Rasputin (1996)

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.

I think most people already know the story of The Russian Revolution and the tragic end of the Romanov family. I'm not sure people really know all that much about Grigori Rasputin. this movie gives us a peak at a fascinating man.Alan Rickman gives a wonderful portrayal of the mad monk. Ian McKellan shows us the family man behind Nicholas the bloody.I have read some of the comments and I see that a lot of people seem to feel the movie wasn't accurate. I'm not sure it was supposed to be. This story was told through the point of view of a young boy.My only complaint is that I would have liked to have seen more of his childhood. Why was he the way he was? I mean, the first born male of the Romanov family had been told for 350 years that they were ordained by God to rule and that they were infallible. You may not have agreed with the choices they made, but you can see why they made them.I didn't end up seeing why Rasputin was the way he was. Was he truly a mad man? A holy man? A con artist? I know that relatively little is known about him, but the movie never even hazards a guess.The film still keeps you riveted as it slowly moves to it's inevitable end.Not a must see, but a good way to spend an evening.

For once, after all the nonsense written and shown about the infamous Grigori Rasputin, this film makes an excellent effort at accuracy and objectivity. The characters look incredibly like the historical people they play: Alexis (The heir and narrator), the Tsar (Masterfully played by Ian Mc Kellam), the four daughters; unfortunately, the character of the Empress, Alexandra, is terrible; not only does she not look like her but portrays none of Alexandra's personality (Unlike the excellent job done by Janet Suzman in Nicholas and Alexandra). The movie is breathtaking in its on-location shots, especially St. Petersburg and the interiors of the palace. With so much effort put into accuracy, though, I don't understand how, with the climax of the film, Rasputin's murderers are incomplete: it was not just Felix Yussupov but the Tsar's nephew and favorite, Grand Duke Dmitri, who pulled off the killing. This movie completely excludes Dmitri. Still, if the viewer is just looking for an above average account of the strangest period in history (Without looking TOO close), this movie will do the trick.

Such a miracle, the movie neglects some historical facts in order to get the personalities correct, which is something no other Romanov movie has ever done.This movie is Alan Rickman's best ever. I always knew he was great but I never imagined him in this role. He was truly amazing.While other movies paint Aleksey as a suicidal kid this one actually paints him as he was, he must be smiling now that things have finally gotten cleared.