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

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.

General_Meade Alan Rickman and Ian McKellen are superb actors and it shows in this film adaptation about one of history's greatest enigmas. Was Rasputin a "saint" or "devil?" If you watch this movie, from a historical point of view, you get an interesting glimpse into Rasputin's life which is, for the most part, historically correct. Yes, Hollywood will take its dramatic license when needed, but Rasputin was dramatic enough and really doesn't need any help! Even if you are not a history buff, or interested in history in the slightest, this movie will still enthrall you with its storyline. There are quality plots and subplots in this film, from the influence of Rasputin on the Romanov family to the coming of the Russian Revolution. You will see just how far out of contact the royal family was with reality and the plight of their subjects throughout the course of this movie. To what extent did Rasputin contribute to this? You will have to watch the movie to find out.

wnterstar 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.