Assassin of the Tsar (1991)
A new doctor from Moscow arrives at a provincial mental institution. His interest is the peculiarities of the psyche of a patient who believes that he is Yakov Yurovsky, the man who assassinated the last Russian tsar. In the course of their conversations it transpires that the patient is a kind of philosopher, not without a gift for suggestion. In a while the doctor himself falls under his patient’s influence: he tends to relive that fatal night of June 16-17, 1918 when, without any investigation or trial, Tsar Nicholas II, who had recently abdicated, was murdered, together with his wife, daughters and incurably ill heir. Soon the doctor realizes that the tragedy of the last Russian tsar is in part his own tragedy, too...
Watch Trailer
Cast
Similar titles
Reviews
People are voting emotionally.
By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.
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.
It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.
Assassin of the Tsar might be a parable, for which I give the following view: the event was one of the most important in the Russia's history. Killing the Tsar was profound in the people's mind since common people looked at him with reverence. Moreover, his family and entourage of 9 people also was killed. This tragic event might haunt the conscience (in an abstract sense) of the Russian people. Its justification raises moral questions and now, after history showed the effects of Russian revolution, we can ponder about it retrospectively. It would have been easier if the Tsar was marked by avarice and carelessness for his own people, decadent and a simpleton, as probably some communist propaganda movies must had depicted. However, the director chose to show him in a different light: he is studious, tactful and intelligent. On the other hand, the local chief NKVD-ist Yurovsky does what he does out of duty for revolution. One asks in the movie "Is it that simple?"The interpretation might be extended as the assassin representing the Bolsheviks and the Tsar, the aristocracy/high class that was to be eliminated. In this light, we explain the following: Yurovsky is a approached by the mother of a girl that disappeared and he knows nothing about it. Doctor Timofeyev (the embodiment of "typical Yurovsky") worryingly speaks that he is not guilty about it. The girl's interpretation then is the mass of innocent people that died and suffered as a consequence of Bolsheviks' revolution. Assassin of the Tsar is a fantasy/absurdist movie that is presented in a serious mode - respecting the subject by avoiding the dry humor that often accompanies absurd movies. I would interpret the second doctor (Aleksandr Yegorovich) as the embodiment of the typical light-hearted/forgiving part of the history.
I saw this c. 92 in a limited festival release, and then it disappeared for 17 years. For a long time, to my disappointment, it didn't even show up under MacDowell's name here on IMDb. But I'm glad I've tracked it down and just re-watched it (Netflix). It is (surprisingly) just as good as I remember it. It moves with deliberation and resorts to no emotional leg-pulling. It is uncolored by the subjectivity that movies frequently trowel on to hook an audience. It is meditative throughout, not concerned with spiking your adrenaline every ten minutes. The fictionalized framing device is OK enough, but it doesn't intrude as the movie builds to its inexorable, distressing finish. You watch as an infamous event approaches, and the two story threads converge on the assassination of the entire Romanov family. The audience I saw this with was glued to their seats. Nooone is completely sympathetic. No one is completely unsympathetic. No moral judgment is passed on the Romanovs, or for that matter, the assassin Yurovsky. They are just unlucky people caught up in a certain moment.It is the perfect mid-career role for MacDowell. He was lucky to get such an interesting part. (It's a Russian production.) But he does a great, unshowy job.
This is an intriguing and generally engrossing parable which eventually becomes confusing and with the point of it all, ultimately, remaining obscure; it also makes some interesting (though not exactly novel) comments on class, notoriety and about the way history tends to repeat itself. Malcolm McDowell turns in a good performance as a mental patient who believes himself to be the assassin of two Russian Czars; so far so good - but, then, his psychiatrist (for no very good reason) is a dead-ringer for Nicholas II! I haven't watched that many recent Russian films but this one seems to be fairly indicative of their content, style and overall quality - even if made by a director whose work I wasn't familiar with.
In my opinion very imaginative movie, nicely depicted psychological drama that introduced a lot of interesting data and unanswered questions from Russian history. Story of this movie is well balanced mixture of reality and main character's imagination, leaving a viewer a lot of space to separate one from the other at his own will. The plotline is smoothly and intelligently guided with interesting flashbacks, and clever dialogues. Though I would normally dislike the idea that famous British actor is hired for main role in completely Russian production, Malcolm McDowell was perfect choice for this character, and he made really great performance, fitting perfectly in the Russian surrounding. I highly recommend this movie.