If you want to watch a historical film, I hasten to upset you, the King is almost entirely a work of fiction. But I would not hurry to spit with the words “again, all distorted”. Lungin didn’t position his work as historical narrative. The whole trick in allegories and parables(which, incidentally, is very nicely furnished both technical and narrative points of view).
Speaking of technique. Excellent image quality, excellent camera work and acting. The sound is also great.
Now about the story. It is linear, no surprises. Action none(unless you count collapsing in the fire of the Church, the clash with the poles on the bridge and the episode with the bear). Funny there is nothing at all. No suteki (what’d you expect?), only the seriousness and pathos. The plot for the most part occupied with disputes with Ivan Metropolitan and savory (usually very violent, dirty) scenes of life and executions. It looks whole, not a mosaic. The quality of felt. The dominant place is occupied by conflicts between Church, state and people. Also a very important internal conflict terrible. They beat, in my subjective opinion, fine.
However, there are still two things that stress me out. The guardsmen and the wife of Ivan worked not (except Skuratov). They are just very cruel. One Oprichnik very sharply aware of the filth of his actions and goes to the side of the Metropolitan (if briefly).
Overall, the film is very heavy, leaden. The technique worked so that the cruelty is much sharper than in most modern movies.
Recommended for viewing to those who have no rigid political and religious positions.