Rasputin (1996)

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Rasputin is one of history's most colorful figures of all time,but this movie is trash.too dramatic.so this make this movie bad.and terrible songs.this movie is overrated like Titanic.garbage i call it.Rasputin healing powers ah common think real it's all pointless and fantasy.don't believe everything like Charles Foster Kane said. In 1910s Russia, Tsar Nicholas II and his wife Alexandra find their son Alexei, sole heir to the Romanov dynasty, suffering from hemophilia and conventional medicine failing to help him. Alexandra looks into finding holistic treatment and finds Father Grigori Rasputin, a destitute monk who claims he had a vision from the Virgin Mary telling him that the Tsar needed him.fails a movie.

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.

Before this film, the Cinematic version of Rasputin was Christopher Lee's evil Dracula-esque version that tried to seduce/murder the Royal Family. But this one is far more accurate. It's a little short and DOES skip alot of chapters in the Mad Monk's life, but nevertheless it's better than the aforementioned Hammer Films version and mercifully shorter than Nicholas & Alexandra. Rasputin was not an evil man as early cinema depicts, but instead a well-meaning one hampered by incompetence and bad habits. Alan Rickman captures both well. Matching him stride for stride is Ian McKellen as Tsar Nicholas II. McKellen's Tsar is a loving father who perhaps can't see very well past his family. When he tells his son that he will preserve the kingdom for him, you realize that a sad end awaits him. But through it all he manages to keep his dignity. And nobody has ever played the Royal doctor better than David Warner has. He mixes loyalty to the Tsar and skepticism of Rasputin's "divine abilities" very well, and has quite possibly the best line in the film: "I have performed many autopsies and never once found a soul." The wisest move, however, was not to end it with Rasputin's death, but to continue to show the fall of the Romanov Dynasty. The entire murder of the Royal Family stands as one of the most evil acts of the 20th Century and those final scenes really hammer home the tragedy.

Alan Rickman really kicks it. He did a quite incredibly good job.Could you want another Rasputin? Excellent acting. He combines that opposition of orgy and foreseeing in a way you cannot help but think this ambivalence is like two sides of the same coin.