People are voting emotionally.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

AGONY was a huge disappointment. The subject matter is one of the most fascinating episodes of the 20th century, the collapse of Russia's Romanov dynasty amid world war and revolution, and in particular the pernicious influence of the peasant "holy man" Rasputin over the royal family...so why is this such a dull, turgid movie? In an interview on the DVD, director Klimov makes a big deal about breaking Soviet stereotype by showing Czar Nicholas as a flawed human being (rather than a complete monster), and also about Soviet limitations on showing graphic sex (therefore Rasputin's notorious debauchery is only barely hinted at). So Soviet censorship is at least partly to blame, but so is Klimov's ineptitude. Instead of spectacle or realism, AGONY uses clumsy and dated propaganda techniques to convey its historical context. It delivers not a shred of psychological insight into its subjects, nor even the satisfactions of simple sensationalism. I still await the film that will give me some understanding of the phenomenon of Rasputin.

This film is so odd and bizarre that I was totally immersed in it. In actuality this is a basic story that deals with Siberian peasant 'Rasputin', the mystic whose ability to improve the condition of Aleksey Nikolayevich, the hemophiliac heir to the Russian throne, made him an influential favourite at the court of Emperor Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra. The actor who plays Rasputin is an evil duplicate, a man who is oozing virulence, he has a very charismatic smile that almost looks diabolical.He's a strange character and has a powerful influence on the Czar's family and Russian political life. As the viewer, we are left to wonder, 'what do these people see in him, how does he control them so?'. He soon makes enemies of the church, the state, and local husbands who do not take kindly to his debauchery and licentiousness. The director is brilliant in weaving a documentary montage of Russian events and the ending is one of the most powerful ever envisioned by a director.

I must say that for me no other director is even getting close to the level of annoyance of Mr. Klimov. I like Petrenko and the is guy really trying to get this stuff off the ground but even such heavyweight as him can't pull this off. Rent it if you have seen the other one - for the full measure but Elem bores the hell out of me with his predictability.

...but I speak the language fluently. Even so, I need the subtitles to get through this one. Petrenko is VERY convincing as the mad monk.The plot is every bit as convoluted and murky as was Russian society in those days.It's a great film, one of my favorites from Russia/USSR...