BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

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.

midge56 The boy Alexei ruins the movie. His part is poorly written. Every 5 minutes, he is screaming about something so everyone comes running & indulges him. It repeatedly stops the flow of the film. He's a spoiled, self indulgent brat.On top of that, he deliberately does everything he can come up with to defy the rules of caution he must follow to prevent bleeding injury due to hemophilia. He goes out of his way to do dangerous things which will cause bleeding injury & does not care what problems it causes for everyone else. Then add the constant screaming every 5 minutes and you will be so sick of this kid after 30 minutes. It's a wonder he did not rupture his larynx. This was clearly poor scriptwriting & poor direction. Totally unnecessary.Then we have the Tsarina wife of Nicholas; Alix or Alexandra who is constantly feeling sorry for herself & always pampering the screaming, self indulgent son. She is so self consumed & lost in space she refuses to perform her duty & sign the paperwork to feed the Russian people. It was her pressuring which made her husband abandon his duties & run off to war leaving her in charge. But she is paralyzed with self pity, her pampered son's antics and the vile influence of Rasputin. This is actual history but it is still as irritating as is the poor script mishandling of her son.Finally, the weak, indecisive Tsar Nicholas who is so in love with his wife, he can't say no to her despite her terrible advice. He is a mentally immature little boy in a man's body. He does not feed his people or provide schools, medical, homes or shelter. He thinks they need only him & indulges in the peoples adoration and lives in autocratic opulence. They want gov't control. Then his troops started killing the strikers & marchers.The tsar sends his peasants out to war without ammunition, modern weapons, food, clothes, shelter, education or pay to die in senseless wars by the millions which he was cautioned not to start & no way to win. The Tsar can't do his job & his wife constantly whines with self pity & neither can be reasoned with.The peoples Duma gov't takes over but they listen to the US who offers $300 million to stay in WWI & continue to die. Lenin offers the peasants peace & power instead so the rabble become violent Bolsheviks who take over the new gov't & kill the Tsars entire family who didn't have the sense to flee Russia. They had a yacht & several properties outside of Russia as options. Killing the children was going overboard.The British were willing to give them sanctuary as they had done with many other leaders but George V, the grandfather of QE2 & cousin to the tsar & his wife, personally withdrew the parliaments offer to allow his cousins Nicholas & Alix and their children sanctuary in Britain. His cowardice got the Romanov's killed. His journals reflect his cold blooded attitude about their deaths & show no remorse for what he had done.You may have to watch it more than once because the slow pace allows your mind to wander.

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.

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.