Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Asad Almond A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Gavin Cresswell (gavin-thelordofthefu-48-460297) When I was in high school, I learned about the story of the Romanovs from Russia, most notably the events that led to their execution, which led to several TV series and film versions of those events. Then, a few years later, I came across this movie and decided to check it out after watching the trailer from YouTube. Upon viewing it, I was expecting a really solid film, but from what I've got, it's actually not that bad. OK, it's not one of my favorites, but I'm glad I saw it.Let's start with the positives. The script is really good. It's smart and intelligent in it's interpretation of the Downfall of the Romanov Dynasty during the Russian Revolution and has some really powerful moments particularly the scene where Tsar Nicholas and his son Alexei salute the soldiers of Saint Petersburg before as they march into war against Germany. The directing from the late Franklin J. Schaffner, who directed Planet of the Apes and Patton, is really superb and the photography and productions are well-detailed and gorgeous to look at. Richard Rodney Bennett, who died five years ago on December 24 2012, delivered a unique score that is rousing, dramatic, powerful, and haunting. The best part, however, goes to the actors, who did excellent with their roles. Michael Jayston did a fine job as Tsar Nicholas, a kind and loving father to his family, but also an incompetent ruler, Janet Suzman also did great as the Empress Alexandra, a kind mother, but another incompetent ruler whose chemistry with Michael Jayston and Tom Baker (which we'll get to in a moment) is spot on. Laurence Olivier also did a fine job as Count Witte, but Tom Baker, however, steals the show. Known as the famous Doctor Who, his role as Rasputin is top notch. He balances funny with really intense and shares some of his scenes with Janet Suzman solidly. The rest of the actors, including Ian Holm (who would later play Bilbo Baggins in in the Lord of the Rings trilogy) did a superb job with their limited roles (which isn't a bad thing).That being said, there are some problems that held the film back. First, there's the pacing, which runs at 188 minutes. I don't mind three hour films, but here, it went on for way too long and could've been at least an hour or two. Also, there are some scenes that padded the movie's runtime including having Rasputin be distracted by a man dressed in drag during the assassination sequence and Alexei, Nicholas's hemophiliac son, committing suicide. But the biggest letdown, however, is the ending, which to be honest wasn't as powerful compared to the first 2/3 of the film. It didn't have any drama and what's worse is that it omitted the speech that made the Execution of the Romanovs event so important.To end this review, I don't think it's a failure as everyone makes it out to be, but had those flaws not hold the film back, it would've been a masterpiece. However, the movie is still worth seeing. It's well-acted, It's well-made, and certainly for those who love the history of Russia. Check it out and you won't regret it.

gab-14712 In 1971, the era of the grand epics were over. The last great epic leading up to this year was 1965's Doctor Zhivago. Every once in awhile, an epic will come along trying to repeat the glory of the past. 1971's Nicholas and Alexandria is an example of that. Does this movie succeed in returning to it's former glory? Not quite….but I very much enjoyed this movie, more so than many people it seems. The film has its issues which I'll explain momentarily, but this was a valuable history lesson to those who know little about the Russian Revolution or Czar Nicholas II-the last Czar in Russian history.This movie tells the story, the tragic story of Czar Nicholas II (Michael Jayston) set against the backdrop of the Russian Revolution. This movie goes inside the private life of Nicholas and his wife, Alexandria (Janet Suzman) as well as their daughters and only son. Their son spends most of his childhood crippled with sickness, so the family hire the mysterious Rasputin (Tom Baker) for help in curing him. On the political side of things, Nicholas is very unpopular and is the root cause of seven million deaths because of their involvement in World War I and domestic problems such as starvation. All of these problems has Nick and his family paying the ultimate consequence.This is the second of two movies to have the Russian Revolution as the backdrop. The first film was the big musical hit, Fiddler on the Roof. That movie occurred pre-Revolution. But this film focuses on the causes of the Revolution and the immediate aftermath. Or so it's supposed to. My biggest problem with the film is that it treats the Revolution itself as an afterthought. There are cameos by very important characters such as Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin-but they hardly had any effect on the film. I wanted to know more about the Revolution itself and how Lenin took over Russia. I can't be too upset because this film is about the life of Nicholas after all. I wish I wasn't tantalized with the scenes of Lenin however.I divided up this epic into two sections. The first section is what I find to be the more glorified, beautiful part of the film. Many epics rely on vast landscapes, but this epic does something a little different. It relies upon vast interior decoration designed to take your breath away. The Russian architecture, especially on the inside is certainly something to behold. The art direction and the production design certainly are incredible in this film. The first part mainly tells us how life is like for Czar and his family despite all the war and suffering going around them. The second half is a different kind of story. It's a sad, painful story that shows how life of the Czar fell apart after the Revolution which culminated in a very sad, but brilliantly-made ending scene showing the execution of Czar Nick and his entire family. Of course as a student of history I knew what happened, but that scene had tears coming from my eyes. Nicholas was not an innocent man, but he tried his best with what he got-but he couldn't get any better.This film was brilliantly-acted. That impresses me because the two lead actors (Michael Jayston and Janet Suzman) never worked in film prior to this film. They were seasoned British stage actors but they made the transition to film really well. If you can get used to Jayston's overreacting facial expressions, you probably will appreciate what he brought to the role as the czar. A man who had a good soul, but is largely blamed for the death of millions. Suzman does an incredible job as his wife, Alexandria who had a role in why Russia was in such bad shape. She sometimes controlled her husband to the point where it seemed like he was a puppet. They had great chemistry with each other, so I was impressed what they did with this film. Tom Baker gives a good performance as the mysterious Rasputin. There is one thing that bothered me about this character. There is a scene where all of the sudden he becomes a homosexual. I'm not sure if history supports that notion, but the way the film showed it out of the blue kind of bothered me. The supporting cast all do well in their roles. Any movie that features Jack Hawkins, Laurence Olivier, Ian Holm, and Brian Cox in the same cast is a good one by my book.Nicholas and Alexandra is quite a fascinating epic. The first half is a movie about style, about grandeur during a time where peasant living conditions were terrible. The second half of the movie is a haunting story of the Czar's downfall. I loved the production design and the film was given an authentic feeling. It must be nice being so rich like the Czar was. The second-half is my favorite section of the film and that final scene is a powerful, very emotionally-driven scene. The story itself was good, but it could have been much better if the actual Revolution was not used as an afterthought. But given this movie seems to be the only one in existence about Czar Nicholas II and his final days, I am very satisfied with this film. Maybe my grade is high because of the powerful last few minutes, but there is no denying this is a good epic that came out in an era where these kind of movies were seen as dead.My Grade: A-

Maynard Handley A historical movie can appeal to many different types of audiences, but to be beloved, it has to choose at least one target audience. This movie seems unable to muster the energy to perform this most basic of tasks.It doesn't have the grandeur, the Lawrence of Arabia or Dr Zhivago visuals that excite one viscerally. To be honest it looks like the various low budget BBC historical dramas from the early 70s. It doesn't have any characters for one which feels much sympathy or admiration. (This is honest, but fails as a movie.) And it doesn't have the intellectual depth that is, I think, its natural strength. The history can be approached in two ways --- as a Shakespearean tragedy or as a Greek tragedy. The approach taken was Shakespeare, so we're shown (over and over again, oh god it gets tiresome) how Nicholas is a weak man, how he's a stupid man, how he's a deluded man; and what follows is a consequence of this weakness and delusion. Nothing there of any intellectual interest, nothing there that's unfamiliar to anyone with even the slightest familiarity with the history. Vastly superior would have been a Greek tragedy approach: the tragedy was inherent in the situation, and was pretty much inevitable. The movie could then, instead of the constant emotionality and petty psychologizing, have spent that screen time engaged in some interesting discussion --- perhaps between some Bolsheviks, perhaps between Kerensky and some of the old guard. I'd have used that time to have characters ask how one avoids these ontological tragedies, tragedies of situation. Obviously the Greek answer (to one version of the problem) is the Oresteia --- you avoid cycles of revenge by giving law and punishment up to the state rather than engaging in it as individuals. The equivalent question here is how could the execution have been avoided, given the very real fact that the Whites were fighting back, were doing well, and were likely to reinstate the Royal family. My answer, in these imaginary dialogs I'd have play through the movie occasionally, would be to discuss individuals like Henry VII, or Charles II, or William III (all of England) --- individuals who were willing forgive and forget, who were willing to mete out punishments less than death, who were willing to share power. Basically this particular tragedy was resolved in the West by converting politics from a blood sport to "mere disagreement"; and if Nicholas had been willing to go down that path (from day one of his accession, not when it was too little too late) things could have turned out very differently. A movie like I suggest, full of dense discussion and historical allusion all the way through, would obviously not have mass appeal. But at least it would have SOME appeal, unlike what we've been given, which just doesn't work well for anyone.

bkoganbing Nicholas And Alexandra covers a lot of the same ground that Dr. Zhivago does and a good deal more. The difference is that Zhivago views the Russian Revolution and its aftermath from the view of several fictional, but real composite people author Boris Pasternak knew.Robert K. Massie however was writing history, not fiction, and his story is intertwined with the personal story of Nicholas Romanov and Alexandra of Hesse who were a rarity among royalty, a love match. The only other one like it that comes immediately to mind is that of Charles Stuart and Queen Henrietta Marie of Great Britain. And both monarchs came to the same tragic end.I read the book many years ago, 1971 to be precise. It was in the day room of the basic training company I was assigned in that garden spot of the universe, Fort Polk, Louisiana. For several weeks I went to that room and read about Nicky and Alix and their times. I became the Romanov expert of Fort Polk. Too bad there wasn't a call for my knowledge. Mr. Massie is also one incredibly slow writer, in this case I really recommend you see the movie rather than read the book.The story covers the time from the birth of their last child, the Tsarevitch Alexis to the deaths of the Romanov family. Perhaps if Nicholas had not been the good and caring father he was, dealing with Alexis's hemophilia, he might have paid more attention to stirrings in his country and the course of world history might have been different.Nicholas was an autocrat though, the last among the major European rulers. Even his cousin the Kaiser had given his country an elected Parliament and was far more advanced industrially. He had what most reckoned was the best army in the world, the best trained, the most mechanized and a mighty industrial machine. All Russia had was a vast population which took a bad beating in two wars, the Russo-Japanese War, and World War I in Nicholas's time.Nicholas thought as his predecessor Alexander I did, that he could outlast the outsiders as his people did under Napoleon's invasion. The problem was that he never grasped that he was not giving his people a reason to fight and Lenin and the Bolsheviks were giving them every reason to quit.Michael Jayston plays the complex role of Czar Nicholas II, a man both decent and dense at the same time. Janet Suzman was the Czarina Alexandra, a woman who insisted on her royal prerogatives on all occasions. Suzman, who was nominated for Best Actress but lost to Jane Fonda for Klute, has the most interesting role. Hemophilia is hereditary and while men get it, the women are the carriers. Her guilt over that and remember were not just talking an ordinary family, but a royal heir caused her to seek out every quack remedy going and ultimately to the influence of the malevolent Rasputin.If Rasputin were alive today he'd be a starting a televangelist movement for the Russian Orthodox Church. To this day no one really knows what powers and abilities he had over the young Tsarevitch and his ability control the bleeding, but whatever it was, it did work. He gained ascendancy over the Tsarina because of that.Tom Baker, best known as the Fourth Doctor Who, plays the charismatic and cunning Rasputin. This is probably is best performance outside the Doctor Who series. Why he wasn't given Oscar consideration, the Deity only knows.Out of the large supporting cast Laurence Olivier stands out as Count Witte, the best of Nicholas's ministers. Witte in his career was responsible for the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway and was able to negotiate a peace that involved great saving of face for Russia which was beaten badly in the Russo-Japanese War. In the film and in real life Witte was not listened to.Nicholas and Alexandra is both entertaining and historically accurate. Besides Janet Suzman's nomination the film received several other nominations and won for Best Art&Set Decorations and Best Costume Design. Director Franklin J. Schaffner was overlooked for Best Director, then again he won the previous year for Patton. Nicholas and Alexandra was also up for Best Picture, but lost to The French Connection. I wouldn't miss it if it's broadcast.