Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Load of rubbish!!

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Tom Baker makes a great Rasputin, however the lead actors bored me terribly, so I suppose it doesn't matter that the script was often filled with hokey banal dialogue. The big sin with the film as Hollywood propaganda is that it put all the blame for Russia's problems on the Czar and ignored the treachery and vicious Old Testament-inspired violent sadism of the Bolsheviks, who were not thinking about the good of the Russian people at all, but how they could suck the country dry and use it to further other ambitions (like the globalism which has now led to the present immigration crisis). According to Mark Twain and others, Russia's problems with "usury folk" date back to the 1870s, with assassinations and bad dealings, it had little or nothing to do with Christian intolerance as we have heard.If Hollywood and the Western media was to be believed, Lenin and his friends wanted to help workers, yet we know that perhaps millions of ethnic Russians were killed after the Bolsheviks took control (this was later blamed on Stalin even though he was not in power). The deaths tied to the Czar pale by comparison. Who was the real tyrant? We also learn that George Patton felt so strongly that Communists were the greatest threat, he concluded the US should have sided with Hitler against them! But he died from an "accident" before he could return stateside.The movie serves as an example of how Hollywood sought to portray history in a way that slants it with less than noble aims.Seems like the Rolling Stones song Sympathy for the Devil was hinting at it too:I stuck around St. Petersburg When I saw it was a time for a change Killed the Tsar and his ministers Anastasia screamed in vain

This film is an intimate look at the lives of the last Tsar and Tsarina of Russia, Nicholas and Alexandra Romanov (Michael Jayston and Janet Suzman), however, although it has elements of an epic, it often seems apologetic about it.The story covers the period from the birth of the Tzar's haemophiliac son, Alexei, in 1904 until the brutal murder of the family during the Russian revolution. The causes of the revolution become obvious as the grievances of the people grow and the Tsar becomes more obstinate about relinquishing power.The film is effective in giving us an inside look at the lives of Nicholas and his family. The scenes with Rasputin (Tom Baker) as he works his way into the lives of the royal family are fascinating as are the vignettes of the revolutionaries: Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky as they plot for power. The soul of the movie is in the last half hour as the protective bubble around the Romanovs bursts and they are humiliated and then cruelly eliminated.There was an opportunity for a massive canvas, there are big scenes, but strangely the filmmakers often cut away before they fully develop; the police charge the students, but we cut away as the batons begin to fall; the troops start to open fire on the crowd of protesters, but we cut to the aftermath - an overly self-conscious technique.I remember seeing this back in 1971 and inevitably compared it to David Lean's "Doctor Zhivago". Lean's film caught a sense of the vastness and mystery of Russia from the opening scenes, "Nicholas and Alexandra" rarely does. Of course neither film was made in Russia, but "Nicholas and Alexandra" starts in the royal bedroom without any attempt to establish a sense of place.That introduction sets the static tone of much of the film - although the costumes are lavish, the interiors are photographed in a straightforward manner not unlike a filmed stage play.A good score by Richard Rodney Bennett gave the film a sense of depth and the last part of the film brings home the tragedy as the royal family meet their terrible fate. An austere film in many ways, it does however give an insight into a world-shaking time in history.

Lavish production design and Shakespearian performances elevate this handsome looking production. Story-wise it's quite emotionally poignant and sticks close enough to history to bring enjoyment to anyone patient enough to put up with the slow pace and talky nature of things.An air of apocalyptic unreality engulfs the Romanov family through their downfall from 1904-1918. If you think about it, had any one of the factors presented here not happened, we may never have had a Stalin, a Lenin, a Hitler, a Cold War, or any 20th Century as we know it. What if the Tsar never had a son? What if he hadn't been born with Hemophilia? What if Rasputin, the bizarre mad monk hadn't been there at just the right time? We will never know. It's astonishing though that such small things represent such pivotal cornerstones in our history.According to this film, the insecure and controlling Tsarina Alexandra was largely if not fully responsible for Nicholas II's inept leadership and decision making, with the addition of a hemophiliac son certainly not helping much to keep him from being utterly distracted from sound running of the country. I have to call this film quite successful though in terms of finding a way to make him into a very tragic figure and most of the revolutionaries like Kerensky are presented as quite human and multidimensional.While this film has much in common with DOCTOR ZHIVAGO including some extremely top-notch cinematography, lighting, and set design, it also suffers from a lot of the same downfalls like not being able to maintain its energy over its full running time. Despite all the big sets, it doesn't feel as big of a film due to largely shying away from action and bloodshed during this very violent time. Things start to feel quite sad and listless as the film bears down upon its inevitable climax, but along the way there are plenty of notable moments of greatness:* Any scene involving Tom Baker's mesmerizing personification of Rasputin. This certainly was a role requiring that delicate balance of humor and intensity that no one could ever hope to surpass this largely (at the time) unknown actor with. This led directly to his casting as the villain in THE GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD and then to his becoming a TV legend.* The subplot of the factory family turned revolutionaries who lose their matriarch during Bloody Sunday.* The rapid buildup to war and hijacking of the peace process by his Hawkish Generals followed by rapid disintegration of the Russian army after its many crippling defeats. There's just something so fascinating to me about watching armies crumble under poor morale and desertion, maybe as it feels unthinkable to anyone who grew up in a fairly patriotic American military household like I did.For a fuller picture of what was going on at the time, I'd recommend watching the films BATTLE OF THE SEA OF JAPAN (for a view of the humiliating defeats of the Russo-Japanese War mentioned during the first part of the film), TIKHIY DON, and DOCTOR ZHIVAGO for a window into the chaotic nature of the Russian Revolution and Civil War.

I was really interested in seeing this film, I am intrigued by the story of the Romanovs and when I saw the cast I was like it looks as though I was in for a good film. When I did see it, I was impressed. It isn't perfect though, for one thing at 165 or so minutes it is too long, consequently some scenes felt drawn out and very padded. Pacing was a problem too, I am not saying that Nicholas and Alexandra is the only film to suffer from this problem because it isn't, but there are moments where the film does drag. Finally, there were moments towards the end where it could have done with more drama. The Romanovs's deaths especially could have been chilling, instead whereas I felt sad and angry at how any family could be killed in such a way, the actual scene itself wasn't quite as powerful as it could have been.Flaws aside, Nicholas and Alexandra is sumptuous to look at. The cinematography looks fabulous and fluid, the costumes are colourful and lush and the scenery and buildings are both imposing and beautiful. The score is also beautiful, there are some parts in the film when there is no music and even no dialogue(not a problem at all, merely an observation), but regardless when the music was playing it was rich and sensitive. I also liked the quality of the script, it was thoughtful and intelligent, with a film like this that's what it needed to be. The direction is solid, and the story while some scenes could have done with more drama as I have mentioned already is still absorbing. The strongest asset though is the cast, Michael Jayston and Janet Suzman are both wonderful as the Tsar and Tsarina, Alexandra is the more interesting character but both actors did superbly. Tom Baker is a very charismatic and cunning Rasputin, and the ever great Laurence Olivier is impeccable as Witte.Overall, not absolutely superb but it is absorbing and it looks great. Plus it has the benefits of being impeccably acted by a strong cast and a good script. 7/10 Bethany Cox