Steineded How sad is this?

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Gavin Cresswell (gavin-thelordofthefu-48-460297) 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.

GusF One of the last films in the great tradition of the historical epics which dominated the 1950s and 1960s, it begins with the birth of Tsarevich Alexei, the apple of his parents' eye, on August 12, 1904 and ends with the murders of the entire Romanov family on July 17, 1918. While the film suffers from a few pacing problems, it is nevertheless a hugely entertaining and very well written film with often marvellous dialogue. Franklin J. Schaffner of "Planet of the Apes" (my sixth favourite film of all time) and "Patton" fame does a great job as the director.As the title characters, Michael Jayston and Janet Suzman are excellent, delivering subtle, understated performances. They have great chemistry. Throughout the film, you never doubt that they love each other. Nicholas II is depicted as a weak-willed, indecisive and not terribly bright man who loves his family but whose personality makes him utterly unsuited to his position. He fails to listen to the good advice of his prime ministers, most notably Count Witte, and often takes unwise courses of action at the behest of his strong willed wife. It is not until far too late, after he has already lost his throne, that he engages in some form of self-reflection and realises all of the mistakes that he made. My sympathy for him grew as the film progressed and he became an increasingly tragic figure. He may have been the Tsar but he always seemed to be someone's pawn rather than his own man. I think that, in the film at least, he became a better man after being forced to abdicate. Alexandra - who was hated because she was German - seems to be more intelligent than her husband, who is under her thumb and tells her as much at one point. However, her judgement is as bad as his or possibly even worse as she falls under the influence of Rasputin. She is blinded to his crimes and misdemeanours by her love for Alexei and the mystic's apparent ability to control his haemophilia. She is a less sympathetic character than Nicholas, in part because she says expressly at one point that, on reflection, she could think of anything that she had done wrong in the years leading up to 1917. I've no idea if this statement has any historical basis whatsoever but it worked well in the context of the film as she appears to be as blind to her own faults as she was to those of Rasputin. I sympathised with her most strongly when it came to Alexei's poor health as it was a terrible burden for any mother to bear.Laurence Olivier excels as Count Witte, the Cassandra of Russia whose consistently sensible advice is ignored by Nicholas and who, as in reality, warned that disaster would result from Russia's entry into World War I. I suppose that he was lucky that he did not live to see the Revolution. In his first major role, Tom Baker, cast at Olivier's suggestion, was perfect for the role of Rasputin, playing him with a wonderful sense of intensity. He comes across as a very dangerous, intelligent, manipulative and amoral man who was perhaps the worst possible choice for an adviser. The film has a very strong supporting cast overall: Timothy West, Ian Holm, John Wood, Roy Dotrice, Michael Redgrave (whose daughter Vanessa was considered for Alexandra), Julian Glover, Alan Webb and John McEnery as Alexander Kerensky, who died only a year and a half before the film was released. McEnery looks the image of him, incidentally.On the negative side, the film is too long at three hours and six minutes. It suffers from pacing problems for a full half four (from about 60 to 90 minutes into its long run). They could have probably cut at least half an hour of flab here and there without it making much difference. While the scenes in the first half featuring the Bolsheviks were necessary for later in the film, they weren't terribly good or interesting. The film hues fairly closely to history but takes a few liberties. For instance, Stalin and Lenin meet a few years too early and Stolypin is assassinated in 1913 rather than 1911. I thought that it was rather odd that, while several of the events surrounding the 1905 Revolution were depicted or discussed, there was no direct mention of the Revolution itself. The film jumps forward from 1905 to 1913 very suddenly and it was a bit distracting as, even given the film's length, it felt like it was leaving something out. The second half, beginning with the outbreak of World War I, is much stronger than the first and the film rollicks along at a great pace from then onwards. There is a great sense of foreboding in the second half as the story draws to its tragic conclusion. The film does a fantastic job of contrasting the opulence of the Winter Palace with both the poor living conditions of the Russian people and those of the Romanovs themselves after the Revolution.Overall, this is an excellent film which is neither as successful nor as well remembered as it deserves to be. Were it for its aforementioned problems, I would have certainly given it full marks.

Maynard Handley A historical movie can appeal to many different types of audiences, but to be beloved, it has to choose at least one target audience. This movie seems unable to muster the energy to perform this most basic of tasks.It doesn't have the grandeur, the Lawrence of Arabia or Dr Zhivago visuals that excite one viscerally. To be honest it looks like the various low budget BBC historical dramas from the early 70s. It doesn't have any characters for one which feels much sympathy or admiration. (This is honest, but fails as a movie.) And it doesn't have the intellectual depth that is, I think, its natural strength. The history can be approached in two ways --- as a Shakespearean tragedy or as a Greek tragedy. The approach taken was Shakespeare, so we're shown (over and over again, oh god it gets tiresome) how Nicholas is a weak man, how he's a stupid man, how he's a deluded man; and what follows is a consequence of this weakness and delusion. Nothing there of any intellectual interest, nothing there that's unfamiliar to anyone with even the slightest familiarity with the history. Vastly superior would have been a Greek tragedy approach: the tragedy was inherent in the situation, and was pretty much inevitable. The movie could then, instead of the constant emotionality and petty psychologizing, have spent that screen time engaged in some interesting discussion --- perhaps between some Bolsheviks, perhaps between Kerensky and some of the old guard. I'd have used that time to have characters ask how one avoids these ontological tragedies, tragedies of situation. Obviously the Greek answer (to one version of the problem) is the Oresteia --- you avoid cycles of revenge by giving law and punishment up to the state rather than engaging in it as individuals. The equivalent question here is how could the execution have been avoided, given the very real fact that the Whites were fighting back, were doing well, and were likely to reinstate the Royal family. My answer, in these imaginary dialogs I'd have play through the movie occasionally, would be to discuss individuals like Henry VII, or Charles II, or William III (all of England) --- individuals who were willing forgive and forget, who were willing to mete out punishments less than death, who were willing to share power. Basically this particular tragedy was resolved in the West by converting politics from a blood sport to "mere disagreement"; and if Nicholas had been willing to go down that path (from day one of his accession, not when it was too little too late) things could have turned out very differently. A movie like I suggest, full of dense discussion and historical allusion all the way through, would obviously not have mass appeal. But at least it would have SOME appeal, unlike what we've been given, which just doesn't work well for anyone.

clarne "Nicholas and Alexandra" is one of the last of the grand, sweeping epics that dominated the box office in the 50's and 60's. With the new wave of young, reckless directors who took to the scene in the 70's this kind of filmmaking seemed strangely dated. Ironically enough it kind of mimics the fate of the Romanov family, holding on to ideals that can no longer protect them. The genre, which had started with aplomb with movies like "Gone With The Wind" didn't draw the numbers it used to, and after seeing this movie I can't help but think of what a shame that is.The movie is off to a slow start, and doesn't really grab the viewer until after the introduction of Rasputin. From there on in it's pure cinematic joy to witness the fate of the Tzar and his family unravel. The actors do a tremendous job. It's obvious that the producers wanted their actors to look as much like their characters as possible, and while this doesn't necessarily strengthen the movie by itself it clearly gives it a stronger feel of authenticity. Furthermore they perfectly embody their flawed characters. The czar, beautifully played by Michael Jayston is a warm, caring man who unfortunately is totally unfit to be a czar. He is out of touch with his people, and feebly clings to his autocratic power. Jayston manages to portray an almost absurd certainty in his divine right, and ability to rule while at the same time exposing his uncertainty and fright. Janet Suzman is equally impressive as the loving, but domineering Alexandra.The look and feel of the movie is also fantastic. The jaw-dropping visuals of Russia perfectly accommodates the story, and the music is wonderful all the way through. The pace is slow, and it's easy to see why critics who had just witnessed the exhilarating pace of movies like "A Clockwork Orange" or "The French Connection". But this was how these kinds of movies were made, and "Nicholas and Alexandra" does not shame the genre. It's actually a beautiful end to a spectacular genre which is well worth a look for anyone with a soft spot for David Lean-like movies.