User reviews

"Alexander Nevsky" is a mythohistorical recounting of a portion of the life of the Russian leader. He is called upon to defend Novgorod against invasion by the Teutonic Knights of the Holy Roman Empire. This seminal battle for the religious and political roots of Russia made Nevsky the main hero of Russia's history per a popular vote in 2008.

Director Sergei Eisenstein's film is notable for its clear, impactful images. But otherwise I consider it inferior to many other films of its era.

The battle action is often cited as one of the film's best features, but the swords don't pierce and the axes don't cleave---and this is shown quite clearly. The activities of the men on the field of battle are amateurish and not even remotely convincing. The Teutonic Knights are depicted as little more than mindless fodder.

The acting, in general, is exaggerated and stiff. Here again, the film should be compared to others of its time, e.g. "The Adventures of Robin Hood".

Eisenstein has a solid place in Russian film history and this film is certainly a seminal part of his oeuvre, but it fails to inspire.

I'd like to first say that the version of the film I saw had some of the worst audio-visual quality I've ever had to endure. The sound effects and voice literally sounded like static on my television, and the picture was washed and fuzzy. Therefore, I probably did not experience the film the way it was meant to be seen, and as a result my opinion of it has been tainted.

"Alexander Nevsky" is a decent propaganda picture released during Stalin's reign over the Soviet Union. It is filled with patriotism and proud declaration of Russia's greatness and willingness to fight. However, much of this enthusiasm didn't carry over for me, and I felt very lost and detached the entire film (again, most-likely due to the technical quality of the DVD). Also, the translation and subtitles were awful and made it even harder to follow the film. However, it did have one long, rousing battle sequence that surely set the standard for many to come, and a memorable score added to the excitement. Overall though, it was all a bit underwhelming for me.

I can only hope for a newly restored, updated version to be released some day so that I can fully enjoy the film the way it was meant to be enjoyed.

Eisenstein's film about a Russian defense of their motherland from the evil German forces can easily be interpreted, well, too easily actually, as a call to arms to Russia's people against, YES! The Germans! The film is somewhat laborous to sit through until the actual war scenes take place, but until that happens, there's a little bit of a lecture (and some songs) from Alexander and friends about why this has to happen and What Makes Russia So Great! But the main focus of this is the epic battle sequence that features heaven knows how many extras waving their axes and swords around occasionally hitting something, (usually someone's head) It seems the extras get carried away in several scenes, you can see several of them attacking each other lol. Though masterful, the whole thing DOES become a bit repetitive after awhile, eg people swinging weapons around, people riding horses, people getting bopped on heads etc.

Finally, I have no idea whether exportfilm (which I guess handled subtitling for this film?) has corrected the English subtitles, but the version I saw had more or less the correct dialog for the film,.but was presented in a very yoda-like manner. eg "Fight, we must!"

Guys, before saying that Alexander Nevsky is a propaganda film, please keep in mind that it is about a Russian saint, prince and patriot and it was produced in the country which totally denied religion, patriotism and nobility. If you look more attentively you can notice that the Novgorod churches had no crosses on top. The full helmets Eisenshtein took from ancient manuscripts and followed the history precisely. The portable organ the monk plays was an exact copy of the real thing from the 13th century which crusaders used. The children auto-da-fe was taken from ancient chronicles (both Russian and German). But in addition it had religious meaning since it draws parallel with Herod's slaughter of the innocents (used later once again in Ivan The Terrible). Alexander Nevsky is a Russian historical saga which has everything in common with old Russian cultural and historical tradition but nothing (or very little) with the Soviet propaganda. The film definitely has allusions to the Stalin's time: free Novgorod republic fights for its freedom at the expense of prosperity, elected prince Alexander (leader but not czar) etc. But nevertheless I think that the French critic Robert Brasillach (he was very close to nazis) was right when he called Alexander Nevsky the slavic war carol which has nothing to do with bolshevism, communism etc.

But IMHO Serghey Eisenshtein was against the war and followed the tradition of War And Peace by Leo Tolstoy. The same plot with common people uniting to oppose the uppish professional army. If you remember the scene when Russian soldiers alike in color with the earth and trees butted into the German close formation they use axes the same way they did when chopping woods. No pride, honor or awards but every day job. I think it is an excellent film which is larger then our judgements.

In 1242, Russia in being invaded by two sides: from the orient by the Mongols and from Europe side, by the Germans Teutonic Knights of the Holy Roman Empire. The city of Novgorod is the last free city in Russia. The population, in order to organize the defense of Novgorod and the lands of Russia, calls the Prince Aleksandr Nevsky, who had defeated the Swedish in a previous battle. His successful strategy defeats the Germans, after a great battle on a frozen lake. This movie was made in 1938 due to the threaten of the German to Russia, in a pre-Second World War period. The idea was to make propaganda pro-Russia. However, it is an overwhelming, marvelous, stunning powerful masterpiece. It is amazing the combat scene on the frozen lake. The present generation is very accustomed to special effects, like in the `Lord of the Rings' trilogy, and maybe cannot understand how fantastic is this black and white fight. If the viewer can forget the ideology and watch it as an art, he will certainly be astonished in the end with such a masterpiece. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): Alexander Nevsky

Sergei Eisenstein's "Alexander Nevsky" is a biopic of the famous prince, but when released it was seen as an expression of the growing suspicion of Nazi Germany. Indeed, the battle scenes make the Teutonic Knights - aka the Germans - get depicted as faceless goons who have no qualms about killing anyone. The epic battle scene is probably the most well remembered scene in the movie. It basically says "If you invade Russia, expect the same fate as befell the Teutonic Knights." Hitler didn't heed the warning, and his hoped-for thousand-year Reich only lasted twelve years (the harsh winters didn't help matters).

Understanding that it's a form of propaganda, it's an impressive movie. I wouldn't expect otherwise from Eisenstein. If you're going to teach a course on Russian cinema, you would have to include this one. Excellent movie.

MY RATING- 6.2 Seen this the other day and I found it a fine propaganda vehicle that only Eisenstein can create, with long shots, quick shots, and great camera work to glorify the russian people. Of course, the objective was also to glorify their government and to advise the nazis to stand in their own land. However, I must say the mov was a bit crude and childish in some parts and characters, it's too crude to be considered a masterpiece, yet the critics always exagerate. To them I'd say `See 49th Parallel, that's an excellent propaganda mov!'.

At school I was taught how some shots were called and there were two directors constantly mentioned : Orson Welles and Sergei M. Eisenstein. I didn't care that much then (I was a kid!) but now I know why, Eisenstein is a genius and it is a shame to see what was possible in 1938 where as almost more than a half century we're stuck with countless blank movies! Some say this movie isn't worth the genius of Eisenstein (then they have to watch it over and over till they can say anything bad) or even worse that it is just some propagandamovie for the Russians. Let's say it as it is, it is indeed pure propaganda for patriotism but isn't "Saving private Ryan" or "The longest day" so? I could sum up so many movies in where America is being raised to the top so why not Russia, and besides every war is fought for itrs patriotism why else would they raise flags? Aleksandr Nevsky is a must for anyone who cares about cinematography as almost every shot is a sublime picture. Perhaps it's all overseen but I am in wonder why this isn't included in IMDB's Top 250 where as there is so many overrated Oscarcrap in it as well.

This film is one of those recognized world classics that contemporary audiences will scratch their heads over. Essentially a Pro-Russian propaganda film, "Alexander Nevsky" was made at a time when Germany's intentions for conquest were making the rest of Europe highly nervous. Sergei Eisenstein, the famous Russian film-making genius, was at this point, out of favor with the Soviet masters, and upon returning to Russia, he was given one last chance at making a film. He was provided a list of subjects, and the story of Alexander Nevsky, a relatively obscure thirteenth century Prince, was chosen. The result is a surprisingly campy, even downright silly, large-scale battle epic that contemporary audiences might find periodically laughable. The story is that Eisenstein encouraged a lesser talented co-director (Dmitri Vasiliev) to do a large part of the shooting, and one has to believe as much watching the film. The battle scenes are comedic, and the film's photography constantly meanders between excellence and marginality. Eisenstein's patent use of montage is mostly absent here, and the result is easily his dullest and most unpolished work. I think David Thompson sums up the film nicely, in his movie compendium "Have You Seen...?" Here are two excerpts: "I know, it is a masterpiece, but it is a very silly masterpiece, even with the Prokofiev music bubbling along beside it....To be candid, it is spectacular propaganda rubbish, and an unnerving if sidelong portrait of the lengths even great talent will go to survive."

I've loved this movie since the first time I saw it lo these many years ago. I'm not sure how many times I've seen it, perhaps 10, perhaps 20. This last time I watched it I was struck by a detail that I hadn't noticed before.

Toward the end of the picture, the slain heroes are conveyed back to the town via sled. There are a couple of closeups of the dead men. The one that struck me most was a shot of the blond youth. All you see on the screen is his profile from head to hands. His hands hold a flickering candle. The wind is blowing and his thick blond hair is dancing in the wind, in sync with the flicker of the candle flame. The contrast between death and the life he has lost is incredibly powerful. The moving hair and candle flame remind us of the life force that once inhabited his body.

Every time I revisit this film I see something new.

This is one of those movies where you have to put to one side some of its obvious shortcomings (a result of the date and location of its production)and accentuate the positive. In many ways this is a truly superb film.

Forgive the parody in the one line summary, but the most serious shortcoming for an English speaker like me was the ghastly subtitles. The print I saw had 1982 Soviet "Film Export" subtitles, which consistently used inverted grammar, presumably to give the impression of 13th century speech. The actual impact of this nonsense is to make it harder to follow the subtitles which means you spend less time looking at the images. Given that the cinematographic imagery is this films great strength, this is a real issue.

Other IMDB-niks have written plenty about the Stalinist propaganda elements of this film (just in case the viewer doesn't notice them for him/herself). They have also written plenty about the battle on the ice scene, which is superb in my view.

The love interest almost totally lacks subtlety and yet strangely..... almost totally lacks charm also. But it is good to cringe every now and then.

I was familiar with the Prokofiev music to this film long before seeing the film. The images and the music complement each other marvelously. And it is the images that will stick in the mind for a long time. Bergman clearly learned a lot from these images - the imagery of his medieval pieces (e.g. The Seventh Seal, The Virgin Spring) building upon and enhancing Eisenstein's ideas. This film was made in 1938 in the USSR. In that context it is a masterpiece, albeit a flawed one.

For the modern viewer, I suggest that you go with the flow and enjoy the many treats on show.

Alexander Nevsky (1938) is a brilliant piece of cinematic propaganda. The people of Russia are threatened by two major enemies, the Mongols and the Teutonic Knights of the Holy Roman Empire. In ordered to unite the warring, rival Princes in the Russian Realm, Nevsky takes charge and fights the lesser of two evils (The Teutonics). This influential film was copied many times over and it still holds up to this day. The soundtrack by composer Prokiev and Eisentstein's direction are a sight and sound to behold Many years later, John Milius used many of the movies scenes, set pieces and costumes from this film and incorporated them into Conan.

One of my favorite lines from Conan was taken from this movie. "It's not the strength of the iron in a weapon but the strength of the person that wields it is what matters." The comparisons are unmistakable. The armor that James Earl Jones and the Leader of the Teutonic Knights wear are virtually identical. A true tribute paid from one director to another.

I give Alexander Nevsky one of my highest recommendations. The movie plays like the final Act of Richard III. The presence of Prince Alexander on the screen is truly amazing.

A celebrated director is tough to critique, as we'll be too tough or too lenient. I think it's best to just forget who directs this.

This has all the makings of epic propaganda, of high adventure.

Alexander is a war hero, and is called upon to fight the Tuetonic knights of Germany, who invade their land.

The chief plot here becomes the subplot of a comic romantic triangle, however, and the interweaving of this is probably the only thing that saves this movie from fairly heavy ennui.

We don't mind the Teutonic knights being evil, or Germans being the bad guys, but they are portrayed in a way that makes no sense. For some reason a papal court leads the knights in evil. Not only did the papacy have nothing to do with Hitler, and not only did Hitler persecute all theists, but this had nothing to do with the propaganda needs at the time. The best guess here is that Russia didn't want to offend the rest of the East.

Aside from the propaganda, some things work. Alexander is well photographed throughout. Eisenstein's bright spot is in highlighting his hero.

The rest of the movie is fairly dull, a struggle to get through. This was made in days of movie houses, so it is understandable that much of the movie is filler space for people to go to the lobby and buy popcorn and soda. This movie must have sold tons of popcorn and soda, because 50% of it is "walk out and buy popcorn and soda" time.

Eisenstein doesn't flair as a director, but does have a knack for cameras. Use of cameras seems to be his forte.

Alexander Nevsky is the story of Russian resistance to.a 13th-century German invasion, also a propaganda allegory for the coming conflict in World War II. The teutonic knights are on the march and have sacked Pskov with horrible atrocities. It is up to Prince Alexander to amass the forces that will stop the invasion and save Mother Russia. The film was directed by Sergei Eistenstein, one of the most pre-eminent pre-World War II filmmakers.

I first became acquainted with this movie playing in a live orchestra performance of the film score as the movie was being shown--our University orchestra took on the project. The score is famous because it was written by the great composer Sergei Prokofiev, and is an integral part of the movie. I decided to rewatch the movie after many years to see if it fit my memory--I was also hoping for an entertaining classic and re-experience of a fond memory.

Sadly, I was really disappointed. My 19-year old son, with whom I was watching, got bored after a half hour and complained of the movie's slow pace and predictability (both accurate assumptions I am afraid). Much of the dialogue is stilted and badly acted. The Germans are cartoonishly evil, throwing babies into fires and such, it seems a bit over the top and more germane for tacky propaganda. The battle scenes are admittedly impressive with hundreds of extras (both humans and horses), although not especially realistic with respect to blood and gore--after Saving Private Ryan, we are accustomed to special effects that can tell the horrific story, so much of the battle materials seems quaint. Even Prokofiev's score, which has brilliant moments, is a bit uneven. The main battle material sounds more like goofy circus music, and seems strangely out of place.

Ultimately, I think this movie gets its reputation first from its patriotic and historical position. In a fresh view it is strangely quaint and awkward, with spectacular moments and some real silly stuff in between.

I think it's a superb cinematography experience, once again Einsenstein goes beyond the conventional visual elements of the movies, lets take an example, we are used to see the white color as a sign of purity, and the black color as the "bad" element. Here this visual elements are twisted, showing the enemy in white and the russians in dark uniforms. Certainly there is a propaganda tone in the whole story, but it's quite comprehensible for the time (previous to WWII) and the country. There is another element for which this movie is so touching, the excellent music by Serge Prokofiev, and specially the part of the battle. Alexander Nevsky is very much worth seeing not seeking for a conventional war movie, but as an alternative way of cinematic expression.

There is a version of "Nevsky" that is shown with a live symphony orchestra, chorus, soloist and the movie. If it's EVER performed within a day's travel of you see "Nevsky" done that way. The Oklahoma City Philharmonic did it with the OKC Canterbury Choir (one of the finest anywhere) a couple of years ago. I think I cried through the whole thing, it was one of the most emotionally powerful movie experiences of my life. I'm listening to "Nevsky" on the radio right now and it still tears me up. There are movies that I love, and classical music pieces I love, but there is no combination I can think of that comes close to the impact of "Nevsky" performed in real time.

When I first saw this film around 6 months ago, I considered it interesting, but little more. But it stuck with me. That interest grew and grew, and I wondered whether my initial boredom and response had more to do with the actual VHS quality rather than the film itself. I purchased the Criterion DVD box set, and it turns out that I was right the second time. Alexander Nevsky is a great film. It is rousing, and I'm sure it succeeded in its main aim: propaganda against the Germans.

That is the most common criticism against this film, and against Eisenstein, that it is merely propagandist and nothing else. It's untrue. He is an amazing film artist, one of the most important whoever lived. By now, the world is far enough beyond Joseph Stalin to be able to watch Eisenstein's films as art.

Compared with his masterworks this film by Eisenstein represents an abysmal decline.

It is a piece of patriotic propaganda and hence shows all the deficiencies of the genre, even if the purpose, resisting Nazi Germany is honorable. But it is interesting that this film in fact shows striking similarity to Nazi propaganda insofar it represents the Russians as fair haired Aryans and insofar it praises belligerent heroes.

Some scenes with grandiose choreography and design do raise the film above the level of average Soviet propaganda. Therefore 6/10.

A stunning piece of art.You can watch every image of the film and see the beauty in it.First I would like to say that ´when I saw the German´s soldiers helmet´s I understood that it was from here that "Star Wars" hade been inspired.The scene were they kill the baby is frightening and when I saw it I did not like it.But when the film was end I thought about that scene and I changed my mind and thought that in the World War 2 that was exactly what the German´s did.

The Ice-battle scene is some of the best war scenes I have seen(If not the BEST).They way this film combines music and so superbly stunning visual images is really excellent.Then the Prokofiev score is one of the most famous sound track´s in history and I thought it was some of the best to.

what more can you say then a work of art.Eisenstein have created a stunning masterpiece,a propaganda film and a Beautiful work of art. I am very happy because I have just got the criterion collection Eisenstein set.

This film commemorates the 'Battle of the Ice' in 1242 which repulsed a German invasion into Russia, and while the battle and the hero Alexander Nevsky are historically real, I'm sure they looked nothing like this. The film reduces the story to comic book level, to mythology, but perhaps all countries do that to their historical heroes. Here the nationalism is so dialed up though, and the stilted, wooden lines out of the script seem as if they were written by Stalin himself. As I watched, I tried to soak in what it told me about Russia and its history, but with all of the stirring patriotism, I imagined I was with a group of Party members or a youth group all being indoctrinated into the Soviet cause.

One of the things of interest for me was that the German invasion was actually motivated by religion, and part of the Crusades (in this case, against the Russian Orthodox Church instead of Muslims in the Holy Land). We see that in the film, and the Catholic Bishop accompanying the Teutonic Knights is depicted as scowling, and bent on conversion. The Knights themselves are seriously sinister, flinging Russian babies into the fire and wearing some fantastic helmets, one style of which resembles an upside down bucket with a cross-like opening in the front to see. I think the German headgear was my favorite part of the film. Meanwhile Alexander Nevksy rallies a peasant army and we're reminded throughout the film, often to patriotic song, that Russians will fiercely defend their Motherland, and that "those who come to us with a sword shall die by the sword." Are you listening, Hitler? was the clear context, but that didn't stop the demented dictator from disastrously invading three years later (and almost 700 years after the events of the film). The timing is thus of course pretty damn interesting too.

Much is made of director Sergei Eisenstein's battle scene, but to be honest, it was just ok from my point of view. Among other things, it suffers from the Russian defenders uttering silly things with smiles on their faces in the middle of the action. However, the framing of his shots before the battle are fantastic, and he makes full use of the sky which adds an epic feeling to it all. The score from Sergei Prokofiev is lauded, but in parts of this intense battle it's too jaunty and doesn't have the right tone. There is also a love triangle between two of the warriors and a young woman who pledges to give herself to the bravest in battle, but it's too simple and underdeveloped.

To recap, the good stuff:

• German helmets
• Interesting timing (and history repeating itself, as it always seems to)
• The cinematography, especially pre-battle
• Springboard into reading more about Alexander Nevsky
• Oh, and the ribald ending to the rabbit and fox story. I did not see that one coming.

Nevsky is one of the great epic war films. Sure, others, such as Birth of a Nation and Napoleon had come before, but this one is just as influential. The acting is stock, but anyone who knows the first thing about Eisenstein would know that that was part of his theory of film. This film, unlike many of his silent works, is about the heroic individual as much as it is about the group. This reflects the Stalinist philosophy that had risen to the fore by 1938. Still, his film shows us the power that can be generated by people coming together to fight something they perceive as evil. Nevsky is just one of many men. He is prince because he is strongest, but not because he is somehow different than the rest. The film's romantic angles provide more of a personal story than Eisenstein had previously allowed. Not all of the elements work and the film is probably a bit too long, but it still resonates.

... from Mosfilm and directors Sergei Eisenstein and Dmitri Vasilev. In 13th century Russia, Prince Alexander (Nikolay Cherkasov) is admired for having recently repelled an attempted Swedish invasion. Now comes word that German Teutonic Knights are invading Russia. The citizens of Novgorod appeal to Alexander to lead them in battle against the invaders. Also featuring Nikolai Okhlopkov, Andrei Abrikosov, Dmitri Orlov, Vasili Novikov, Valentina Ivashova, Sergei Blinnikov, and Vladimir Yershov.

Eisenstein's first completed sound feature has proven to be influential in it's depiction of epic historical battle scenes. The dialogue and plot are minimal and largely confined to the usual anti-upper class, pro-lower class, anti-church, patriotic rhetoric in many early Soviet films. There's also a comic subplot involving two soldiers' rivalry over the same girl. The performances are merely adequate. Some of the battle scenes are nicely shot, while others look like kids wildly thrashing wooden swords at each other. This movie shows obvious nods to Shakespeare's Henry V and Fritz Lang's silent epic Die Nibelungen. There's enough of interest to make viewing this worthwhile, but a lot of the "character" scenes are cringeworthy in their awkwardness. Cherkasov, in the lead role, reminded me a bit of SNL cast member Bill Hader in a blonde wig.

Gorgeous film to look at - visually splendiferous. Obviously, the battle on the ice, the centrepiece and climax of the movie, is very impressive, especially when the ice cracks. I particularly liked the face of the main Teutonic knight, always with a smug snarl on it - very picturesque, if slightly caricature-esque

I can't help thinking that Eisenstein is such a political filmmaker that he made propaganda films by choice! I don't know who financed Nevsky, and whether it was similar to Potemkin, which he was commisioned to make as a propaganda film, but it has a very unsubtle message of nationalism/patriotism. Its movies like this that helped cultivate the feeling of the nation together as one entity, and kept reminding Russians to think of themselves as separate from the world, and against all outsiders. The closing message of the movie is very hostile indeed:

"Let he who comes to Russia as a guest, be welcomed as a guest, but let he who comes with a sword die by the sword!" The plot of the movie fits this tagline, in that a group of Teutonic knights (I'm pretty sure that means they're German - which is why Russians loved this movie at the time, because it was about Russia staying strong against potential threats from German invasion, which Russia had always been vulnerable to, and would be again in a few years from the Nazis) invade russia, and you can imagine how it ends.

But with Eisenstein, as with admirering Riefenstahl and Griffith, you have to get past the often unsubtle message of the film, and its often distasteful political/social implications, and admire it for its artistry. As a movie, Nevsky is an unsubtle but visually beautiful battle epic/love triangle. Potemkin, the only other Eisenstein i've seen at time of writing, was a much greater achievement, in my opinion. But this is quite wonderful to watch - i do recommend it to you.

How memory plays tricks on us. I first saw "Alexander Nevsky" when a student at the University of Kansas, around 1960. Forty-some years later I find myself watching it again on DVD and almost unable to believe what my eyes are seeing: one of the most amateurish films I've ever viewed, and with by far the worst subtitles I've had to bear with--it's hard to believe these subtitles were produced, according to the message at the beginning of the film, in 1982.

But even without subtitles this film would fall flat, in my judgment. I admire someone with generous enough a spirit to be able to enjoy the film for its visual aspect, as at least one commenter did. I'm just not able to share that enthusiasm. I dearly wish I could, for I found both "Battleship Potemkin" and (especially) "Ivan the Terrible: Part I" to be excellent--of their type. Sorry, but for me "Alexander Nevsky" is just not excellent by any standard. I wonder what Prokofiev thought of it. His music is superb, but needs to be heard on its own, not in the context of this embarrassingly bad film.