Gavin Cresswell (gavin-thelordofthefu-48-460297) When I was in high school, I learned about the story of the Romanovs from Russia, most notably the events that led to their execution, which led to several TV series and film versions of those events. Then, a few years later, I came across this movie and decided to check it out after watching the trailer from YouTube. Upon viewing it, I was expecting a really solid film, but from what I've got, it's actually not that bad. OK, it's not one of my favorites, but I'm glad I saw it.Let's start with the positives. The script is really good. It's smart and intelligent in it's interpretation of the Downfall of the Romanov Dynasty during the Russian Revolution and has some really powerful moments particularly the scene where Tsar Nicholas and his son Alexei salute the soldiers of Saint Petersburg before as they march into war against Germany. The directing from the late Franklin J. Schaffner, who directed Planet of the Apes and Patton, is really superb and the photography and productions are well-detailed and gorgeous to look at. Richard Rodney Bennett, who died five years ago on December 24 2012, delivered a unique score that is rousing, dramatic, powerful, and haunting. The best part, however, goes to the actors, who did excellent with their roles. Michael Jayston did a fine job as Tsar Nicholas, a kind and loving father to his family, but also an incompetent ruler, Janet Suzman also did great as the Empress Alexandra, a kind mother, but another incompetent ruler whose chemistry with Michael Jayston and Tom Baker (which we'll get to in a moment) is spot on. Laurence Olivier also did a fine job as Count Witte, but Tom Baker, however, steals the show. Known as the famous Doctor Who, his role as Rasputin is top notch. He balances funny with really intense and shares some of his scenes with Janet Suzman solidly. The rest of the actors, including Ian Holm (who would later play Bilbo Baggins in in the Lord of the Rings trilogy) did a superb job with their limited roles (which isn't a bad thing).That being said, there are some problems that held the film back. First, there's the pacing, which runs at 188 minutes. I don't mind three hour films, but here, it went on for way too long and could've been at least an hour or two. Also, there are some scenes that padded the movie's runtime including having Rasputin be distracted by a man dressed in drag during the assassination sequence and Alexei, Nicholas's hemophiliac son, committing suicide. But the biggest letdown, however, is the ending, which to be honest wasn't as powerful compared to the first 2/3 of the film. It didn't have any drama and what's worse is that it omitted the speech that made the Execution of the Romanovs event so important.To end this review, I don't think it's a failure as everyone makes it out to be, but had those flaws not hold the film back, it would've been a masterpiece. However, the movie is still worth seeing. It's well-acted, It's well-made, and certainly for those who love the history of Russia. Check it out and you won't regret it.

WakenPayne This movie is probably one of those where I have to come back a bit later and re-evaluate as to whether I liked it or not. There is just so much good but for about everything they do right there's usually something they do which irritates me more then anything else. All in all, I would recommend seeing this if what I would write down in my complaints wouldn't bother you.The plot being extremely vast will probably be extremely condensed for the review in order to get all of what I have to say about it out. The Tzar Nicholas II Of Russia has a male heir to the throne and he sorts out trying to give a better Russia to Alexi then his father gave him. Unfortunately not only does his son have Hemophilia and the only man who seems to be able to stop Alexi from almost dying being the HUGE "dodger of controversy" Grigori Rasputin but it turns out the only thing that Russia can really throw at these armies is more men AND there is a slanderous printing press who they can't seem to find being that... you know, it's Russia! and things start slowly crumbling.In case any history fans may go nuts about the Tzar being portrayed in a sympathetic light I'll say that he is somewhat portrayed in a sympathetic light... and no, he isn't. The Tzar and his family are portrayed as people that while somewhat good is out of touch with the crap going on outside their door, unknowing of the famine and other stuff, and honestly it does come across as being somewhat sympathetic.Although the real thing I didn't like is how there's this weird mentality they try to imply that Rasputin actually spoke with God and has some form of divine power, in the sense that he says things will happen and they happen in the movie. To me it seems extremely out of place in what should be a dramatization of history. I mean I have some knowledge of the actual man and to me having a man like that actually have divine power just seems wrong to me in SO MANY WAYS.If there are things I liked then here. The acting from Michael Jayston and Tom Baker are absolutely amazing. The cinematography and overall scale of this movie is well done and this movie did kind of open my eyes a bit to kind of sympathize with someone that in any other world, I wouldn't have sympathized with them. I don't exactly know all the history but from what I've seen they do get most of it down.I would say a recommendation depends really, there are a bunch of other stuff I didn't like but that might get down to how other people were portrayed and... I don't really want to look like an idiot when it comes to Russian history and commenting on it. In all honesty, if you're a fan of historical dramas then watching this you'll probably get what you want out of it. Me however, I don't really know yet.

gring0 I show this in class more because of its unintentional humour than for any serious merit. Tom Baker's Rasputin is remarkable and makes the film memorable. Lenin is played the usual lapel-grabbing way with such lines as "You have the right to criticise me. But I have the right to kill you for doing so." A peasant telling Father Gapon how he just wants to kill people because he's living in a dive of a place. Stolypin waiting an extra two years to get killed. Alexei constantly climbing mountains or falling over hedgerows to be saved from certain death by his trusty minder. And Olivier playing the usual prophet respected by none playing up the role to the hilt. The set pieces are more American 70s TV shows than Lawrence of Arabia, but for teenagers it's enjoyable to share a laugh with. www.tracesofevil.com

ianlouisiana ..nor,to be fair,do the makers of "Nicholas and Alexandra attempt to diminish the cold indifference of successive Russian Kings towards the suffering of their people.But,for the peasants it made little difference who was in power over them - indeed it is at least arguable that they would have been better off remaining under the unelected aristocratic despots than under the unelected proletarian despots that succeeded them.If you had a few hundred grand recently you could have bought some relics of the last Tsar from an "impoverished" branch of our own dear Royal Family that put them up for auction despite,arguably,their being owned by the Crown Estate.Historically,Nicholas was famously refused asylum in England by His cousin King George the Fifth.He'd probably have more luck today. Presumably his majesty was frightened of a backlash from the exiled Russians in this country. From then on the Tsar's fate - and that of his family - was sealed.Nicholas was a weak man dominated by his wife and his advisors.If not a reluctant monarch he was certainly not an enthusiastic one. But theoretically he was the ultimate power in Russia and,by apathy as much as anything,failed to make any efforts to prevent the deaths of millions of his subjects. After his downfall his successors deliberately caused the deaths of many many more millions of his subjects.And so it goes. Mr Michael Jayston plays Nicholas as a victim rather than an instigator of events.Sensitive,a loving husband and father,he hardly seems like the last Absolute Monarch.It appears that if Lenin had shouted at him he would have burst into tears. Mr Tom Baker - a stranger to restraint - plays Rasputin to the hilt. Miss Janet Suzman,pipped by Hanoi Jane at the Oscars,commands attention as the Tsarina.She is clearly the dominant figure in the relationship but is clever not to let it show to the many politicians and hangers on who haunt the palace. There are parts for many well - known British thesps who do not have to move out of their comfort zones.An honourable exception is Mr Ian Holm who succeeds in making a ruthless unpleasant but honourable man seem believable. Pragmatically,the Communists could not be blamed for wiping out the whole Romanov family,any survivor could have formed a rallying - point for Royalist support at a stage when the Glorious Revolution was not universally popular. One can only hope that the end was as quick and brutally effective as shown in the movie. Having offered the people peace,Lenin and co. then set Russia on a course of unparalleled blood - letting.No one had the stomach to oppose them. If King George the Fifth had had more moral courage perhaps an opposition movement might have been born. His side of the story is offered in "The Lost Prince" with a portrait of the Romanovs at Osborne House that make the events in that cellar seem even more horrific.