Mathilde (I) (2017) User Reviews

Big budget flop (no plot spoilers)

[RareMovieCritic · 4/10 · 31 March 2018]

This is not a good movie. It's not even okay. It's a bad film and it's not really a subjective issue.

Some background: Nicky is considered a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church and his depiction in this film, doing unsaintly things, was highly controversial in Russia. Not really boycotts and a hashtag campaign, but terrorism and bomb threats, which only succeeded in delaying the premiere.

Some of the low scores it gets is from people who are against this film. Most other votes are from people who thought it was a bad movie. And they're completely right.

I don't have any qualms with how historically accurate the film is, or I would have none, if it were good. It's inaccurate, but gets no minus points for inaccuracy, just for being boring.

The palaces, interiors, dresses, etc. are all very pretty, but the story is really boring. A lot of things are quite amateurish - when the empress told her son that the affair with the dancer must end and that the dancer must disappear, she said "promise me" (that that will happen). Nicky says "no" and walks away. So the empress talks to herself and says "Then I'll have to do it myself" - this kind of weak acting, weak script, where a person reveals their evil masterplan to the viewers is something of theater or really low quality TV, not of cinema.

The sex scenes, while well shot and performed, are too long and don't advance the story. It reminds me of The Room or Samurai Cop. Between the sex scenes, the bedroom/pillow talk scenes, the Mathilde getting dressed scenes, kissing scenes, bathtub scenes and the many, many dance scenes (dance and rehearsal) a lot of this film is just "look at this pretty stuff."

There's really not much left to say without going over the plot other than it's really light on story and heavy on aesthetic.

Promising start, but bad finish

[meissotruey · 4/10 · 8 March 2021]

The only strong part of the movie is it's visual: shooting, decorations, costumes and locations look excellent. The movie looks expensive, and it is.

A not profound movie

[Chinesevil · 4/10 · 16 November 2021]

The actors have not reached a high level of quality; the plot tries in vain to show us a romantic story that has never been that way. In the end, bad women without morals will always exist but they will never have a successful future.

All that glitters is not gold

[paroles2000 · 1/10 · 6 December 2017]

It's a tricky task to review Mathilde, because the political controversy surrounding this film in Russia inevitably throws a shadow. If you don't like the movie – does it say something about your political taste or the artistic one? And yet I'll attempt. No politics in my review.

The movie is very poorly conceptualized, written and acted. The concept that transpired to me was to produce an expensive box-office success by shooting it in Russia's magnificent historical monuments and by using famous people's story and nudity.

The script seems to be written by a fifth-grader, the dialog is plain and ridiculous and it sounds even more ridiculous in its native Russian. Actually it sounds a lot like it's been written in a foreign language and then translated into Russian, which I think is what had actually happened, the screenwriter being American.

The cast. It looks like the production team was so preoccupied with creating impressive sets very little time was given to casting. Mathilde herself seems to be a copy of Elizabeth McGovern in Ragtime, minus the acting talent. The 41-year old Lars Eidinger is too old for the role of a young and romantic future emperor Nicholas I, who was 25-26 at the time and acted accordingly. (No-no, the story of Nicholas and Mathilde was not a May-December romance!) Also, since the actor is German, he is very artificially dubbed by a Russian voice actor. Nicholas's parents, the Russian royal couple are played by strikingly non-noble actors (chosen no doubt for their fame in Russia). His fiancée Alix is nothing but a weird half-wit, so the closing statement that Nicholas and Alix were happy for 25 years is not supported by anything we saw in the previous 2 hours. In fact none of the characters in the film has any depth or life in them, they all are stick figures, functions of the plot.

As far as the historical aspect of the film is concerned I can take any degree of artistic license, but it distracts me greatly to see the royal family in the 1890-s go about their business without any help (or even presence!) of servants and staff, or use the phone without the help of an operator. No but really, why bother with the historical sets if you don't care how the characters exist in those exquisite spaces?

But most disapointlingly, there is no love story. Two good-looking people randomly falling into each other's arms in various lavish interiors and declaring love do not constitute an on screen love story. There is no chemistry, no depth and no heart in all that we are shown in Mathilde, alas. There is one great true life story that is waiting to be made in a great movie.

Fascinating splendid fantasy

[phd_travel · 7/10 · 17 September 2018]

The sets and costumes are reason alone for watching this movie. It's amazingly produced. If you accept the story is a melodramatic exaggeration of the facts then it's exciting and entertaining. One flaw is the cast Nicky and Alix don't look much like the people they are playing. Just accept it as a fantasy version of history and you'll have a good time. The subtitles are hard to read.

Distorted and historically inacurate film

[DesertFlowerInArizona · 1/10 · 20 December 2017]

Now I have to make one disclaimer. I was at a distinct disadvantage in watching as I do not know much of the spoken Russian language and there were no subtitles provided. I read more than I speak. However, you needn't be fluent in a foreign language to understand that sometimes in film, actions can and many times do speak louder than words.

The positives? the costumes and scenery are breathtaking beautiful and the cinematography was excellent. The negatives and there were plenty: At the heart of it all, "Mathilde" is still a "beautiful" fabrication. Now I totally understand why half of Russia lost its collective mind over this film. Mind, I don't condone the kinds of violence that took place such as what happened in the weeks before the premiere, but way I see it, the director Alexei Uchitel deserves any current or future universal scorn, derision and ridicule coming his way! He didn't just insult the Orthodox Church with this travesty called "Mathilde", he also insulted the intelligence of members of the international movie going public who just happen to believe that historical accuracy in film is important! That just might be the greater sin here.

Uchitel could've and should've made a truly great and respectful film but in short he dropped the ball. "Mathilde" is an ill conceived film chock full of inaccuracies and outright lies from start to finish! They'll be easy to spot if you know anything about the history of the Romanovs or Russian History at all. Never mind the unnecessary nudity and the gratuitous fornication scenes that Uchitel packed within the first 20 minutes of the film. Even then it still didn't stop the film from just being tedious and dragging on interminably lol. Ok...so I get it that sex sells, but there's nothing to buy at that store, dear! There was nothing romantic about this film IMO. If a person wants a porno disguised as a "romance" (so as to induce less guilt about watching trash, I imagine lol) ... there are plenty of so-called couples films at your local adult bookstore and online that are probably of better quality lol. One can't help but notice that Uchitel keeps the love scene between the Tsar and Tsarina much shorter, so basically he's telling us that "stolen fruit is sweeter" than a full and true love between two married people. Not very original concept IMO. Plus, it belies the fact that Tsar Nicholas II and Tsarina Alexandra were a loving couple in every way throughout the 24 year of their married lives...and we all know any dalliance that may or may not have took place between the Tsar and Matilda only went on for two years, tops! Way I see it, thought, there's much worse things to be upset about in the movie than the silliness of the hanky panky.

Historically speaking, Uchitel didn't just take artistic license. He went wayyyy overboard in taking unethical extreme liberties by distorting the legitimate (and well documented) real life stories of three public figures from Russian History. Each one of them has an interesting and compelling story in his and her own right! Uchitel turned the Romanovs as well as Mathilde Kschessinska into ugly and grotesque caricatures, thus re-writing history in the process. Uchitel presented to us a luxurious, sensual but in every way fictitious romantic rivalry that is so overly dramatic, capricious and impulsive that it makes Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet look clear thinking and logical by comparison! I especially disliked the meanspirited way he depicts Tsarina Alix...as though she were some insecure, jealous and vindictive dried up middle aged spinster rather than the beautiful young person she was confident in Nicky's love for her. She never confronted Matilda. In fact, it's well documented that she blew off the affair as a minor indiscretion, and forgave Nicky for it. Her forgiveness was in writing in his own diary! It's interesting that Uchitel casted actors who were considerably older than the characters they played...but yet Matilda still looks young. I was annoyed by that miscasting, plus the fact they show the Tsar fawning over Mathilda AFTER his engagement announcement? Practically under the Tsarina's nose? Implying that the two of them were still a thing? What a load of you know what!

According to everything I've read about Mathilde Kschessinska, she had no other "lovers" prior to Tsar Nicholas III...so who is that guy Count Vorotsov (the guy constantly being waterboarded) supposed to be? An obsesssed fan, a secret lover? Representing Russia itself? I googled to find out who he is, but found one other person with that name but that guy lived 100 years prior to the time period that the film covers. It made no sense to me whatsoever to include that extraneous character to the film. He adds nothing to the movie. Unless Uchitel is trying to posit that the Romanovs and Mathilde were cruel and torturers? Yet another lie!

The worst of the many lies in this film? The coronation scene. Does Uchitel seriously expect us to believe that Matilda dressed as a bride could so easily crash a state event where she was not invited and was so heavily guarded? How ridiculous to insinuate that all Tsar Nicholas needed to hear is the sound of "Maya's" voice repeatedly through out the film quasi-orgasmically screaming "Nicky" for every little thing, and he'll go into a dead faint...especially at the coronation where it was evident that he was already married? Puhleeze! None of that happened! If it had then don't you think history would've recorded it? So, don't insult us the movie viewers with such nonsense.

...and don't get me started with the way the stampede scene was handled...

Overall, I get the impression that Uchitel must think his audience is uneducated or just straight up gullible. If he truly thought we were intelligent adults, why else would he had attempted to dress up a $25 million dollar steaming piece of excrement and then pass it off hoping we'll see it as a beautiful artisanal chocolate truffle that we'd be just delighted to consume again and again? Personally, I think the film industry should invent a special rating for films like this kind: TG for Tedious Garbage.

An affair not to remember

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 7 January 2019]

Love Russian film and have a soft spot for the Russian language (a beautiful one, though it takes time to get your head around the phonetic alphabet, the symbols, the stresses and the hard and soft signs), having studied singing in it on my vocal and operatic studies course. The story here in 'Mathilde' was an interesting one. So decided to see it as choice film of the night with my sister on Amazon.

My sister did find it a little more interesting than me, though she didn't have prior knowledge to the story (or of the Russian language other than hearing me sing in it) before watching, compared to me having knowledge of some of it. As for me, do have to agree with those who were really let down, some insulted, by 'Mathilde'. Not irredeemable but there is a lot wrong with it, more wrong than there is right. It has been rightly said that much of, well almost all of, 'Mathilde' is a fabrication or at least heavily fictionalised. The often gross liberties did make a lot of it far less plausible and increasingly difficult to take seriously, but actually there is far more to the problem than the lack of historical accuracy.

Credit is due that 'Mathilde' is a visually stunning film. The period detail, interiors and exteriors, are mounted exquisitely and makes one envious and the costumes are also a sumptuous visual feast evocative to period. All complemented by beautiful, if sometimes too "artsy", cinematography.

The music, always an important asset for me to talk about when reviewing films, is both lush and atmospheric, like a character of its own in its best bits and having a presence without being over-bearing. It starts off reasonably intriguingly, though this doesn't last for long.

However, 'Mathilde' succeeds badly in having a potentially interesting story and making it often deadly dull. The pace is lifeless with too many scenes going on for far too long in a rather ostentatious way and some of the film felt like padding. Some of it unnecessary and at other points confusing. Too much of the story is soapy and melodramatic, with no tension or emotion, to the point of unintentional silliness (the climax being absurdly over-the-top). The script is stilted and like something out of a bad stale soap opera, as well as being over-speculative and devoid of any emotion.

Didn't care or believe for any of the characters (that's including the central couple), none of them come over as real or are given any depth. Some add absolutely nothing to the story too and either complicate it or make the film more over-the-top than it already is. The direction gets the style right but when it comes to the substance it falls completely flat on its face from the get go, with scenes intended to be intense or moving, like the train crash or the climax, having nothing to them. The acting is not much better, with a bland female lead and cartoonish "villains", as well as Nicholas being played far too stiffly. Nicholas' father is the best acted of the lot (to me that is) but is not in it much. The chemistry between the two leads isn't there either, some of it looking under-rehearsed.

Overall, disappointing with a good deal of interest botched by weak execution. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Isn't worth the time

[ignatsavkin · 1/10 · 28 October 2017]

Very weak script. The movie doesn't trigger any emotions whatsoever. In addition it's full of awkward moments that reveal producer's lack of historical knowledge. Even some simple scenes haven't been properly thought through. Starting with the train crash (a log carriage?! really?!) ending with ridiculous cathedral climbing when there simply is an open door. Long story short - don't waste your time.

This movie must be seen!

[leo_mad · 9/10 · 1 November 2017]

It's fantastical new movie made by one of the best modern Russian director Aleksey Uchitel. Definitely, you can't recognised this movie as "the real" story - and so what? Yes, it's another beautiful fairy tail about Love, but how professionally it was done! Perfect costumes, perfect casting, perfect example of "virtual history" (sort of "virtual history" we all know from ancient classic Latin writers), very dynamic, very, very, very!

The main drama of the movie is the conflict between THE LOVE and THE ONUS, and if the Emperor of Russian Empire could have the choice in it (it's an ancient dilemma of the world: Love vs Onus).

IMHO all the scandal around this movie happened in Russia (organised by Orthodox church) is total fake and totally idiotic!

9 from 10 without any doubts! This movie must be seen! Thank you Mr. Uchitel!

What a nonsense!

[mrak-19205 · 1/10 · 15 February 2018]

Uchitel has made a few good movies but his last few films are pure junk. Pity!

Really bad screenplay and inconsistent scenes

[rubashna-d · 3/10 · 23 April 2018]

I never bother writing reviews but I really want to share my opinion about this movie. The screenplay is barely existent: each scene lasts no more than 2 minutes and in between each of them there is a huge time jump, sometimes in years. Example: there is no trail of story about them falling in love, in one scene they first meet, and in the next one they're already dating for ages; in one scene the father is sick and in the next the mourning period is already over (had no idea that he even died in between!!). In my opinion the movie was severely cut, by like at least an hour. It's impossible that someone could have written such an inconsistent screenplay. It was quite painful to watch, and maybe this whole scandal about the movie was created to generate buzz once the Ministry of Culture realised the movie is crap (they invested 1/3 of the $20M budget).

Historically wrong and not worth your time

[happynaam · 1/10 · 30 July 2018]

The worst movie ever. The creators should be ashamed of such hystorical lies. Do not waste your time on this one.

a silly, absurde lie

[Kirpianuscus · 25 November 2017]

The costumes, the atmosphere, the mixture of drama and tragic romance are seductive in high measure. but , for an Orthodox Christian like me, "Matilda"remains, more than a film, a terrible lie . sure, the term is not soft, but it represents a pure blasphemy. not only for the different image of a saint martyr. but for the desire of director to give a kitsch fairy tale, in impressive package/clothes, about a poor man under the hard times. "Matilda" propose an alternative story about Saint Nicholas II Romanov. and, if you see it as fiction, it works in some measure ( sure, if the expectations are low ). as portrait of the Tsar, it is a huge and impolite and absurde lie. but the success has not moral. and the ambition to propose something real strong, at the border of sacrilege, it is not exactly a surprise. because the soap operas ( "Matilda" is a slice from that genre ) are easy shows especially for the silly absurd stories. unfurnatelly, it is a real bad film.

Interesting story it was, but not in this movie

[lucy-ferr-0010 · 2/10 · 27 May 2018]

If this movie is using real persons names, it shouldn't be so far from real facts. Sadly, it is from the very start, where Nicky faints during his wedding. Utter nonsense, as it is known that he was genuinely in love with Alix (that marriage did not made his mother happy as she hoped for better standing partner for him). It is funny to see ppl from Russia call Nicholas and Alexandra saints (they were a normal happy couple, just totally unfit for ruling, and victims of both their actions and historical events). Yet this movie really made even me angry. Why not take real facts which are interesting enough? Why make such a stupid script? Moreover, the actors don't resemble the people they are playing to the least.

depthless trash

[shivasitaraman · 1/10 · 1 February 2019]

Beyond the fact that this movie is totally inaccurate from a historical standpoint, it had no depth whatsoever. It was cheap and trashy with marginal performances by the various actors. Rather than try and endear the main character to the audience, the script and acting made her come across as a very irritating person. If I could give this one a zero rating, I would. Avoid this movie

An (unfulfilled) fairy tale from Mother Russia history

[CupPusta · 9/10 · 28 October 2017]

Yes, he was volatile and shaky, a contrary to his father. Yes, she was a capricious ambitious heart-breaker. And he (yet quite unprepared and not entirely grown-up) is going to be crowned. And he has to get royally married. A vaudeville story, on one side. But, Russian drama unfolds, even through a vaudeville. A character to make historic mistakes, unknowingly leading not only his life, but life of his family, the country, to a tragic end. A 300 years old Russian Empire fairy-tale to end in modern era. Who knows, if Nicholas would abdicate, and marry Mathilde, maybe history will be turned into a completely different direction... Director has brilliantly showed it; done by amazingly good casted characters (quite impressing is the role of Alexander the Third). And, it's a very nicely and colorfully shot movie. To me, it was a Saturday evening well spent - that's just a right story to enjoy on weekend.

Beautiful film Ignore the haters!

[nikitafaye · 10/10 · 26 August 2020]

First off this is a film not a documentary or a historical event so people complaining of inaccuracies are simple minded. Beautiful set! Beautiful costumes and although I wanted a little more in depth at both characters I enjoyed this film. I'm a lover of Russian culture, history and language. I found this film to be wonderfully done with portrayal of Nicholas to be splendid. I did find the ending to be a little rushed or I guess "off" kind of thrown in our faces instead of tied together. Nevertheless I enjoyed it and will watch again.

Von Sternberg lives!

[talltchr · 9/10 · 18 June 2019]

There was a time when MGM overshadowed its competitors with sumptuous productions of romantic scripts. Profundity and historical accuracy were put on the back burner; beautiful actors fighting and loving in gorgeous costumes against astonishing sets were preeminent. Mathilde, a Russian film, evokes that era and I loved every frame of it. If there is anything poignant about this film, it is the audience's knowledge that (spoiler) our hero, Nicholas II, and his entire family will be brutally murdered within two decades. And so this brief love story, like all living beauty, will wither. So feast your senses because tomorrow...?