Rasputin (1996 TV Movie) User Reviews

Watchable Historic Drama

[JamesHitchcock · 7/10 · 24 July 2009]

Grigory Yefimovich Rasputin was a controversial figure, but there can be no doubt that he was also a remarkable one, even if one also regards him as a charlatan. For an uneducated peasant to have risen to be the close friend and confidant of one of the world's most powerful monarchs is no mean achievement. What, however, caused him to live in the popular imagination was his own bloody murder in 1916, followed by that of the Imperial Family two years later in the wake of the Russian Revolution. Had there been no Revolution, Rasputin would today be a minor figure, forgotten by all except specialists in the history of early twentieth century Russia.

It is hardly surprising that there have been a number of films about him, the first- presumably an anti-Russian propaganda film- being made in Germany only a year after his death. "Rasputin and the Empress" from 1932 is remembered today less by film buffs than by it is lawyers, as it gave rise to a lawsuit which led to one of the leading cases in English libel law. Hammer's famously inaccurate "Rasputin the Mad Monk" from 1966 is essentially a horror film dressed up as a historical drama. (The inaccuracy starts with the title; Rasputin, a self-proclaimed "holy man", was never a monk). He appears in "Nicholas and Alexandra" from 1971, but only in a supporting role; as its title suggests that film deals primarily with the doomed Imperial couple.

This film is probably the best filmed version of his life that I have seen, despite one or two historical inaccuracies. The main reason is the fine performance by Alan Rickman in the title role. The historical Rasputin seems to have had great charisma and a certain spirituality; his claim to possess abilities as a faith healer may have been genuine. Combined with these qualities, however, were his notorious moral weaknesses; he was both a drunkard and a womaniser. (His enemies seized gleefully on the similarity between his surname and the Russian adjective "rasputniy", meaning "debauched"). His influence over the Tsar was not always a beneficent one, although it is noteworthy that he opposed the fateful decision- to go to war with Germany in 1914- which was eventually to lead to the downfall of the Romanovs. Rickman, often good when portraying morally ambiguous figures like Severus Snape in the "Harry Potter" films, brings out all these contradictory sides of his character, giving us a portrait of a strange, driven individual, both mystic and fanatic, holy man and sinner.

Ian McKellen, whose portrayal owes something to Michael Jayston's in "Nicholas and Alexandra" is good as the Tsar, a hesitant, nervous autocrat, a kindly family man but despotic ruler. I did not, however, care for Greta Scacchi as Alexandra. (I much preferred Janet Suzman). Scacchi, previously better known for playing sexually provocative temptresses in films like "Heat and Dust", "White Mischief" and "Presumed Innocent", never seems either sufficiently regal or sufficiently commanding. Alexandra was the dominant partner in her marriage, and the influence of this German-born woman over the Tsar was resented by many Russians, especially after 1914). At least Scacchi gets to keep her clothes on in this film; it is a popularly held, although inaccurate, belief that Rasputin was (in the words of Boney M) "lover of the Russian Queen", but this canard is not repeated in the film.

As a whole, the film is not quite as good as "Nicholas and Alexandra", lacking the earlier film's epic grandeur and visual splendour. It never, however, sets out to be a major epic of that sort, having been made for television rather than the cinema screen. As a made-for-TV historical drama it is very watchable. 7/10

Good drama, mediocre history.

[=G= · 6/10 · 17 June 2002]

HBO's "Rasputin" is an Emmy winning retelling of an old story around which swirls as much legend as fact. The film stretches the emotional and dramatic moments while condensing the history as it goes for the viscera with Rickman painting a sensationalized portrait of the enigmatic and shadowy title character. A stuttering drama dumbed down for prime time audiences, "Rasputin 1996" should be an entertaining watch for those who like a little history with their television dramas.

Very good comments

[Petie3-2 · 7/10 · 17 July 2008]

Allen Rickman decided to become Rasputin. He did a lot of research, introspection and study. I fear for his soul. Historically as accurate as it could be, there are flights from and to events which are poetic license. Rasputin was an original, not a Barnum, nor a John the Baptist. The time in Russia from 1907 to 1917 was a catastrophe of Greek proportions. Masses were shot, murdered. The White Russians rebelled against the Communists and they had a war which rivalled the brutality of the Great War. Finally Lenin died and Stalin took over for thirty years of murder, failed five year plans, and total war against the Germans. Was Czarism really that bad?

Alan Rickman is terrific

[caspian1978 · 2 August 2004]

Rickman's Rasputan is not only scary, but at times funny. The story of the downfall of the Russian Kingdom and the man and the myth that was Rasputan is now one of HBO better movies. The production value of this made for cable movie is better than most box office duds that try to call themselves period pieces. Rasputan rivals Reds with a better story of the Russian peoples struggle during World War 1 and the start of communist (Soviet)control. Alan Rickman carries the movie as the star of the film. His character acting surpasses other great actors such as Al Pacino and Tim Curry. Without talking, Rickman's use of his eyes create a Rasputan more horrific than any other adaptation to date. A great movie with a powerful ending.

Very decent

[Rodrigo_Amaro · 6/10 · 25 May 2012]

Miracle man or a fraud? Saint or devil? Holy person or someone with good tricks to show? HBO's cinebiography of Father Grigori Rasputin doesn't reveal the mystery and always gives us more and more questions about one of the most influential and controversial figures of Russia during the kingdom of the last Russian tsar.

Played by Alan Rickman as an unstoppable enigma, Rasputin was priest, drunken, womanizer and troublemaker, gaining notoriety by helping sick people to get cure for things that were incurable, claiming to have seen the Virgin Mary and working as sort of an holy authority capable of performing miracles. His most famous patient (and strangely selected as the story's narrator) was Prince Aleksei (Freddie Findlay),hemophiliac and the only male child of the Romanov's, tsar Nicholas II (Ian McKellen) and Alexandra (Greta Scacchi), and as many knows the treatment works wonders, surprising everyone in the family and causing some doubts and jealousy among the Royal doctors, suspicious of such miracle maker, who seeks to interfere on the politics of the country. That involvement and his troubled behavior led to a conspiracy in which he was the main victim but taking with him the destiny of a nation and the end of an empire.

Favorable points: the great costumes and the detailed, spectacular art direction, and some insights about the main figure specially what concerns about his talent for predicting things like the death of one of Nicholas aides and the fall of the empire. The story, even with its focus on social and political issues, is simple to follow, very informative to viewers.

Less favorable points: those who deeply know about the man and his life won't find this film so satisfying or enjoyable. Uli Edel didn't put much vigor in this work, sometimes melodramatic and forced. The cast is good but they don't move us in the it was supposed to; Rickman is the best in show, really exposing some pain and some madness but he's not my favorite Rasputin. I suggest you to check Tom Baker's performance in "Nicholas and Alexandra" (1971) where he stole the show from the leading characters with an amazing realism, natural. He seems bigger than life but at the same time he looks real, believable. And let's face it, that was a better movie as well.

"Rasputin" doesn't stain the reputation of the man nor judges him; it just incites doubt in our heads in trying to figure out who he really was. A decent film, but far from being memorable. 6/10

"Before we can repent, we have to sin"

[The_Phantom_Projectionist · 7/10 · 8 September 2015]

Grigori Rasputin – infamous Russian holy man and historical enigma – has had his tale told in film many times, though too often through the lens of grotesque embellishment. While HBO's 1996 production is not a perfect film and had no hope of accurately framing the man's life in 135 minutes, it is one of the most sober-minded of biographies on Rasputin and reigns as one of the best all-around features of its infamous subject. Though the film deals alternatively pleasing and disappointing plot features in a tit-for-tat manner, it boasts great production values and excellent casting, making for a very satisfying experience that I am surprised never saw a theatrical release.

The story: Driven by a sense of destiny, a Siberian peasant with apparent supernatural talents (Alan Rickman) works his way into the Russian royal family and influences the downfall of an empire.

Alan Rickman *is* Rasputin. Lionel Barrymore and Christopher Lee have nothing on Rickman, who channels Rasputin's extremes with grace and nuance suggesting a genuine understanding of the character. Admittedly, Rickman's most memorable scenes include a lot of caterwauling and grandiose dialogue, but look no further than the quieter scenes to see the sincere and insecure side of Rasputin come to life. Rickman even replicates the curious manner of speech reported of the character, demonstrating an attention to historical detail prevalent throughout the film (more on that soon). As good as Rickman is, he's matched by Ian McKellan who is perfect for the regal role of Tsar Nicholas II. Greta Scacchi as Tsarina Alexandra and young Freddie Findlay as Tsarevich Alexei are likewise strong, but are at the disadvantage of slightly weaker roles.

Nevertheless, I appreciate that the film focuses so much on Alexei, who is the lynchpin of the Rasputin tale but tends to be only fleetingly analyzed in both movies and history books. This film is anchored on the relationship Rasputin had with Alexei and Alexandra, and the result is a pleasantly emotional character dynamic. It's even easier to invest in thanks to the realistic detail. I am not sure whether the movie was actually filmed in and around the actual Winter Palace, but the sets are convincingly beautiful. And though the movie takes some historical liberties, the abundance of accurate details suggest that the filmmakers did indeed do their homework: the inclusion of often-overlooked figures such as Bishop Hermogen and Derevenko the sailor-nanny is one thing, but the filmmakers go out of their way to highlight tidbits such as the fact that Nicholas II abdicated on a train and that Rasputin played with the cabinet in Prince Yusupov's basement before he was assassinated. I'm impressed.

I am a little less impressed with the foreground of the movie. I don't mind that not every facet of the real story is depicted (I still hope for a miniseries to attempt this), but I wish that the film's take was not quite so one-sided and ambiguous. The movie makes hardly any mention of Rasputin's colossal influence on matters of state, choosing instead to explain the public hatred of him by his sexual scandals. And while it was about time that Alexandra was judged favorably by any medium, it's disappointing that there's no hint of the alienating behavior that her adoration for Rasputin invoked. If anything, the movie is *too* friendly to Rasputin and the Romanovs, depicting the former as a horny weirdo and the latter as gullible victims. The picture is what it is, but I'm certain it would have been more interesting if its subjects had been a little less pristine.

Nevertheless, as aforementioned, I am convinced that this is the best Rasputin biography produced to date. Time will tell whether the upcoming Leonardo DiCaprio production or others dethrone it, but for those who are tired of the overdone horror films based on the story, this VHS tape is worth tracking down for now.

Star-centred retelling of the famous story

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 23 March 2015]

RASPUTIN, a TV movie from 1996, features a barnstorming performance from Alan Rickman, playing the "mad monk" who inveigles his way into the Russian royal family when he heals their son from sickness. Really, of all the actors in the 1990s, Rickman was the perfect choice for the role: he can do crazy like nobody else, and he dominates the screen every time he appears. Unlike the Hammer film RASPUTIN, THE MAD MONK, Rasputin is no straight villain here, and the filmmakers imply that he did have some kind of supernatural ability.

I'm glad Rickman's on board, because without him, RASPUTIN wouldn't have been much at all. As a TV movie it's a very simple, standardised retelling of the material, big on costumes and backdrops but one which reveals very little about the political situation of the era. Still, at least the cast has been populated by decent actors, including Greta Scacchi, Ian McKellen, David Warner, James Frain and the like; but inevitably it's Rickman you remember here, all wild hair and beard, stripping on a table and outraging members of Russia's polite society.

Brilliantly filmed, brilliantly told

[cybamuse · 9/10 · 13 June 2000]

Although they script writers took the sensationalized story route every time, they nonetheless wrote a powerful script that can't help but have you foaming at the mouth to learn more about Rasputin and the breakdown of the Russian Empire. If you know very little about the collapse of the Russian Empire, then this film would have to be the best introduction you will get.

The cinematography in this film was absolutely gorgeous with wonderful contrasting colors illustrating the richness of the Romanov life, the bleak coldness of the Siberian plains and the stark conditions of the Russian Empire. The music was hauntingly beautiful and complemented the film perfectly. When music suits a film, it IS noticeable!

And then there is the acting... Alan Rickman is sensational as Rasputin, portraying the moody and incoherent Rasputin with a fabulous chameleon-like zeal. Ian McKellum so perfectly portrays the Tsar, Nicholas II (or at least, as one would perceive Nicholas to be from history books) that it is plain spooky! Great Scacchi is also wonderful as the Tsarina.

Three Great Performances

[Caroseli · 6/10 · 3 November 1998]

While "Rasputin" tends to drag a little in some parts, it is definitely worth a look for the performances of Ian McKellen, who lends a subtle but breathtaking elegance to Czar Nicholas II, and especially Alan Rickman, who plays the role of Rasputin to the hilt. It is also an incredibly gorgeous (and historically accurate) portrayal of pre-revolution Russia, which could be very valuable to history teachers. Given how little Americans in general know about Russian history, a film such as this could interest quite a few people into reading up on the subject.

Alan Rickman's performance is Oscar material

[moviesfilmsreviewsinc · 10/10 · 4 February 2022]

Many were hit hard by Alan Rickman's death this past January, and it's easy to understand why. Immortalized by the Harry Potter franchise for his role as anti-hero Severus Snape, Rickman loomed large over a generation of moviegoers. The resonance of this role is so powerful that it's occasionally difficult to remember the varied nature of Rickman's career outside of J. K. Rowling's world. That is why the now apparently unavailable TV-film, Rasputin: Dark Servant of Destiny, is so important. Not only does it remind audiences of Rickman's startling range, but it also showcases the actor in a rare leading role. Rasputin is, essentially, an opportunity to see Rickman at his most pronounced. The effect of this is fantastic, dark and wonderful, even if the film itself is rather slight. Rasputin: Dark Servant of Destiny doesn't spend much time on exposition, barely skimming the surface of its titular hero's early years. Born in the later half of the 19th century, Rasputin is shown going nowhere fast for the first half of his life. He is considered by all in his small, Siberian community to be an odd duck, and the mystical air he exudes is treated with fascination, derision and violence. One day, while plowing a field and looking generally miserable, he is confronted by a brigade of horse riders. After he delivers a hilarious retort to their boorish bullying, he is beaten senseless into the hard, Siberian tundra. This provokes an ambiguous vision of the Virgin Mary, and eventually prompts him to become a well-known priest and healer. Directed by the German-born Uli Edel (who recently slummed it up by helming Nick Cage's latest DTV effort), Rasputin: Dark Servant of Destiny is a lushly rendered bit of historical drama. From the cavernous Budapest and St. Petersburg settings, to the Emmy-nominated costumes and cinematography, Rasputin succeeds in being a transporting piece of non-fiction - at least on a superficial level. The primary actors also give fully committed performances. Greta Scacchi - who also won an Emmy for her work in the film - brings the doomed Alexandra to life, easily evoking a woman both fascinated and repelled by Rickman's mad monk. Ian Mckellen is also quite good as the entirely inept Nicholas, portraying a stilted man whose arrogance and incompetence spells disaster for all around him. His performance is, essentially, a treat, and one that has an enhanced gravity now that he is no longer here. It's a poignant thing to watch deceased actors do great work after they have prematurely passed away. It also reminds us of how neat cinema is, and how it allows you to continue engaging with great performers through the work they leave behind.

Good quality and acting, upsetting story

[HotToastyRag · 6/10 · 23 June 2019]

Isn't it nice when you watch a tv-movie that doesn't feel like a tv-movie? The subject matter of 1996's Rasputin may be very upsetting, but the quality feels like something you'd go to the theaters to see. The costumes and art direction are beautiful, the script isn't corny, and the cast is full of well-known actors.

Alan Rickman plays the title character, and after you watch him in this, it's no wonder he was cast as Professor Snape in the Harry Potter movies. He has long, dark, stringy hair, wears dark robes, uses what some would call magic, and has a character the audience can't decide is a villain or not. Besides the Russian accent and the beard, the two are very similar. You will be treated with a very good performance from Alan, but the story is so sad, you might not want to. The start of the movie shows the discovery of the Romanov's bones in 1991, and then it goes back in time to the height of Nicholas's reign. Alexei is sick with hemophilia, and after Alan has a religious epiphany, he believes it's his mission to save the boy. Rasputin becomes a trusted family friend, and while this movie doesn't exactly explain why the change occurred, everyone in the audience is expecting things to take a very sour turn. My one objection to the film was the violence in the end. I've seen other Romanov films that handle the "portrait scene" with more tact, and this one felt needlessly violent. You can give it a shot if you want to see Alan Rickman, or if you want to see Ian McKellen, Greta Scacchi, David Warner, John Wood, and Freddie Findlay.

DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. About half an hour in, the camera spins to look at the inside of the cathedral for a few seconds, and it will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to violence and upsetting scenes involving children, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

excellent actors

[rubenheim · 8/10 · 20 June 2001]

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.

Too little politics, too much exposition

[paul2001sw-1 · 4/10 · 26 January 2005]

Grigori Rasputin is one of history's most colourful and bizarre figures, and Alan Rickman, who stars in this HBO film of his life as part of a largely English cast, is one of the few actors with the charisma to play him. Unfortunately, the film doesn't get a lot else right: it's full of tiresome plot exposition, while offering little in the way of a convincing depiction of the daily life of the Russian court. Crucially, Rasputin's character (to the outsider, a mixture of visionary madman, drunken fool and cunning conman) is never adequately dissected: we see all aspects of his behaviour, but the film never dares suggests what it thinks might make him tick. It's also ludicrously sympathetic to the Russian royal family, Ian McKellan play the Tsar as a kindly uncle, and I never expected to see a portrayal of the brutal Stolypin (sometime Prime Minister) bathed in such a warm light. The story (or legend) of Rasputin's death is always amusing to recall; and there's some rarely seen real footage of the Eastern Front spliced into the film. But there's little real insight into the man or his times; a disappointment, especially given the cast list.

Movie's Accuracy is offset by obvious omissions

[russnickm · 31 December 2002]

For once, after all the nonsense written and shown about the infamous Grigori Rasputin, this film makes an excellent effort at accuracy and objectivity. The characters look incredibly like the historical people they play: Alexis (The heir and narrator), the Tsar (Masterfully played by Ian Mc Kellam), the four daughters; unfortunately, the character of the Empress, Alexandra, is terrible; not only does she not look like her but portrays none of Alexandra's personality (Unlike the excellent job done by Janet Suzman in Nicholas and Alexandra). The movie is breathtaking in its on-location shots, especially St. Petersburg and the interiors of the palace. With so much effort put into accuracy, though, I don't understand how, with the climax of the film, Rasputin's murderers are incomplete: it was not just Felix Yussupov but the Tsar's nephew and favorite, Grand Duke Dmitri, who pulled off the killing. This movie completely excludes Dmitri. Still, if the viewer is just looking for an above average account of the strangest period in history (Without looking TOO close), this movie will do the trick.

A Brilliant Madman, A Holy Man, or a Con Artist?

[wnterstar · 8/10 · 19 February 2005]

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.

The Power of Faith

[Ashkevron · 8/10 · 3 February 2009]

The more interesting aspect of 'Rasputin' is not so much the history it portrays, but the ambiguity of it. Are we, as an audience, meant to feel sympathetic towards Rasputin? Towards the Romanovs? The movie gives no clear answers.

Rickman portrays Rasputin in a way that the question of whether he was a true holy man or merely a charlatan is never truly answered. On the one hand, we have Stolypin's opinion of Rasputin's "powers" as little more than hypnotism and suggestion, and on the other we have Alexei—who could be considered an unreliable narrator—who admires and believes in Rasputin's "magic." Rickman, meanwhile, plays Rasputin as a man who believes strongly, who may just be convinced that he does have healing powers—but who may just be a poor, deluded fool.

McKellen, meanwhile, does a masterful job of portraying Nicholas II as neither cloyingly sympathetic not narrow-mindedly unsympathetic. His Nicholas II is not a likable man, but we can see his humanity and his faults, and how these things blind him to his mismanagement of the country. He is not a black and white portrayal, but grey.

In a way, 'Rasputin' (saddled with a most unfortunate subtitle) is more about religion than history or politics. Its main theme is its characters passionate adherence to their religion: Rasputin who wants to see and experience miracles and apparitions, Nicholas II and Alexei who believe God has made them unquestionable kings, and Alexandra who allows her faith to blind her to the dangers of placing too much power and confidence on the "holy man" who "cures" her son. It is this aspect of the movie that makes it interesting, and which gives it its power. It would have been easy to make yet another film in which either Rasputin or the Romanovs are made to look like either blameless saints or black hearted villains, but 'Rasputin' (for the most part) chooses to portray its characters as flawed, human creatures.

Rickman, perhaps, goes a tad bit overboard on the melodrama and histrionics (and I greatly disliked the strip of bright light over his eyes as some kind of dramatization of either madness or holiness), but he brings a real sense of despair and anguish to Rasputin's eventual downfall, of his apparent loss of faith as Alexandra, in turn, loses faith in him. McKellen's in the more understated role, and a great treat to watch. His role may not be as dramatic, but it is more subtly nuanced.

Great Acting

[General_Meade · 9/10 · 21 November 2005]

Alan Rickman and Ian McKellen are superb actors and it shows in this film adaptation about one of history's greatest enigmas. Was Rasputin a "saint" or "devil?" If you watch this movie, from a historical point of view, you get an interesting glimpse into Rasputin's life which is, for the most part, historically correct. Yes, Hollywood will take its dramatic license when needed, but Rasputin was dramatic enough and really doesn't need any help! Even if you are not a history buff, or interested in history in the slightest, this movie will still enthrall you with its storyline. There are quality plots and subplots in this film, from the influence of Rasputin on the Romanov family to the coming of the Russian Revolution. You will see just how far out of contact the royal family was with reality and the plight of their subjects throughout the course of this movie. To what extent did Rasputin contribute to this? You will have to watch the movie to find out.

Disappointing. Watered Down Version Of The Rasputin History With Very Little Sex.

[Real_Review · 5/10 · 29 May 2019]

Rasputin was a sex maniac that worked his way into power by seducing everyone around him - both prostitutes and Royals, both men and women. So, when I hear 'HBO and Rasputin', I expect a certain level of debauchery and reality.

Instead, I got 'an artistic vision' - save it. Of coarse, it was ok to show about 20 murders in the film, but no sex and nudity. Next time I watch a Rasputin story by a cable network, I'll read the IMDB parental advisories first.

I've said this in other reviews and I'll say it again here - we need LESS gratuitous violence and subtle sexuality, and MORE gratuitous sex and subtle violence.

RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria: Acting - 1/1 Casting - 1/1 Directing - 0.5/1 Story - 1/1 Writing/Screenplay - 0.5/1

Total Base Score = 4

Modifiers (+ or -): Standout Performances: 1 ( Alan Rickman )

Total RealReview Rating: 5

A great movie!

[Shannon-32 · 19 September 1999]

I saw this film because of my love for Russian history and because I am a fan of Nicholas and Alexandra and I continue to rent it because the film never ceases to amaze me.

Alan Rickman is well cast as the maniac monk who becomes a major influence over the Tsar (Ian McKellen) and his wife (Greta Scacci). Ian McKellen gives a stunning performance as Tsar Nicholas II. Greta Scacci is wonderful as Tsarina Alexandra Fyodorovna.

There's only one problem with this film. It focuses too much on Nicholas and Alexandra and not enough on Rasputin like the title of the movie says. Nonetheless, it's a wonderful film and should be seen by every high school world history class and history buff.

History never forgets.

[mark.waltz · 9/10 · 5 February 2024]

Movie makers don't always get it right, but casting directors usually do. This HBO drama did its best to get most things accurate, and casting is top notch with Alan Rickman a perfect choice that eliminates the melodramatic elements of previous Rasputins, particularly Lionel Barrymore in MGM's 1932 epic. When Rickman explodes in anger, it's usually in a drunken rage, and makes a fool of himself, so he's far from perfect in his hoodwinking efforts even though he ably talks his way out of it. Tom Baker as Rasputin in "Nicholas and Alexandra" is a better fit, but he's supporting there so this is that film's Rasputin, just more fleshed out.

With Ian McKellen as Czar Nicholas and Greta Scacchi as Empress Alexandra, the casting is top notch, and their children including Freddie Finlay as ailing prince Alexi are beautifully portrayed. As they play outside their huge palace in the snow after Alexi has had a miraculous breakthrough in his battle with hemophilia, you can't help but feel joy and sadness in knowing what their fates will be. Usually cast as villains, David Warner and John Wood are terrific in smaller roles, their actions based more on fear of the actions of whom they consider a bad influence than on nefarious intentions.

I take movie maker's visions of history as a generic lesson of what could have transpired, only angered by blatant untruths which this fortunately lacks. As told through the ghostly Alexi as if he continued to see the world after he was murdered, it's a haunting narrative. The gorgeous sets, props, costumes and hairstyles do seem fairly accurate but like Von Sternberg's "The Scarlet Empress", they indicate an audacious living for the royals that slowly arroused the ire of a starving country. Truly a grand document of the last years of Russian rule under the Romanov's and a reminder that the best movies recently have come from cable subscription TV.

Perfect companion to 1971's "Nicholas and Alexandra"

[ROCKY-19 · 9/10 · 27 November 1998]

What 1971's "Nicholas and Alexandra" didn't convey about Rasputin's truly vile, disturbed and disturbing personality, this film gives us in all its dark glory. Alan Rickman's stunning performance in the title role places him among the best of his generation. With the release of rich historical information from Russia, "Rasputin" is able to very accurately portray the life and death of this intriguing man. To get an understanding of the real Nicholas and Alexandra, however, the 1971 film is much superior. Sir Ian's portrayal of the Tsar does not have the emotional or psychological accuracy of Michael Jayston's. But pity any poor actor that must portray Rasputin in the future, for he will be forever in Rickman's very, very dark shadow.

A very impressive film, regardless of its historical accuracy or lack of it

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 19 July 2015]

With such a great cast and that it's a film of a riveting, complex part of history and one of history's most interestingly colourful characters, Rasputin had a lot going for it. Historically it's not always very accurate but on its own merits Rasputin is a very impressive film, and much more preferable and of far higher quality to the Hammer film Rasputin: The Mad Monk, which was a fun film and had a towering Christopher Lee but had a shoddy script and didn't attempt to be true to history.

It could have done with a longer length and could have gone into more detail as a result, with some parts feeling cliff notes-like, like why and how the revolution started and Rasputin's role in it. It could have focused a little more on Rasputin too and a little less on the Romanov Royal Family. The film looks wonderful though, it's beautifully photographed with lavish colour and evocative sets, whether depicting the contrast between the rich and poor, that captures the atmosphere of the time very well indeed. The music score has haunting power and pathos, but it is not just a great-sounding score on its own but it fits like a glove within the film.

Rasputin has an intelligent and well-written script, that doesn't play things too staid and also doesn't feel like soap-opera-like melodrama. The story is well-told, tightly paced and cohesive, and has the right amount of emotion and tension. The film does a great job capturing the atmosphere of the time period, and even though one wishes that there was more of Rasputin there is still enough done with him to still make him a colourful and interesting character, with a reason being given for his carousing. The most effective scene here is the assassination of the Romanovs, a scene that is both terrifying and heart-wrenching. Uli Edel directs beautifully and sensitively yet with enough vigour to keep the drama alive.

Alan Rickman is brilliant in the title role, it is one incredibly powerful performance that is dangerously scary but also played with gusty humour and nuanced humanity. Ian McKellen also gives a fine and well-studied account of the Tsar, even depicting some of his habits like with his thumb, his interpretation is very accurate of the man who was a good and loving father and family man but a bad ruler. Freddie Findlay as Alexei, the character from which perspective Rasputin is told, is very good and his is a more sympathetic and accurate portrayal than most of the young prince. Greta Scacchi is the only person who doesn't look anything like the role she's depicting, but she nonetheless touchingly underplays Alexandra and does so with regal dignity. David Warner, John Wood and James Frain acquit themselves very solidly in pivotal supporting roles.

In conclusion, a very impressive film regardless of its historical accuracy or lack of. 8/10 Bethany Cox

The character doesn't correspond to reality

[iulianonciu · 5/10 · 18 April 2020]

Rasputin was powerful man, just look in his picture and you something deep, but in this movie he looks like stupid man, but he wasn't at all

Wow.

[Keiara_X · 20 May 2001]

Now, I'm normally not one for historical movies, but this film was absolutely magnificent. Beautiful performances from Alan Rickman, reminding us why he is one of Britain's great actors, along with Ian McKellen, another sterling performance from him. Greta Scacchi effectively underplayed the role of the Tsarina, while there was a brief but excellent performance from James Frain, who is another young actor to watch. It is very hard to find fault in this film, as it was so well directed, written, acted, with wonderful costumes and sets, although I didn't realise how many Russians had a perfect english accent(ba-boom-tish). Excellent work all round.

A very good story about the "mad monk"

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 9/10 · 28 August 2004]

I have to say that I was very impressed with the story of Rasputin. It was very accurate. Allen Rickman was amazing in the story. He is such an incredable and under rated actor. The whole story is great if you like to stick to accurate history. I wasn't too sure about the love story between the wife and Rasputin, they were mostly rumors. So, I didn't think it was necessary to add into the movie.

"Rasputin" is a great movie to watch. I would highly recommend if you are into history. Especially Russian history or into the World Wars. Trust me, it will not disappoint you.

9/10