A biopic starring Nikolay Cherkasov as Ivan IV of Russia, the film chronicles his reign and details his formation of the oprichnina and conflict with the boyars, particularly with his aunt (Serafima Birman) and cousin (Pavel Kadochnikov).

Soviet leader Joseph Stalin commissioned the film in early 1941, however, production was delayed by the beginning of World War II, and did not start until April 1943.

In 1547, the 17-year-old Grand Prince of Moscow, Ivan IV, is crowned as the tsar of all Russia, amid animosity from the boyars and jealousy from his aunt, Yefrosinya Staritskaya, who wishes to see her son, Vladimir Staritsky, on the throne instead.

Ivan makes a speech proclaiming his intent to unite and protect Russia against the foreign armies outside her borders and the enemies within – a reference to the boyars, who are already unhappy with his coronation.

At the wedding, Fyodor Kolychov, a close friend of Ivan, informs him that he cannot support him in his mission against the boyars and receives his permission to retire to monastic life.

The marriage feast is interrupted by an unruly mob of common people, led by Malyuta Skuratov and the holy fool Nikola.

Ivan sends for the boyars and orders them to swear allegiance to his son, the infant Tsarevich Dmitry, reminding them of the need for a single ruler to keep Russia united.

Just as the royal couple receives word that Kurbsky has surrendered to the Livonians, she slips a goblet of poisoned wine into their chambers.

Ivan questions his own justifications and ability to rule, wondering if his wife's death and Kurbsky's final defection to Poland is God's punishment against him.

While speaking with Philip, Ivan recalls witnessing his mother's death by poisoning, and how as a teenager he confronted the boyars Shuiskiy and Belskiy, both of which wanted him to sign a trade contract with the Livonian Knights and the Hanseatic League, respectively.

Meanwhile, Philip vows to block Ivan's abuse of power and confronts him in the cathedral while a mystery play about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego is presented.

In May 1940, Sergei Eisenstein sent Minister of Cinematography Ivan Bolshakov a letter about two films that he planned to write a scenario for, together with Lev Sheinin.

Additionally, Eisenstein read the biography of Ivan by Robert Wipper and the writings of historians Sergei Solovyov, Vasily Klyuchevsky, Alexander Pypin, and Igor Grabar.

For the portrayal of 17-year-old Ivan, makeup artist Vasily Goriunov used adhesive to glue back the flesh on Cherkasov's face.

[52] Part III would have also introduced the characters of Heinrich von Staden and Queen Elizabeth I, played by Oleg Zhakov[53] and Mikhail Romm, respectively.

[57] Additionally, she writes that Eisenstein throughout the film characterizes Ivan as a "visionary leader", a "brutal tyrant", and a "tragic, divided and lonely man",[58] and "challenges the audience to consider whether the ends (national unification and imperial expansion) justify the means (intimidation, demagoguery, deception and terror).

"[65] Katerina Clark wrote that the film provides "in the story of Ivan’s reign an allegory for the career of Stalin showing his greatness as a unifier of the country".

[74] Additionally, Pimen of Novgorod was never Metropolitan of Moscow, the character of the holy fool Nikola is entirely fictional, and there is no historical evidence that Yefrosinya Staritskaya poisoned Anastasia Romanovna.

[75] Viktor Shklovsky suggested that the death of Vladimir in the film was inspired by the legend of the execution of the boyar Ivan Fyodorov of the Chelyadnin family.

[77][78] Although Eisenstein was condemned in an official resolution published by the Central Committee for "ignorance in his depiction of historical facts"[79] and Stalin criticized the film for its historical inaccuracies, Cherkasov wrote in his memoirs that Stalin approved of a suggested change to show Ivan winning the Livonian War, although in fact he had been defeated.

Eisenstein tasked the makeup artist, Vasily Goriunov, with making Ivan resemble Nebuchadnezzar, Judas, Uriel Acosta, Mephistopheles, and Jesus Christ at different points of the film.

The biblical story ends with an angel saving the three boys from the flames, and the tyrant Nebuchadnezzar recognizing his folly and repenting.

According to Gillespie, this is a sign that Vladimir is associated with the old order, and will inevitably be destroyed alongside the boyars, while Kolychov's conflict with Ivan was hinted at since his coronation.

Members of the council, such as Aleksei Dikiy, Igor Savchenko and Boris Gorbatov criticized Eisenstein's failure to characterize Ivan as a powerful and accomplished leader.

[137] Critic Boris Romashov [ru], writing for Izvestiya, called the first part a "masterpiece of cinematographic art" and praised the acting, cinematography, and set design.

[141] Bosley Crowther, writing for The New York Times, called Part I a "work of art" and praised the visuals, camerawork, Prokofiev's score, and Cherkasov's performance, while criticizing the lack of continuity in the film, and the "conspicuously totalitarian" depiction of Ivan IV.

[143] Pauline Kael wrote that Ivan was "lacking in human dimensions...True, every frame in it looks great...but as a movie, it's static, grandiose, and frequently ludicrous.

[147] Sight and Sound in 1962 named Ivan the Terrible the 6th greatest film of all time, tying with Battleship Potemkin and Bicycle Thieves; in 1972, Sight and Sound named it the 12th greatest film of all time, tying with The Gold Rush, Hiroshima mon amour, Ikiru, Pierrot le Fou, and Vertigo.

[150] Directors Akira Kurosawa, Éric Rohmer, and Slava Tsukerman named Ivan the Terrible as among their favorite films.

[155] Rowan Williams stated that Ivan the Terrible influenced his interest in Russia and led him to pursue doctoral research about Russian Christianity.