nickname Groznye Ochi (Severe/Stern/Formidable Eyes).
Third, well, after the first period of his reign, marked by successful reforms and external expansion, he showed himself to be really quite terrible. Ivan IV instituted a state terror machine known as oprichnina, executing many great lords that were critical of his reign. He devastated the city of Novgorod for perceived treason, murdering a great many people there. Ivan’s victims include the last appanage prince of Russia, the head of the Russian church and, according to some accounts, even his own son that he allegedly killed in rage.
It did not help that he spent the meager resources of the state on 33 years of fighting for access to the Baltic Sea, finally losing the war to Poland and Sweden.
Why then was his nickname ‘Grozny’ and not ‘Terrible’? Quite simple. Many people in Russia, not only commoners but lesser nobles as well, saw his reign of terror as a grandiose anti-corruption campaign. Great nobles were hated more than the Czar - and he was killing them and their old nobility could not protect them from his great severity.
This is how Ivan IV became a hero of many songs and legends. Under the Romanov Czars, much more complacent to the aristocracy (it should be remarked that the aristocracy also became more timid after Ivan IV), the commoners liked to remember the Czar who knew how to make all those rich and powerful bastards tremble.
@@KpoyT Nikita Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization suspended an important part of Stalinism: the continual purges inside the ruling Communist party.
A mistake?
The answer whether it was a mistake depends on you being a true Marxist-Leninist, or not. If you are not a true Marxist, putting an end to Stalin’s reign of terror was the right thing. Neither you, nor your friends and family ran the risk of being arrested, tortured and executed anymore. Khrushchev called it “restoration of Lenin’s rule of law”.
But if you dream of a world without private property like Marx and Engels wanted it, then the answer is: “YES, A FATAL MISTAKE”. Here’s the reason.
No bourgeois democracy
Marxism-Leninism does not allow democratic rotation of power in its bourgeois form. In “open and fair” elections, the immature, disoriented, selfish part of the electorate sooner or later votes into office someone who rolls back the achievements of Communist rule, and re-introduces private property.
Any true Marxist must nip that possibility in the bud.
Therefore, People’s Democracy must supplant “bourgeois democracy”. All elections under Communists need to be carefully managed. Democratic elections in their Communist form are assured to bring to power only those who are guaranteed to carry forth the torch of revolution.
Alternative
In the absence of the rotation of power in “free and fair” elections, something else must take its place to assure new blood, fresh talents and creative solutions at the top. The only way there for true Communists is purges, based on merit. Those who don’t pull their weight, must go. And since giving up power voluntarily goes against the spirit of Scientific Communism, the purges must involve a degree of violence and executions.
In the winged words of Mikhail Gorbachev: “Despite the plethora of choices, we have no alternative”.
Trotsky’s prophecy
In the absence of purges, the Communists that form the upper crust of the Party, sooner or later clog the system with an intricate system of personal networks, cemented by clan loyalty. If this lasts long enough, already the first generation of Communist leaders starts converting their political power into a perpetual system of perks, personal benefits, and exclusive advantages.
Trotsky called this process a “bourgeois transfiguration” of Soviet rule. This is why he advocated continued ripples of revolutionary expansion to the entire world. The permanent state of war would prevent such a transfiguration. The brutal logic of military successes and failures would create a clear gauge for who of the top Communists had to stay in place, or advance, or go down.
As predicted
The roll-back of the Marxist project in China in the late 1970s, and the demise of the USSR at the hand of Communist functionaries in 1991, proved Trotsky right. Looking back, we can trace the source of the ill-fated Perestroika to what was supposed to prevent bourgeois rot in its infancy-the Soviet secret police KGB, with its head Andropov as Perestroika’s godfather. Some even see in Beria a distant promise of China-like transformation of the USSR into state-oligarchical market-based one-party system.
@@KpoyT In the 16th century, Russia faced external pressure from Poland, the Ottomans, Baltic Germans, and the Crimean Tatars. Ivan IV's main problem was a weak financial base that could not compensate for his adversaries' technological advantages. The Russian taxable base was largely controlled by the landed aristocracy (“boyars”), who didn’t share his political vision.
Ivan waged a protracted civil war against the bóyars. Along with external wars, this depleted resources in much of Russia's heartland. Think of a Magna Carta-like standoff that ends up in King John’s victory and WW2-scale devastation of the economy.
Ivan VI has been vividly remembered for his opríchniki praetorians and his taste for boiling political opponents in oil and skinning them alive. Peter the Great followed Ivan’s vision with much more success. Peter opened a career path for the lowest of the gentry and even ambitious commoners. He also recruited foreign talents into his administration, giving the best of them the gentry privileges. This helped him modernize Russia and make it a top-level European monarchy.
Along with Stalin, Ivan the Terrible was the ruler who chose the path of almost total eradication of the top oligarchy to ensure modernization would run with the least resistance. But he lacked Stalin’s bureaucratic genius. He disorganized the political class and greatly impoverished the country. Time of Troubles was his legacy. The Poles came dangerously close to taking over as new masters of Muscovy.
Suberb.Too good
19 minutes in and so far this is WAY better than Part 1 that was just slow and annoying. At least here we get back stories and character development. I'm rooting for Ivan now
Not to mention actual dialogue instead of close ups of mofos giving the "evil eye" and shuffling in and out of mouse holes
42:13 💀💀the looks on their faces 👼😂➡😳👀👹
tje eyes. Watch for the eyes. Shades of the silent films fron Hollywood.
Yesyes a masterpiece, and Sergio Leone in his western movies, on his cameraoperations taked a lot of influence...from Eisenstein..hehehe....
I didn't notice and i like leone's Westerns
En esta canal se exhiben muchas obras de arte
🙏❤️
Unfortunately some beautiful scenes of very young and beautiful actor who played Ivan as child were cut....that boy was really espressive but I read (,Unfortunately)he died early and what a shame mister cherkasov cannot speak english....if those actors would had been american they would been known in each part of the world,and young Erik pyrev could be celeb too
More importantly than being a celeb is the ability to really act Which all of them could, making American actors pale in comparison
Isabelladejay ,in part you are right(for example i 've never liked tyron power,jon wayne and clark gable)but there are also many good american actors
@@isabelladelery5193 Some would say overact.
@@annaritaranalli1791 Mr. Cherkasov was more than a celebrity. Sir Lawrence Olivier gave him an award in England, the NY Times has an obituary on the front page for him and in Saint Petersburg is a street named after him, in addition to all the fame he had in Russia. Actually, Hollywood offered him a role which he turned down to play the Ivan movies. And my guess would be that he did speak English.
Do you know if there are pics about kolja cerkasov and sir lawrence olivier togheter?
"preventing the moscow barbarian to join the family of enlightened europe countries..." hahahe...
as if the Poles haven't tried on several occassions to grab the power in Muscovy. Remeber the joke with the False Dmitrys?
Porque no traducen todas las películas en español se lo agradecerían los sud americanos gracias.
Film School in 1:25:16!
Remek djelo.
"heavenly tamarind" how sour!!! hehehe... "tsarist kinship is sacred", the ironiacl lonely life of a tsar or any great leader who live for his nation...
9:14 Anakin Skywalker as (Darth Vader) is a Ivan left Side kkk
muh capeshit
Is there a version of this without the hardcoded subtitles?
Some people complain about the "musical number". The best way to understand the meaning of that scene is to have lived in a police state. All these guys who jump and and down and dance and laugh have their hands full of blood so their songs are not of pure joy or good will but more like the cries and celebrations of beasts of prey. We could even says they are celebrating their latest beheadings. so this is not innocent rejoicing but an unashamed display of brute force. Notice the absence of women. This is the XV century equivalent of a SS or KGB orgy or frat reunion, far from the public eye. If you understand that this Oprichnina of Ivan is the prototype of the modern Secret State Police you'll see the "musical scene" in its true meaning.
Not mentioning that Fyodor sings his "joyful" song about the "uninvited guests", who break the gates in two, take the golden goblets, and set the chambers on fire when leaving, in a rather menacing manner
Совершенно согласна. Радости там нет никакой. Похоже на сатанинскую пляску. Улыбка Басманова не добрая, а зловещая. Переходящая тут же в жестокое выражение лица.
Le sous titrage en anglais est caché la plupart du temps 🙄🤔
Someone says nikolaj cerkasov took after his American colleague gary cooper....i think cerkasov was much more handsome and espressive than cooper(and i love American movies and most of his actors)....i think cooper's good look is very overrated
there is a russian movie about the decembrist revolt named "union of salvation" but without proper english subtitles,could you upload it with a proper one, please?
Likewise handsome and talented actor who plAys false tsar vladimir andreevich should be a very famous rock singer from denmArk
16th or 21th Century, the savage Westerners never change
We think the same of you.😂😂😂
@@MichaelKurse how so? We defended ourselves in the 16th Century, we are still defending ourselves. We have to fight just to be considered humans. We must fight just to be allowed to exist. You were always the invader, we were always the defender
Russia has always been an imperial power, who expanded. How do you think you ended up across 11 time zones? America came to your defense in WW2, but you hate us because we weren't going to let you take over Europe.
@@НиколайРоманов-л6ю My Russian friend, you are just losing energy: BEASTS & GANGSTERS (West) could never speak the language of humans (Russians)
29:26 They should've been arrested for those bowl cuts a long time ago
From now on I will be like you call me
Fearsome look
lam from India
one of my favdirector
Love Russian
Нас 500.000.000 говорящих по-испански, почему нет субтитров на испанском?
Because apart from Mandarin, English is spoken by more people than any other language.
excessive cunning power-hungry men who shelter themselves in the houses/temples/words of religions...
5:06 Europa Universalis 4 Poland walkthrough
Malyuta is like Ivan's Samwise Gamgee
He is devoted to Ivan, like Sam Frodo.