TheLittleSongbird With such a great cast and that it's a film of a riveting, complex part of history and one of history's most interestingly colourful characters, Rasputin had a lot going for it. Historically it's not always very accurate but on its own merits Rasputin is a very impressive film, and much more preferable and of far higher quality to the Hammer film Rasputin: The Mad Monk, which was a fun film and had a towering Christopher Lee but had a shoddy script and didn't attempt to be true to history.It could have done with a longer length and could have gone into more detail as a result, with some parts feeling cliff notes-like, like why and how the revolution started and Rasputin's role in it. It could have focused a little more on Rasputin too and a little less on the Romanov Royal Family. The film looks wonderful though, it's beautifully photographed with lavish colour and evocative sets, whether depicting the contrast between the rich and poor, that captures the atmosphere of the time very well indeed. The music score has haunting power and pathos, but it is not just a great-sounding score on its own but it fits like a glove within the film.Rasputin has an intelligent and well-written script, that doesn't play things too staid and also doesn't feel like soap-opera-like melodrama. The story is well-told, tightly paced and cohesive, and has the right amount of emotion and tension. The film does a great job capturing the atmosphere of the time period, and even though one wishes that there was more of Rasputin there is still enough done with him to still make him a colourful and interesting character, with a reason being given for his carousing. The most effective scene here is the assassination of the Romanovs, a scene that is both terrifying and heart-wrenching. Uli Edel directs beautifully and sensitively yet with enough vigour to keep the drama alive.Alan Rickman is brilliant in the title role, it is one incredibly powerful performance that is dangerously scary but also played with gusty humour and nuanced humanity. Ian McKellen also gives a fine and well-studied account of the Tsar, even depicting some of his habits like with his thumb, his interpretation is very accurate of the man who was a good and loving father and family man but a bad ruler. Freddie Findlay as Alexei, the character from which perspective Rasputin is told, is very good and his is a more sympathetic and accurate portrayal than most of the young prince. Greta Scacchi is the only person who doesn't look anything like the role she's depicting, but she nonetheless touchingly underplays Alexandra and does so with regal dignity. David Warner, John Wood and James Frain acquit themselves very solidly in pivotal supporting roles.In conclusion, a very impressive film regardless of its historical accuracy or lack of. 8/10 Bethany Cox

James Hitchcock Grigory Yefimovich Rasputin was a controversial figure, but there can be no doubt that he was also a remarkable one, even if one also regards him as a charlatan. For an uneducated peasant to have risen to be the close friend and confidant of one of the world's most powerful monarchs is no mean achievement. What, however, caused him to live in the popular imagination was his own bloody murder in 1916, followed by that of the Imperial Family two years later in the wake of the Russian Revolution. Had there been no Revolution, Rasputin would today be a minor figure, forgotten by all except specialists in the history of early twentieth century Russia.It is hardly surprising that there have been a number of films about him, the first- presumably an anti-Russian propaganda film- being made in Germany only a year after his death. "Rasputin and the Empress" from 1932 is remembered today less by film buffs than by it is lawyers, as it gave rise to a lawsuit which led to one of the leading cases in English libel law. Hammer's famously inaccurate "Rasputin the Mad Monk" from 1966 is essentially a horror film dressed up as a historical drama. (The inaccuracy starts with the title; Rasputin, a self-proclaimed "holy man", was never a monk). He appears in "Nicholas and Alexandra" from 1971, but only in a supporting role; as its title suggests that film deals primarily with the doomed Imperial couple.This film is probably the best filmed version of his life that I have seen, despite one or two historical inaccuracies. The main reason is the fine performance by Alan Rickman in the title role. The historical Rasputin seems to have had great charisma and a certain spirituality; his claim to possess abilities as a faith healer may have been genuine. Combined with these qualities, however, were his notorious moral weaknesses; he was both a drunkard and a womaniser. (His enemies seized gleefully on the similarity between his surname and the Russian adjective "rasputniy", meaning "debauched"). His influence over the Tsar was not always a beneficent one, although it is noteworthy that he opposed the fateful decision- to go to war with Germany in 1914- which was eventually to lead to the downfall of the Romanovs. Rickman, often good when portraying morally ambiguous figures like Severus Snape in the "Harry Potter" films, brings out all these contradictory sides of his character, giving us a portrait of a strange, driven individual, both mystic and fanatic, holy man and sinner.Ian McKellen, whose portrayal owes something to Michael Jayston's in "Nicholas and Alexandra" is good as the Tsar, a hesitant, nervous autocrat, a kindly family man but despotic ruler. I did not, however, care for Greta Scacchi as Alexandra. (I much preferred Janet Suzman). Scacchi, previously better known for playing sexually provocative temptresses in films like "Heat and Dust", "White Mischief" and "Presumed Innocent", never seems either sufficiently regal or sufficiently commanding. Alexandra was the dominant partner in her marriage, and the influence of this German-born woman over the Tsar was resented by many Russians, especially after 1914). At least Scacchi gets to keep her clothes on in this film; it is a popularly held, although inaccurate, belief that Rasputin was (in the words of Boney M) "lover of the Russian Queen", but this canard is not repeated in the film.As a whole, the film is not quite as good as "Nicholas and Alexandra", lacking the earlier film's epic grandeur and visual splendour. It never, however, sets out to be a major epic of that sort, having been made for television rather than the cinema screen. As a made-for-TV historical drama it is very watchable. 7/10

Ashkevron The more interesting aspect of 'Rasputin' is not so much the history it portrays, but the ambiguity of it. Are we, as an audience, meant to feel sympathetic towards Rasputin? Towards the Romanovs? The movie gives no clear answers.Rickman portrays Rasputin in a way that the question of whether he was a true holy man or merely a charlatan is never truly answered. On the one hand, we have Stolypin's opinion of Rasputin's "powers" as little more than hypnotism and suggestion, and on the other we have Alexei—who could be considered an unreliable narrator—who admires and believes in Rasputin's "magic." Rickman, meanwhile, plays Rasputin as a man who believes strongly, who may just be convinced that he does have healing powers—but who may just be a poor, deluded fool.McKellen, meanwhile, does a masterful job of portraying Nicholas II as neither cloyingly sympathetic not narrow-mindedly unsympathetic. His Nicholas II is not a likable man, but we can see his humanity and his faults, and how these things blind him to his mismanagement of the country. He is not a black and white portrayal, but grey.In a way, 'Rasputin' (saddled with a most unfortunate subtitle) is more about religion than history or politics. Its main theme is its characters passionate adherence to their religion: Rasputin who wants to see and experience miracles and apparitions, Nicholas II and Alexei who believe God has made them unquestionable kings, and Alexandra who allows her faith to blind her to the dangers of placing too much power and confidence on the "holy man" who "cures" her son. It is this aspect of the movie that makes it interesting, and which gives it its power. It would have been easy to make yet another film in which either Rasputin or the Romanovs are made to look like either blameless saints or black hearted villains, but 'Rasputin' (for the most part) chooses to portray its characters as flawed, human creatures.Rickman, perhaps, goes a tad bit overboard on the melodrama and histrionics (and I greatly disliked the strip of bright light over his eyes as some kind of dramatization of either madness or holiness), but he brings a real sense of despair and anguish to Rasputin's eventual downfall, of his apparent loss of faith as Alexandra, in turn, loses faith in him. McKellen's in the more understated role, and a great treat to watch. His role may not be as dramatic, but it is more subtly nuanced.

HD24 OK, you can look at this film in two ways - either as a good play, or as an historical drama. It works both ways, although my main quibble would be that one is left with little real idea of why the revolution took place and what Rasputin's role in this was. For that reason, it could have done with being a bit longer and more detailed. Rickman plays Rasputin with humour and humanity - not the one-dimensional monster of most other films about him, which is a good thing from both a dramatic and historical point of view. Ian McKellen as Nicholas II has sweetness and dignity although he is probably too old for the role, and the scenes where he almost loses his temper are (historically) highly improbable! I have no problems with Greta Scaachi's acting, but from a historical point of view her portrayal of the Empress is altogether too vulnerable and lacking in fight; and why the German accent in certain scenes!?I doubt there will ever be a film that pleases all of the various fans/critics of Nicholas and Alexandra, Rasputin and the Russian revolution; this one is better and less sensational than most.