kgwrote-854-104240 Tom Baker makes a great Rasputin, however the lead actors bored me terribly, so I suppose it doesn't matter that the script was often filled with hokey banal dialogue. The big sin with the film as Hollywood propaganda is that it put all the blame for Russia's problems on the Czar and ignored the treachery and vicious Old Testament-inspired violent sadism of the Bolsheviks, who were not thinking about the good of the Russian people at all, but how they could suck the country dry and use it to further other ambitions (like the globalism which has now led to the present immigration crisis). According to Mark Twain and others, Russia's problems with "usury folk" date back to the 1870s, with assassinations and bad dealings, it had little or nothing to do with Christian intolerance as we have heard.If Hollywood and the Western media was to be believed, Lenin and his friends wanted to help workers, yet we know that perhaps millions of ethnic Russians were killed after the Bolsheviks took control (this was later blamed on Stalin even though he was not in power). The deaths tied to the Czar pale by comparison. Who was the real tyrant? We also learn that George Patton felt so strongly that Communists were the greatest threat, he concluded the US should have sided with Hitler against them! But he died from an "accident" before he could return stateside.The movie serves as an example of how Hollywood sought to portray history in a way that slants it with less than noble aims.Seems like the Rolling Stones song Sympathy for the Devil was hinting at it too:I stuck around St. Petersburg When I saw it was a time for a change Killed the Tsar and his ministers Anastasia screamed in vain

Maynard Handley A historical movie can appeal to many different types of audiences, but to be beloved, it has to choose at least one target audience. This movie seems unable to muster the energy to perform this most basic of tasks.It doesn't have the grandeur, the Lawrence of Arabia or Dr Zhivago visuals that excite one viscerally. To be honest it looks like the various low budget BBC historical dramas from the early 70s. It doesn't have any characters for one which feels much sympathy or admiration. (This is honest, but fails as a movie.) And it doesn't have the intellectual depth that is, I think, its natural strength. The history can be approached in two ways --- as a Shakespearean tragedy or as a Greek tragedy. The approach taken was Shakespeare, so we're shown (over and over again, oh god it gets tiresome) how Nicholas is a weak man, how he's a stupid man, how he's a deluded man; and what follows is a consequence of this weakness and delusion. Nothing there of any intellectual interest, nothing there that's unfamiliar to anyone with even the slightest familiarity with the history. Vastly superior would have been a Greek tragedy approach: the tragedy was inherent in the situation, and was pretty much inevitable. The movie could then, instead of the constant emotionality and petty psychologizing, have spent that screen time engaged in some interesting discussion --- perhaps between some Bolsheviks, perhaps between Kerensky and some of the old guard. I'd have used that time to have characters ask how one avoids these ontological tragedies, tragedies of situation. Obviously the Greek answer (to one version of the problem) is the Oresteia --- you avoid cycles of revenge by giving law and punishment up to the state rather than engaging in it as individuals. The equivalent question here is how could the execution have been avoided, given the very real fact that the Whites were fighting back, were doing well, and were likely to reinstate the Royal family. My answer, in these imaginary dialogs I'd have play through the movie occasionally, would be to discuss individuals like Henry VII, or Charles II, or William III (all of England) --- individuals who were willing forgive and forget, who were willing to mete out punishments less than death, who were willing to share power. Basically this particular tragedy was resolved in the West by converting politics from a blood sport to "mere disagreement"; and if Nicholas had been willing to go down that path (from day one of his accession, not when it was too little too late) things could have turned out very differently. A movie like I suggest, full of dense discussion and historical allusion all the way through, would obviously not have mass appeal. But at least it would have SOME appeal, unlike what we've been given, which just doesn't work well for anyone.

ToughXArmy Robin Massie wrote one of the more riveting books I have ever read, Nicholas and Alexandra based on the last Czar and Czarina of Russia,Director Franklin Schaffner who did such a brilliant job in directing 'Patton' fails here. The movie is pictorially magnificent and the interior set design impressive but at times dull when compared to the riveting book. Michael Jsyston and Janet Suzman able British actors do not have the charisma to play the Caar and Czarina The Empress was German born and since Russia was at War with Germany thought to be a spy Marlon Brando was offered Rasputin but turned down the role. Tom Baker does well but again as in the case of Jayston and Ms Suzman does not have the stature to play Rasputin. The central theme is that the Crown Prince had hemophilia and the mad monk Rasputin involved himself so unduly in the lives of the Russian Imperial family there were rumors that Rasputin and the German born Czarina were lovers! In Massie's book one chapter ends with the words " Day and Night" Rasputin and Alexandra brought down the Russian Empire" so hated was Rasputin that members of the Imperial Family plotted to kill Rasputin.Legendary Producer Sam Spiegel who produced classics at Columbia such as 'The Bridge On The River Kaw' and 'Lawrence of Arabia' 'On The Waterfront' among other classic films had a star roster of stars who previously starred in his films such as William Holden, Elizabeth Taylor, Peter O Toole, Katharine Hepburn, Marlon Brando etc in his films. Those are the kind of stars that should have been part of this film.I believe this was the last film Sam Spiegel made at Columbia ending a legendary relationship between studio and film maker that won Oscars for The Bridge On The River Kwai and a true masterpiece Lawrence of Arabia.

Neil Doyle This lavish version of NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA will especially appeal to anyone who is fascinated by their legendary story and the bitter fate which awaited the family of Nicholas Romanov. One of his daughters was Anastasia. Her story, too, has been told in films and books.JANET SUZMAN is excellent as the woman who turns for comfort and hope to a madman, Rasputin, while her ineffective husband is unable to convince her that he is a charlatan. MICHAEL JAYSTON is effective as Nicholas, inhabiting the role so completely that you feel he is the man himself. TOM BAKER, who bears a striking resemblance to the real Rasputin, is also up to the demands of his role.There's a vast canvas of historical background filmed in splendid Technicolor with obviously no expense spared in all the costuming and production design details. The only real drawback is a lack of pacing in several key dramatic scenes, especially toward the end when the family's execution turns into an endless wait for the assassins to enter the room. Many scenes could have been more tightly edited to reduce the running time of over three hours.The supporting cast includes famous names like LAURENCE OLIVIER and MICHAEL REDGRAVE in what amount to bit roles. The daughters have little to do but the hemophiliac son, Alexis, is played with great sensitivity by RODERIC NOBLE.The realization that she is responsible for carrying the genes that gave her son his condition, is what torments Alexandra and leads to her unwise decision to take counsel from Rasputin.Dramatically, the film suffers from the slow pacing--but the story itself is so compelling that it makes up for this deficiency by providing scenes of epic grandeur and stunning cinematography.It fully deserved its Oscars for Best Art Direction and Costume Design. It was nominated for several other Oscars but Janet Suzman lost to Jane Fonda of KLUTE and the Best Picture award went to THE FRENCH CONNECTION.