AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Executscan Expected more

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

jarrodmcdonald-1 What works: the basic story-- about a trusted adviser who is really a menace to the family; the concept of inviting evil into one's home, thinking it is goodness, is a strong one. Also, it is evident MGM poured gobs of money into this film. Cedric Gibbons and his art department have outdone themselves with the production. And the acting is all first-rate.What doesn't work: the story is too drawn out. Too many scenes of the monk (Lionel Barrymore) hypnotizing everyone and everything in sight. Some of it is quite predictable. We knew that the prince (John Barrymore) wouldn't succeed at shooting him in the beginning, because it was too early in the story. And we needed the big fight scene near the end. Plus it was quite unrealistic that the monk doesn't even get a scratch on him when the prince fires a bullet or two into him. I suppose we can question if the monk is supernatural and not of this world, but there could have been a bit more explanation about his apparent invincibility. I almost half-expected Greta Garbo to show up in this somewhere. I was disappointed she did not.

kenbarr-ny As previously noted in other reviews, this movie has plenty of historical errors (Nicholas II wanted a Duma, Rasputin favored Russia's entry into World War I, the Tsarevich's family nickname and on and on). As Robert Wuhl says, remember that movies are often "based on a true story." However, the value of the film is that is a good example of acting, directing and writing in the 1930s. The presence of the three Barrymores also makes this film interesting. Given the back story of how this movie was made, we also see the power of the studio executives, such as Irving Thalberg, had in how stories were constructed. The story is contrived, so don't use this movie as a factual representation of the events of the period. Watch it instead for the acting of the Barrymores, who were far more familiar to stage audiences than cinema's.

wes-connors The Royal Family of Broadway - John Barrymore, Ethel Barrymore, and Lionel Barrymore - come together at MGM, for their one and only feature film together. Having them play out the epoch final years of the Russian Royal Family (The House of Romanov) seems an appropriately lofty assignment. Add to this the fact that writer Charles MacArthur received an "Academy Award" nomination for his screenplay, and you'd think "Rasputin and the Empress" must be somewhere between average and excellent. But, it really ventures between average and dreadful. It's hardly worth watching for the hysterics, and certainly isn't for the history.Taking moustache-twirling to a new low, Lionel takes advantage of brother John's dissipated state and sister Ethel being new to sound films, to steal the picture. But, in whatever state, no Barrymore gives up easily - the overwrought threesome play against each other, and slavishly to the back row of newspaper and magazine critics. Two of the more natural performances are given by the fly and the ant Lionel shows young Tad Alexander, under a microscope. There should be some entertainment value in watching all of this, but there just isn't - poorly paced at over two hours, it becomes tiresome. William Daniels photographs the sets nicely.**** Rasputin and the Empress (12/23/32) Richard Boleslawski ~ Lionel Barrymore, Ethel Barrymore, John Barrymore, Diana Wynyard

jtyroler Rasputin and the Empress shouldn't be used as a lesson of pre-Soviet Russia. Names have been changed (and that didn't prevent MGM from law suits) and a lot of the information we now know about this period of Russian history - was not known in 1932.As other people have commented about this being the only film that Ethel, John, and Lionel Barrymore appeared together, this movie doesn't show why the Barrymores have the reputation that they have. John Barrymore's career started going downhill after the introduction of sound. Lionel Barrymore, wearing one of the phoniest fake beards, tries to capture the charisma and sense of control that Rasputin had over Czarina Alexandra and the Czarevitch. Ethel Barrymore gives an understated performance - too understated at times. When her only son seems to be close to possible death, she doesn't seem all that bothered.C. Henry Gordon is a great Grand Duke Igor, Ralph Morgan is a convincing Czar Nicholas II, but they don't appear that frequently. Don't expect anyone to speak with a Russian accent or even attempting and accent.Rasputin is one of the most interesting people in the world during the early 20th Century. He was also one of the most enigmatic and contradictory. A holy man who was accused of raping a nun, excessive drinking, and being power hungry. Barrymore's portrayal of Rasputin plays this up, plus making claims that he will be Russia. He seems almost like Charles Manson at times in the way he can make someone, especially the Czarevitch, behave like they are totally different people compared to the way they acted before meeting Rasputin.It is best to watch this movie as just that - a fictional representation of various accounts of what happened in the royal court of Russia in its final days. The writers included Charles MacArthur, Ben Hecht, Robert Sherwood, Mercedes de Acosta, and Lenore Coffee - some of the best writers of the period.It's worth a view - don't expect historical accuracy, but it is an interesting film that tries to show a much different world than what Americans would have known.