TheLittleSongbird Rasputin: The Mad Monk is not one of those films where you should expect a history lesson, about two things are true but apart from that the film does play fast and loose with Rasputin and his life, which will leave historians in despair. As a film on its own terms(which I've always found a much fairer way to judge), while not great and while nowhere near Hammer's best(somewhere in the middle for me), Rasputin: The Mad Monk is fun.It has two main flaws. One is that Rasputin: The Mad Monk has some very confined sets- in number and sometimes visually- that look like they were left over from previous Hammer films(quite a departure from Hammer's usual production values standard), when the film could have shown the beautiful Russian landscapes which would have given more of a sense of place. The wealthy also at times could have been more extravagant, the costumes are very attractive don't get me wrong but the low budget stops it from being more than that. The other flaw with Rasputin: The Mad Monk is the rather shoddy script, that contains flat dialogue, one-dimensional character writing(and this is including Rasputin, one of the 20th century's most colourful and interesting historical figures) while ignoring the political state of Russia at the time which would have brought some tension, and a few decent ideas that were sadly vaguely explored.Francis Matthews is also rather stiff and dull, very like how he was in Dracula: Prince of Darkness, and while she does a decent job still Suzan Farmer has very little to do other than look as fetching as possible. As exciting, hugely entertaining and as tense as the climax was, it also was a touch anti-climatic and Rasputin's death was handled too quickly and too easily(from personal view).However, the lighting is both colourful and eerie, and Rasputin: The Mad Monk is filmed beautifully and stylishly. So the film didn't look completely cheap, despite the obviousness of the low-budget. The music score is thunderously grandiose in the most thrilling of ways, giving off genuine chills and excitement. Sharp's direction is efficient enough, managing to mostly keep the story interesting and maintaining the appropriate mood. The story is mostly fun, and includes some horror elements that are handled with tension and creepy atmosphere without being gratuitous as well as some mystery elements that bring glimpses of suspense.The best thing about Rasputin: The Mad Monk is the cast. Barbara Shelley(better utilised than she was in Dracula: Prince of Darkness) is luminous but also brings vulnerability and vast dramatic intensity, and Richard Pasco is effectively twitchy. Christopher Lee walks away with the film though to the extent that he literally IS the film, with his larger than life presence, wild appearance, chilling penetrating stare and deep and very distinctive voice it's a towering performance in every sense of the word, and it's so much fun to watch him.On the whole, Rasputin: The Mad Monk is not a great film as such and people should look to the 1996 film starring Alan Rickman for a more accurate account of the man and his life, but it does provide some good entertainment when not taken seriously and viewed as it's meant to be and is worth catching for Lee alone. 6/10 Bethany Cox

GusF This depiction of Rasputin's life owes only slightly more to history than "Dracula A.D. 1972" owes to the Bram Stoker novel. However, it's enormous fun from start to finish! The liberties that it takes with history were likely influenced at least in part by the fact that Prince Felix Yusupov, Rasputin's self-admitted assassin, was still alive in 1966 - he died the next year - and was well known for being the plaintiff in "Yusupov v. MGM", in which he successfully sued the studio for invasion of privacy and libel as regards their 1932 film "Rasputin and the Empress". Yusupov's role is taken by Ivan, played by Francis Matthews, who sadly died recently. As in "The Revenge of Frankenstein" and "Dracula: Prince of Darkness" (which was filmed back-to-back with this film on many of the same sets), he delivers a wonderful, charismatic performance. He would have made a great James Bond. The film has a very strong supporting cast overall, including Barbara Shelley, Suzan Farmer, Richard Pasco, Dinsdale Landen, Renée Anderson, Derek Francis and Joss Ackland. Both Shelley and Farmer also appeared in "Dracula: Prince of Darkness". I thought that it was quite funny that the latter played Francis Matthews' wife in that film and his sister in this one! Her character is this film, Vanessa, is basically a stand-in for Yusupov's wife Princess Irina (who was also still alive at the time as she died in 1970).The film more or less ignores the political developments in Russia in the dying days of the Tsars in favour of focussing on Rasputin's rise to prominence within the imperial court. While the Tsarina has a supporting role and Alexei appears briefly, Tsar Nicholas II is neither seen nor mentioned, perhaps uniquely for a film about Rasputin. Christopher Lee, who met Yusupov as a child in the 1920s, clearly relishes the role of Rasputin. Even discounting the myths, suppositions, lies and exaggeration which have grown up around him over the last century, he was still a larger than life figure and Lee plays him as such. In stark contrast to the "Dracula" films, Lee appears in almost every scene and has by far the most screen time and dialogue while Ivan, the hero of the piece, has comparatively little screen time. He is brilliant and intense as Rasputin, who makes for a very compelling character. Rasputin is very different from Dracula in terms of his loud, boorish behaviour but parts of his modus operandi are the same as he successfully gains control of several women using hypnosis. While for the first hour of the film could be described as a pseudo-historical thriller, it becomes a full blown horror film in the last half an hour when Rasputin hypnotises Sonia, played wonderfully by Barbara Shelley, into committing suicide and then torments her brother Peter from the darkness before throwing acid in his face, severely disfiguring and ultimately killing him. The depiction of Rasputin's death (again, quite scary) is loosely based on Yusupov's description thereof, given that he survives ingesting poisoned food and drink before being killed outright, but the precise circumstances are altered. In any event, some historians believe that Yusupov may have been less than honest in his description.If you're looking for an accurate depiction of Rasputin and his role in the Russian imperial court, this isn't the film for you. However, if you're looking an extremely fun and occasionally extremely scary pseudo-historical Gothic horror film with a wonderful performance from Christopher Lee, then this should be right up your alley.

Theo Robertson Shown as part the Hammer double bill that gets shown on the UK Horror Channel the audience might feel rather cheated by the schedulers . Being a Hammer production and starring Christopher Lee you can be forgiven for thinking you're going to be watching a horror film of sorts . Add to that the fact that the station might be called The Horror Channel for a reason and you'll be disappointed that this is in no way a horror movie despite the studio brand name That said it does have a bizarre feel down to director Don Sharp directing everything in a way that he would have directed a horror movie . As you can imagine much of this is achieved by having intrusive scary music blasting all over the soundtrack to tell the audience this scene contains a lot of menace and any second now a monster will be appearing which being a pseudo historical film will not be the case and the only scene approaching horror is a scene where a rubber hand drops past the screen . The emphasis is on "pseudo " which means from a historical point of view there's not a lot to recommend this movie and pales in to insignicence compared to something like DOCTOR ZHIVAGO which was released at the same time and was set in the period and locale . Of some interest is that being a Hammer film the little Englander mentality is present and the characters being foreign all have prominent suntans because all foreigners even ones living in a country like Russia must have suntans . Apart from that there's little other interest to the film unless you enjoy watching the Hammer repertory cast emote and overact in a rather ludicrous manner almost as if they're having a contest to see who can shout the most which has an entertainment value of sorts

tomgillespie2002 For a keen horror fan, I have seen precious little of the Hammer horror universe. You can imagine my delight when I was gifted the Hammer DVD Collection for Christmas which consists of 21 films from the vault of the great British institution. I felt spoiled for choice. When opening the box I was greeted by the mad eyes of Christopher Lee, gazing out from amongst a gigantic beard and El Topo-esque haircut. I felt obliged to choose this as my introduction to what will no doubt become a fixation with Hammer, and the film I will remember years into the future when I'm no doubt walking the Earth, trying to find all the tiny forgotten films Hammer produced before they became famous.For those of you who don't know, Grigori Rasputin was a real-life Russian mystic/hypnotist/con-artist who had a heavy influence on the Tsarist government of Emperor Nicholas II and his wife Alexandra, after apparently healing their son Alexei as he lay dying from haemophilia. The film is less concerned with the politics of the time, and instead focuses on Rasputin's love for drinking, women, and generally being a bit of a bastard, as he hypnotises and heals his way through society and into the bed of lady-in-waiting Sonia (Barbara Shelley).The film wastes no time introducing Rasputin's maverick attitudes to monkhood, as he heals a saloon owner's wife on her death bed so he can get served a drink, and proceeds to sing and drink the night way before hacking a man's hand off in a fight. Fleeing to Moscow after being hauled in front of the bishop for his unorthodox ways, he gains influence over a disgraced doctor and begins to plan his rise to power.The film's main strength is undoubtedly Lee's performance as the mad Russian, as he dominates every scene with his intense, piercing eyes and booming voice, with his towering frame overshadowing everyone that comes across his path. The scene in which he does a celebratory dance after beating a challenger in a drinking contest only to mistake some onlookers for laughing at him is both weird and intimidating as he demands an apology. It is a great mix of thespian presence and Gothic camp that makes the Hammer films, and more notably Christopher Lee's performances for the studio, that extra bit special.Rasputin The Mad Monk is a thoroughly enjoyable film, anchored by Lee's performance and Hammer's usual beautiful Technicolour cinematography, and is made all the better by leaving out the politics and concentrating on creating a memorable film character.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com