People are voting emotionally.

Did you people see the same film I saw?

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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.

Lavish production design and Shakespearian performances elevate this handsome looking production. Story-wise it's quite emotionally poignant and sticks close enough to history to bring enjoyment to anyone patient enough to put up with the slow pace and talky nature of things.An air of apocalyptic unreality engulfs the Romanov family through their downfall from 1904-1918. If you think about it, had any one of the factors presented here not happened, we may never have had a Stalin, a Lenin, a Hitler, a Cold War, or any 20th Century as we know it. What if the Tsar never had a son? What if he hadn't been born with Hemophilia? What if Rasputin, the bizarre mad monk hadn't been there at just the right time? We will never know. It's astonishing though that such small things represent such pivotal cornerstones in our history.According to this film, the insecure and controlling Tsarina Alexandra was largely if not fully responsible for Nicholas II's inept leadership and decision making, with the addition of a hemophiliac son certainly not helping much to keep him from being utterly distracted from sound running of the country. I have to call this film quite successful though in terms of finding a way to make him into a very tragic figure and most of the revolutionaries like Kerensky are presented as quite human and multidimensional.While this film has much in common with DOCTOR ZHIVAGO including some extremely top-notch cinematography, lighting, and set design, it also suffers from a lot of the same downfalls like not being able to maintain its energy over its full running time. Despite all the big sets, it doesn't feel as big of a film due to largely shying away from action and bloodshed during this very violent time. Things start to feel quite sad and listless as the film bears down upon its inevitable climax, but along the way there are plenty of notable moments of greatness:* Any scene involving Tom Baker's mesmerizing personification of Rasputin. This certainly was a role requiring that delicate balance of humor and intensity that no one could ever hope to surpass this largely (at the time) unknown actor with. This led directly to his casting as the villain in THE GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD and then to his becoming a TV legend.* The subplot of the factory family turned revolutionaries who lose their matriarch during Bloody Sunday.* The rapid buildup to war and hijacking of the peace process by his Hawkish Generals followed by rapid disintegration of the Russian army after its many crippling defeats. There's just something so fascinating to me about watching armies crumble under poor morale and desertion, maybe as it feels unthinkable to anyone who grew up in a fairly patriotic American military household like I did.For a fuller picture of what was going on at the time, I'd recommend watching the films BATTLE OF THE SEA OF JAPAN (for a view of the humiliating defeats of the Russo-Japanese War mentioned during the first part of the film), TIKHIY DON, and DOCTOR ZHIVAGO for a window into the chaotic nature of the Russian Revolution and Civil War.

Robin Massie wrote one of the more riveting books I have ever read, Nicholas and Alexandra based on the last Czar and Czarina of Russia,Director Franklin Schaffner who did such a brilliant job in directing 'Patton' fails here. The movie is pictorially magnificent and the interior set design impressive but at times dull when compared to the riveting book. Michael Jsyston and Janet Suzman able British actors do not have the charisma to play the Caar and Czarina The Empress was German born and since Russia was at War with Germany thought to be a spy Marlon Brando was offered Rasputin but turned down the role. Tom Baker does well but again as in the case of Jayston and Ms Suzman does not have the stature to play Rasputin. The central theme is that the Crown Prince had hemophilia and the mad monk Rasputin involved himself so unduly in the lives of the Russian Imperial family there were rumors that Rasputin and the German born Czarina were lovers! In Massie's book one chapter ends with the words " Day and Night" Rasputin and Alexandra brought down the Russian Empire" so hated was Rasputin that members of the Imperial Family plotted to kill Rasputin.Legendary Producer Sam Spiegel who produced classics at Columbia such as 'The Bridge On The River Kaw' and 'Lawrence of Arabia' 'On The Waterfront' among other classic films had a star roster of stars who previously starred in his films such as William Holden, Elizabeth Taylor, Peter O Toole, Katharine Hepburn, Marlon Brando etc in his films. Those are the kind of stars that should have been part of this film.I believe this was the last film Sam Spiegel made at Columbia ending a legendary relationship between studio and film maker that won Oscars for The Bridge On The River Kwai and a true masterpiece Lawrence of Arabia.

This lavish version of NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA will especially appeal to anyone who is fascinated by their legendary story and the bitter fate which awaited the family of Nicholas Romanov. One of his daughters was Anastasia. Her story, too, has been told in films and books.JANET SUZMAN is excellent as the woman who turns for comfort and hope to a madman, Rasputin, while her ineffective husband is unable to convince her that he is a charlatan. MICHAEL JAYSTON is effective as Nicholas, inhabiting the role so completely that you feel he is the man himself. TOM BAKER, who bears a striking resemblance to the real Rasputin, is also up to the demands of his role.There's a vast canvas of historical background filmed in splendid Technicolor with obviously no expense spared in all the costuming and production design details. The only real drawback is a lack of pacing in several key dramatic scenes, especially toward the end when the family's execution turns into an endless wait for the assassins to enter the room. Many scenes could have been more tightly edited to reduce the running time of over three hours.The supporting cast includes famous names like LAURENCE OLIVIER and MICHAEL REDGRAVE in what amount to bit roles. The daughters have little to do but the hemophiliac son, Alexis, is played with great sensitivity by RODERIC NOBLE.The realization that she is responsible for carrying the genes that gave her son his condition, is what torments Alexandra and leads to her unwise decision to take counsel from Rasputin.Dramatically, the film suffers from the slow pacing--but the story itself is so compelling that it makes up for this deficiency by providing scenes of epic grandeur and stunning cinematography.It fully deserved its Oscars for Best Art Direction and Costume Design. It was nominated for several other Oscars but Janet Suzman lost to Jane Fonda of KLUTE and the Best Picture award went to THE FRENCH CONNECTION.