Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Best movie ever!

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

"Rasputin and the Empress" belongs in any good collection of movies for three reasons. First, it is the only movie with all three siblings of the great stage and screen family of Barrymore. Second, it is a reasonable portrayal, with facts and fiction, of the last years of the Russian czars and the infamous Rasputin. And, third, the film production is excellent. The acting by the entire cast is first rate. The sets capture the splendor of the place and the turmoil of the time. The filming is superb under Polish-born director Richard Boleslawski (as Boleslavsky) who studied at the Moscow Art Theater. And the plot and screenplay tell an interesting and bizarre story. Ethel Barrymore plays the Czarina Alexandra, wife of Czar Nicholas II, ruler of Russia. John Barrymore plays a fictitious character, Prince Chegodleff. His role is based on the real Prince Felix Yusupov. Lionel Barrymore has the largest role. He plays the diabolical Grigori Rasputin, the "mad monk" who mesmerized the Romanov family their last three years. His influence may have altered the history of Russia. It doubtless contributed to the end of the Romanov rule after three centuries. The detailed history of the time and events covered by this film makes fascinating reading. This movie was made just 14 years after the execution of the Czar and his family by the Bolsheviks in July of 1918. The film follows closely the events of the Romanovs and Rasputin from 1914 to1918. It begins with the arrival of Rasputin as a healer of the young Alexei, who was a hemophiliac. Rasputin wasn't a religious monk, but had a reputation as a mystical faith healer. After Alexei's recovery, Rasputin's influence with the royal family grew, especially through the Czarina. In time, his power was so great that some considered him the ruler of Russia. The film captures this situation very well. It also shows the royal family's faithful adherence to the Orthodox Church. In Hollywood fashion, and of necessity for the film's length and subject matter, much of the earliest years of the reign of Nicholas II is condensed into no more than some general references about the past. Nicholas was a timid man and a weak ruler with no stomach for governance. After he ascended the throne in 1896, he and Alexandra enjoyed a period of favor with the populace. They were well liked as rulers. But, the czar's poor skills of leadership in time led to many problems. He soon lost face with the people. And, when Rasputin came on the scene, public distrust further fanned the flames of rebellion. Besides the Barrymores, the film has a number of other fine actors. Ralph Morgan plays the weak Czar Nicholas perfectly. Diana Wynyard is superb as Natasha whose character was based on Irina Yusupov. Edward Arnold plays Doctor Remezov. C. Henry Gordon is the Grand Duke Igor. And Tad Alexander is The Czarevitch. Again, this is a fine film on all accounts. In 1917, there were 65 members in the Romanov dynasty. The Bolshevik's killed 18 of them and the 47 remaining either fled Russia or were exiled. Most went to Western Europe. A number of movies have been made about pretenders to the Romanov line. Sometimes those ruses were for prestige, but more often they were efforts to lay claim to some of the jewels of Russia. In 1934, Princess Irina Alexandrovna sued MGM in London over this film. She was a niece of Czar Nicholas, and the wife of Prince Felix Yusupov, who is the person who killed Rasputin. Earlier, MGM made some changes and deleted some scenes. But the princess still took issue with the fictitious character that John Barrymore plays. She also said that Rasputin didn't urge the Czar to go to war with Germany. Another matter of contention was the death of Rasputin. The film shows the gathering at the Molka Palace, which took place. But in the end it shows Barrymore's character dragging Rasputin's body to the river and pushing him under the ice. In the February 28, 1934, court case in London Prince Yusupov testified on the killing. "When Rasputin disclosed what he was doing for Germany, I determined that he must die in the interests of Russia. I secured poison from a doctor, and accompanied Rasputin to the cellar, where I gave him poisoned cakes and wine, and shot him. He revived, whereupon another man thrice shot him, but not fatally. I then battered him to death with a loaded stick. Three friends removed the body and threw it in the river. I was arrested next morning and the Tsar banished me." Other evidence in time found that the men who disposed of Rasputin's body threw him from a bridge into the river. This trial account, under a dateline London, appeared in the Brisbane, Australia Courier-Mail newspaper of March 2, 1934, page 15. Princess Yusupov won some damages for libel in England, and MGM settled with her out of court in the U.S. That apparently led to the standard disclaimer now used for most films based on fiction: "All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental." Several reviewers have said this film is very bad history. Perhaps some are reading too much into it. The film covers less than four years in time, and mostly focuses on the Romanov family and Rasputin. A lot about the previous years is condensed in a couple of general observations, as noted above. But for the usual Hollywood license in writing for screenplay dialog, this film portrays well the events and subjects it encompasses.

In Margot Peters excellent book The House of Barrymore she characterized what MGM had to deal with in the only time the three Barrymore siblings were in a film together, John on drink, Lionel on drugs, and Ethel on her high horse. More truth than humor there.John's drinking and self destruction from same are well known. Lionel was on all kinds of pain killing medication which Louis B. Mayer kept him supplied with in return for being the fifth column of management whenever his contract players started getting ideas. For Ethel however this was her first venture into sound films and she was one who took the title of First Lady of the American Theater quite seriously with all the royal prerogatives of same.Somehow this retelling of the last days of the Romanovs did get made and in it Lionel Barrymore who had the most colorful part of the film, takes the acting honors. His Rasputin, the malevolent monk who held sway over the Tsar and Tsarina because of his ability to control the symptoms of the Tsaretch's hemophilia is a classic study in evil. Ethel is properly regal and John is the noble prince who eventually does something about the curse over the Romanovs, though too late.Rasputin was bad enough in history though here the writers went a bit overboard. There's no accusation against him of having designs on the royal princesses, yet we see Lionel casting a lascivious eye on the Princess Anastasia.Though the name was changed for the film, the real assassin of Rasputin, Prince Felix Yousapov did sue MGM and collect a bundle from them. Personally I think he robbed the lion studio because if anything John Barrymore's portrayal was far more noble than Yousapov was in real life. To add insult to injury though another guy with the name of Chegodieff which was John's name in the film also sued MGM and claimed he was defamed and won.The biggest historical error I find though was the fact that Rasputin was urging Tsar Nicholas to enter World War I. In fact the opposite was the case. Speaking of the Tsar, he's played here as the nebbish he was in real life by Ralph Morgan.For reasons I don't understand the film did not end with Rasputin's demise. Dramatically speaking it should have. But the film continued on until the execution of the royal family by the Bolsheviks. No proper dramatic foundation was laid for that event. There is some mention of revolution in the air, but nothing in the story suggests what will take place.Rasputin and the Empress is bad history and mediocre drama. But it is a chance to see the Barrymore siblings all in the same film and shouldn't be missed for that.

This could have been a true classic. However, it strays far from actual events and abridges the period between the outbreak of the Great War and the killing of the royal family.The three Barrymores -- Lionel, Ethel and John -- are fine as Rasputin, the Empress and Prince Paul, a fictional character who assassinates Rasputin (the real assassin was Prince Feliks Yusupov, who was distressed by the damage that Rasputin was doing to the public image of the royal family).The film correctly shows how Rasputin was interfering with the government and the execution of the Great War. But we don't actually see any sign of the February and October revolutions and the abdication of the czar. In the movie, the royal family is taken by train to a house where they are shot by the Bolsheviks. All of these events happen so suddenly in the film that a casual viewer would lose sense of the chronology.Moreover, the direction is poor and many scenes last too long, making the movie drag.

This is a reasonably decent movie, well acted (particularly by Lionel, who practically chews the scenery as Rasputin) and the sets and costumes are fairly nice. But the main selling point is that this is the only time the three Barrymores -Ethel, John and Lionel did a movie together. It's a good movie but could have been much better.