Benutzerrezensionen

"Nicholas and Alexandra" is one of the last of the grand, sweeping epics that dominated the box office in the 50's and 60's. With the new wave of young, reckless directors who took to the scene in the 70's this kind of filmmaking seemed strangely dated. Ironically enough it kind of mimics the fate of the Romanov family, holding on to ideals that can no longer protect them. The genre, which had started with aplomb with movies like "Gone With The Wind" didn't draw the numbers it used to, and after seeing this movie I can't help but think of what a shame that is.

The movie is off to a slow start, and doesn't really grab the viewer until after the introduction of Rasputin. From there on in it's pure cinematic joy to witness the fate of the Tzar and his family unravel.

The actors do a tremendous job. It's obvious that the producers wanted their actors to look as much like their characters as possible, and while this doesn't necessarily strengthen the movie by itself it clearly gives it a stronger feel of authenticity. Furthermore they perfectly embody their flawed characters. The czar, beautifully played by Michael Jayston is a warm, caring man who unfortunately is totally unfit to be a czar. He is out of touch with his people, and feebly clings to his autocratic power. Jayston manages to portray an almost absurd certainty in his divine right, and ability to rule while at the same time exposing his uncertainty and fright. Janet Suzman is equally impressive as the loving, but domineering Alexandra.

The look and feel of the movie is also fantastic. The jaw-dropping visuals of Russia perfectly accommodates the story, and the music is wonderful all the way through. The pace is slow, and it's easy to see why critics who had just witnessed the exhilarating pace of movies like "A Clockwork Orange" or "The French Connection". But this was how these kinds of movies were made, and "Nicholas and Alexandra" does not shame the genre. It's actually a beautiful end to a spectacular genre which is well worth a look for anyone with a soft spot for David Lean-like movies.

Nicholas was King George V's cousin and Alexandra was Queen Victoria's granddaughter, so the casting of British actors Michael Jayston and Janet Suzman was a stroke of genius (and they are hardly "unknown" actors, at least in Britain). You actually believe they ARE the couple. Michael Jayston is truly remarkable as Nicholas and even resembles him. The rest of the cast is superb, especially Tom Baker's portrayal as Rasputin . . . marvelous!

The movie sticks pretty much to the facts. Keep in mind, Nicholas was not a bad man, but he didn't want to be Czar. He would have preferred to be a potato farmer. You feel the fear growing as Nicholas and his family slowly withdraw into their own world because of Alexis' Hemophilia. Nichola's stand that "God meant for me to rule" causes him to rarely listen to the good advice of the people around him and not heed the warning that he not go to the front to "take charge." Add to this the rumor of Alexandra being a German spy, Rasputin's death by Prince Yusupov and Grand Duke Dimitry, the loss of thousands of soldiers, the starving Russian people . . . and Nicholas leaves the door wide open for Lenin and his eventual return to power. After he abdicates, he and his family are shuttled around until they end up in Ekaterinburg and "The House of Special Purpose."

This is a great movie. See it if you have a long afternoon with nothing to do, you won't regret it.

BTW, the DVD version adds deleted scenes that sew up some loose ends.

At the time of it's release in December of 1971, "Nicholas and Alexandra" must have seemed like an anachronistic piece of film-making, especially when compared with fellow Best Picture Nominees, "A Clockwork Orange", "The French Connection" and "The Last Picture Show". Based on a best-selling work of popular history, it was film making on a grand scale, boasting for it's cast a veritable who's who of the English speaking stage, a sweeping love story spanning many years, thrown over thousands of miles, using the conflict of World War I and the Russian Revolution as it's background. It must have seemed to many like the best film David Lean never made. And superficially it does resemble Lean's epic of a few years earlier, "Doctor Zhivago". Indeed three of Lean's close associates, Producer Sam Spiegel, Production Designer John Box, and Cinematographer, Freddie Young all shine in this production. Unfortunately having arrived late in the historical epic film cycle, it was largely dismissed at the time of it's release by critics, but time has revealed it's many virtues.

Produced with lavish care and attention to detail by Sam Spiegel for Horizon Pictures, "Nicholas and Alexandra" is among the last of the great "thinking man's epics" and one of the best. This is due in no small measure to the wonderful screenplay by James Goldman. Goldman, who also scripted "The Lion in Winter" and "Robin and Marian" had a fine ear for dialogue, and "Nicholas and Alexandra" is a pleasure to listen to as well as to behold. Like Robert Bolt's "Lawrence of Arabia", Charles Wood's "Charge of the Light Brigade" and Robert Ardrey's "Khartoum", all fine historical epics, Goldman's "Nicholas and Alexandra" is elevated by an intelligent script laced with fine dialogue. Transposing history onto the screen is never an easy task, but the story of the last years of the Romanov Dynasty is well served by Goldman. He skillfully telescopes events, while still remaining basically true to historic fact. One way or another, all films dealing with history compromise fact for drama. The best of them achieve a balance between the two. Those pedants who quibble over this fact of life, please refer to the historical plays of Shakespeare for it's validation.

Among the film's many pleasures is the high level of acting by an impressive cast. Michael Jayston and Janet Suzman are simply magnificent in the lead roles. It was an uncanny and bold choice using two unknowns to star in a film of this scope, and they have no problems carrying the three hour film. Both create complex, three-dimensional characters, deeply flawed, yet appealing, sympathetic and infuriating. it is the film's unwillingness to portray them as simply victims that gives it tragic grandeur. A special note must be made of Tom Baker's performance as Rasputin. Too often in previous movies film-makers have exploited the sensational events of the man's life and nothing more. This film actually had the courage to downplay those lurid elements, striving instead for complexity of character. Here we have a tortured individual, a charlatan and a monk, lascivious yet craving spiritual redemption. The Imperial Children are also sensitively depicted, with a standout performance by Roderic Noble as the hemophiliac only son, Alexis. The internal angst he brings to the part in his later scenes is impressive. Franklin J. Schaffner's able direction keeps the film moving along, and at no time is there any danger of the film losing focus on the two leads. This was no mean feat considering the powerhouse supporting cast that included, Laurence Olivier, Michael Redgrave, Harry Andrews, Irene Worth, Jack Hawkins, Ian Holm, Michael Bryant, Brian Cox, Eric Porter, Timothy West, Peter McEnery, Julian Glover, Roy Dotrice, Maurice Denham, Alan Webb, Guy Rolfe, Steven Berkof and John Wood, all of whom do memorable turns.

In the first half of the movie, the filmmakers vividly bring to life the isolated fairy-tale world the Imperial Family inhabited. The beautiful palaces, and villas provide a striking contrast to the shabby, squalid prison quarters of the film's second half, which deals largely with the Romanov's exile and imprisonment in Siberia. The murder of the Royal Family in the basement of the Ipatiev house, the so called "House of Special Purpose" is one of the most strikingly directed scenes in the film. The brutal suddenness with which it is depicted packs quite a wallop. Filmed in Panavision, the film is gorgeous to look at. John Box's recreation of Imperial Russia at the turn of the century truly deserved it's Academy Award for Best Production Design, as did Yvonne Blake for Best Costume Design. Freddie Young's stunning cinematography and Richard Rodney Bennett's haunting music score were also nominated, though they both lost to other films. Finally it is a beautifully edited film, a marvelous example of invisible editing used to create a subtle, but powerful sense of irony. A superb film that deals intelligently with the problems inherent in transposing history onto film.

Historical film correctly based on real events about Russian CZar Nicholas II (Michael Jayston , though press reports at time of pre-production said that Rex Harrison) , wife (first cinema film of Janet Suzman , and Audrey Hepburn and Vanessa Redgrave considered to play Alexandra) and sons Aleksey Nikolaeyvitch Romanov (Roderic Noble was chosen due to his resemblance) , Anastasia (Fiona Fullerton who had an interesting career as teen) , Tatiana (Lynne Frederick who subsequently married and inherited to Peter Sellers but she died early) . Czar Nicholas II, the inept monarch of Russia , insensitive to the needs of his country , is overthrown and exiled to Siberia with his family . In the film appears several historic personages as Kerenski (John McEnery) , The Queen Mother Marie Fedorovna (Irene Worth) , Trostki (film debut of Brian Cox) , Lenin (Michael Bryant) , Stalin (Hizeldine) , Rasputin (it was Laurence Olivier who first suggested Tom Baker to be cast and Peter O'Toole was asked to play Rasputin) , he was killed by Prince Yussoupov (Martin Potter)

This overlong film contains drama , emotion and notorious deeds dealing with the over-detailed depiction of happenings preceding Russian Revolution until the deaths of Czar and family . Gorgeous sets and spectacular production design by John Box and Gil Parrondo ; being mostly filmed in Spain , as the Royal Palace of Madrid . It's marvellously photographed by Freddie Young in magnificence color . Evocative and sensitive musical score by Richard Rodney Bennnett . The picture is well directed by Franklin J. Schaffner . He directed excellent motion pictures as "The Planet of the Apes", "Patton," "Papillon", ¨"Nicholas and Alexandra", after the flop of his film titled " Islands in the Stream ", in which went on to coincide with the actor of "Patton," George C. Scott, decided to embark on a project more commercial and successful as "The Boys From Brazil" , however ¨Sphinx¨ ,¨Lionheart¨, ¨Si Giorgio¨were others flops . Rating : Better than average , worthwhile watching

The picture based on facts , it begins when Japan's own territorial ambitions on the Chinese and Asian mainland. Russia is involved in a costly war with Japan over the Korean peninsula and the Czar rejects all recommendations that he bring the war to an end. War began in 1904 with a surprise Japanese attack on the Russian fleet in Port Arthur, without formal declaration of war and Russia is defeated by Japan . The Romanovs (Michael Jayston, Janet Suzman) are absolute rulers, among the last of their kind in Europe, living in luxury while the vast majority of Russians live in absolute poverty and take place revolts . As on January 1905 , Gapon (Julian Glover) began his march . Locking arms, the workers marched peacefully through the streets. Some carried religious icons and banners, as well as national flags and portraits of the Tsar. As they walked they sang religious hymns and the Imperial anthem, 'God Save The CZar'. All of the converging processions were scheduled to arrive at the Winter Palace . Throughout the city, the marchers found their way blocked by lines of infantry, backed by Cossacks and Hussars; and the soldiers opened fire on the crowd . The official number of victims was 92 dead and several hundred wounded. By the time of Stolypin (Eric Porter)'s assassination by Dmitry Bogrov, a student in a theatre in Kiev on 18 September 1911, Stolypin had grown weary of the burdens of office . Because of the fragility of the autocracy at this time, Nicholas and Alexandra chose not to divulge Alexei's condition to anyone outside the royal household. In fact, there were many in the Imperial household who were unaware of the exact nature of the Tsarevich's illness. At first Alexandra turned to Russian doctors and medics to treat Alexei; however, their treatments generally failed, and Alexandra increasingly turned to mystics and holy men . One of these was an illiterate Siberian , Grigori Rasputin (Tom Baker) , appeared to have some success. Rasputin's influence over Empress Alexandra, and consequently the Tsar, had grown stronger ever since 1912, when the Tsarevich nearly died from an injury while the family was on vacation at the hunting lodges at Bialowieza and Spala ,now part of Poland . The Czar's decision, against advice, to authorize a general mobilization in 1914 leads to disaster on the front . As the government failed to produce supplies, there was mounting hardship creating massive riots and rebellions. With Nicholas away at the front in 1915, authority appeared to collapse , while Empress Alexandra ran the government from Petrograd from 1915 , and the capital was left in the hands of strikers and mutineering conscript soldiers . At the end of the "February Revolution" of 1917 , Nicholas II chose to abdicate . He firstly abdicated in favour of Tsarevich Alexei, but swiftly changed his mind after advice from doctors that the heir-apparent would not live long apart from his parents who would be forced into exile .The abdication of Nicholas II and the subsequent Bolshevik revolution brought three centuries of the Romanov dynasty's rule to an end. The fall of autocratic Tsardom brought joy to Liberals and Socialists in Britain and France and made it possible for the United States of America, the first foreign government to recognise the Provisional government, to enter the war early in April fighting in an alliance of democracies against an alliance of empires. In Russia, the announcement of the Tsar's abdication was greeted with many emotions . However , revolutionaries abound and the rise of the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin (Michael Bryant) and Trotsky (Brian Cox) , slowly begin to gain an advantage . Before the year is out the Bolsheviks will be in power and the Romanovs in custody. In Siberia takes places the eventual execution of the entire family - the Czar, Czarina, four daughters and one son - in July 1918.

This lavish version of NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA will especially appeal to anyone who is fascinated by their legendary story and the bitter fate which awaited the family of Nicholas Romanov. One of his daughters was Anastasia. Her story, too, has been told in films and books.

JANET SUZMAN is excellent as the woman who turns for comfort and hope to a madman, Rasputin, while her ineffective husband is unable to convince her that he is a charlatan. MICHAEL JAYSTON is effective as Nicholas, inhabiting the role so completely that you feel he is the man himself. TOM BAKER, who bears a striking resemblance to the real Rasputin, is also up to the demands of his role.

There's a vast canvas of historical background filmed in splendid Technicolor with obviously no expense spared in all the costuming and production design details. The only real drawback is a lack of pacing in several key dramatic scenes, especially toward the end when the family's execution turns into an endless wait for the assassins to enter the room. Many scenes could have been more tightly edited to reduce the running time of over three hours.

The supporting cast includes famous names like LAURENCE OLIVIER and MICHAEL REDGRAVE in what amount to bit roles. The daughters have little to do but the hemophiliac son, Alexis, is played with great sensitivity by RODERIC NOBLE.

The realization that she is responsible for carrying the genes that gave her son his condition, is what torments Alexandra and leads to her unwise decision to take counsel from Rasputin.

Dramatically, the film suffers from the slow pacing--but the story itself is so compelling that it makes up for this deficiency by providing scenes of epic grandeur and stunning cinematography.

It fully deserved its Oscars for Best Art Direction and Costume Design. It was nominated for several other Oscars but Janet Suzman lost to Jane Fonda of KLUTE and the Best Picture award went to THE FRENCH CONNECTION.

When Robert Massie's monumental work, Nicholas and Alexandra, first came out in the last sixties, I was amazed he was able to get as much information as he did on a subject that Soviet Russia was petrified of. It became a sort of standard for all future researchers on the fall of the Romanovs. The movie soon followed and it, too, was fairly accurate. Obviously, it was impossible to cover so much of a story in a three hour time-frame, but some important details of Nicholas' and Alexandra's reign was missing: where was Anna Vyburova? Where was Elizabeth Feodorovna, Alix's sister? These might seem small criticisms but they did play a significant part in the story. I was amazed by how much they matched actors appearances with their historical character: Michael Jayston is a spitting image of Nicholas, physically as well as his personality. Laurence Olivier is quite perfect as Count Witte, Janet Suzman is also a mirror image of Alexandra. The movie could have benefitted from more music in the background, especially at crucial moments. I kept waiting for a swell of instrumental music and... Nothing! Fortunately, I saw this movie when it first came out on TV and remembered the scenes that were cut when it came out on video (Why these scenes were cut is beyond me: The deciding vote creating the Bolshevik Party where Stalin and Lenin meet; a touching scene where Nicholas explains to Alexis the meaning of "war in the Balkans (July 1914)" and not to worry; Alexis' fall on the bob-sled on the steps in the house in Tobolsk and after Nicholas' scolds him he shouts in tears, "Why did you abdicate for me? I could have helped Russia!" All in all, however, it's the best we have so far on this period of history and a must-see for all Romanov students.

This truly beautiful movie with considerable artistic value should not be watched for its historical accuracy or its lack of geographical precision. It is mainly a story about a marriage of two weak but lovable people who somehow should not have been where fate put them. You could call Nicholas and Alexandra an anti-monarchistic manifesto.

The script really is first rate, it doesn't matter that all the characters are far more English than Russian, what counts is the way a tragic situation unfolds in front of the viewers. For many the last czar probably was a monster as he ordered the death of hundreds of thousands. Yet watching the movie you want to believe that he is the victim of circumstances, far removed from everyday life and a husband and father who cares deeply and, in spite of all his outrageous decisions and non-decisions, wants „to be good". Strange as it seems, but the intimate scenes between him and his wife are the highlights of the movie, as they really bring out the affection between two people who are attracted to each other although they are only too familiar with each other's flaws. It makes the tragic ending of the movie all the more sad.

I had the chance to visit Nicholas' palace in Yalta a few years back. It is full of family snapshots, as the czar was an avid photographer (and also movie maker). It is striking how modern those pictures are, how relaxed and „middle class" the imperial family, always in bathing suits or some elegant leisure wear, appears. In a strange way the Russian emperor comes through as being much less crusty than his contemporaries on the throne of Britain, Germany or Austria-Hungary. It gives you the idea that he was a modern man. Strangely, whenever he himself is in the photos, he is never in the center of the picture but always somewhere in a marginal position, seeming to be either bemused or slightly embarrassed. What a sad career!

An interesting side-effect of the movie is the fact that it shows that at the outset of World War I the crowned heads of Europe, many of them related to each other and on relatively intimate terms, could have prevented the bloodshed. They failed colossally and thus sealed the fate of a continent that still tries to find unity and a common denominator.

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

Opening with the birth of Alexis - the hemophiliac son of Nicholas II (the last Czar of Russia) and his wife Alexandra, this then traces the history of the Romanovs from that point until their eventual execution by the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War. As far as the big picture is concerned, this is reasonably accurate. All of the major events of those years are portrayed, so one gets a sense of the course of Russian history during the era. When we move into the details, the fictionalized material that's added in is believable enough for the most part. The viewer gets a feel for what life was like in Russia during this period, and the point is also made of how isolated the Royal Family was from the struggles of the average Russian family.

Having said that, I still thought this movie was lacking. Mostly, it lacked real and believable emotion. I didn't get a sense of passion from any of the cast. They performed their parts well enough. I could "buy" most of them in their roles. But the feeling was strangely absent, which made this very long (3+ hours) movie seem even longer, to be honest. I was somewhat surprised by the somewhat limited amount of time that was given to Rasputin - who in reality became a surprisingly influential figure in the Russian court, but I appreciated the scenes following the Czar's abdication. Somehow I was able to enter into what must have been the extremely humbling (and even humiliating) circumstances into which the Romanovs fell afterward - they, who had held absolute power over the Russian people as the successors to a dynasty that had ruled for 300 years, suddenly at the mercy of those who held them prisoner. The movie depicts them as very dignified in the circumstances, and the final scene is quite brutal, leaving one with feelings of sympathy for the family, and especially their children, who were surely not responsible for whatever evil their father may have been accused of.

This has plenty of weaknesses, but is still worth watching if only to get something of a "grand sweep" of the revolutionary era in Russian history.

It may have something to do with the fact that I was at Princeton at the same time as the screenwriter's hemophiliac son, but everyone seems to be falling over themselves in finding fault with this nearly perfect movie. Tom Baker didn't "fade into obscurity," he became the most famous Doctor Who. The principals are exemplary and totally true to every historic account I've read. One commentator mentions inanely that Nikolaus was a cousin of King George while Alexandra was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria. Excuse me folks, we all know that. It makes them first cousins, which is one of the reasons the heir to all the Russias had a deadly hereditary disease. (Nikolaus, George V, and Kaiser Wilhelm were all first cousins.) This movie knocks one out with its combination of costume drama and realism. I don't make ten favorites lists but if I did it might be there. An absolute must see, over and over again.

I have always been fascinated by Russia's last tsar and his family. I have literally read dozens of books as well as articles about them. This movie puts into perspective what I have known all along. I came across this movie (VHS form) over 10 years ago. I've read Robert K Massie's book and although the movie can never be as concise as a book, it skillfully captures the mood and developed the plot really well as the movie progresses. The casting also deserved a big applause. Jayston and Suzman did a wonderful job portraying the real tsar and tsarista. The only thing I guess (and it is not fault of theirs) is perhaps better sounds and graphics. I had to turn up my volume really high to hear what they are saying especially if the actors speak softly as demanded by the mood of that scene. Oh well..it's the early 70's..what can we expect. Great movie...i would recommend it to everyone.

I'm still trying to decide if NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRIA is a good film or a bad film . Truth be told it's a bit of both . Unfortunately I'm going to have a problem deciding if the bad overwhelms the good or vice versa .

This is epic film making by Sam Spiegal , but is far from being the best movie he's produced . I had a problem with the script for BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KWAI and I've got a problem with the one here . I know it's an epic film but overlong doesn't equal epic . For instance one of the characters suffers from haemophillia and this is mentioned in one point in the movie , but then it's mentioned 15 minutes later , then 15 after that , then again after another 22 minutes . Just mentioning the condition once would have been quite enough . We also see characters like Lenin , Stalin , Kerensky popping into the narrative and then disappearing without little rhyme or reason . It does become obvious by the end that their inclusion probably wasn't necessary and gives a feeling that when they do appear they are under written anyway . Rasputin especially suffers from this type of scripting and the whole movie would have worked much better if it solely concentrated on his relationship with the Tsar's wife instead of giving us a history lesson on the last two decades of Russian imperial history . If truth be told it's not very good history either

There are good aspects to the movie , and the cast are probably the best one . Perhaps Spiegel wanted so many characters included because he wanted to cast the cream of British talent . We've got Olivier and Redgrave both knights of the British stage alongside Julian Glover , Harry Andrews and Jack Hawkins . What a cast and as you'd expect they give very good performances . But let's not forget the two best performances belong to two unknown actors called Michael Jayston and Tom Baker . It must have taken some courage casting these two actors in such prominent roles Jayston still occasionally appears in TV roles while Baker found world wide fame as DOCTOR WHO . And let's not forget that a few other unknown actors like Brian Cox and Ian Holm appear in cameos .

A good film for those wanting a three hour epic or seeing a host of big name actors when they weren't house hold names in their own household , but not really a film for serious students of Russian history

I'm not that interested in genre fights, but I think I have to step my toe into a very minor and rather inconsequential one with Nicholas and Alexandra. You see, the film is often referenced as an epic. It has some of the markers of one, for sure. It's over three hours long, about historical people, and it involves a nation's activity in two major wars and a world-shaping revolution. It has to be an epic, right? Well, except that the movie almost entirely takes place in little rooms and through small conversations. This is a glib description, but Nicholas and Alexandra is ultimately a drama about a man who can't balance his work and family lives.

As presented in the film (I assume that all historical films are roughly 90% ahistorical), Nicholas was a very kind man, and out of that kindness in personal interactions bred absolute callousness for this people in the aggregate. He was a devoted husband to Alexandra and father to his four girls and one sickly son, and by being so devoted to them and to the family who came before him as he presides over the three-hundredth year of Romanov tsarist rule of Russia, he wants nothing more than to pass onto his son what his father passed onto him. That means all of the powers that Nicholas II inherited from Alexander III will pass to Alexei, no matter the cost.

Nicholas needs to pass on martial glory to his son, so he keeps Russian troops in Korea fighting Japan in the Russo-Japanese War well beyond any reasonable marker for success has faded away. He must pass on the full powers of the tsar to Alexei, so he will put down any efforts to create a parliament and liberalize the backwards country (his mother calls Russia in 1904 an 18th century empire in the 20th century) so that Alexei will have what Nicholas had. It's these acts of kindness (along with his later unwise and guileless decisions that helped lead to the explosion of hostilities at the start of The Great War) that ultimately spells his fate, the fate of his family, and the fate of his country into communist repression at the hands of Vladimir Lenin.

The movie makes a lot of Alexei's hemophilia, describing the illness and its potential ill effects while Alexandra dotes on her sickly son, keeping him from any bumps that could lead to deformities or death, and it serves as an apt metaphor for Nicholas' handling of state affairs. He has a series of small bumps that cannot be treated once made, ballooning with blood and ultimately deforming the form of the state.

Alongside Nicholas is, obviously, his German wife, Alexandra. They are obviously deeply in love throughout, but their relationship is not quite even. She lords over him in subtle ways, most prominent in her embrace of Grigori Rasputin, the mystic holy man she brings to court above everyone's objections. She sees him as the key to Alexei's health, attributing every decline in the boy's health to Rasputin's absence and every relapse into good health due to Rasputin's presence. Nicholas cannot fight this line of thinking and allows it, perhaps even subscribing to it himself. That is, until Rasputin's enemies kill him with several poisons and bullets.

Everything collapses, though, as the Great War drags on, more Russian soldiers die, supply lines never improve, and St. Petersburg descends into a state of anarchy that only the tsar could possibly abate, but Nicholas moves too late. By the time he gets back from the frontier, calls for his abdication have moved from quiet corners to the lips of some of his greatest friends in government. He cannot continue to rule and ends up, along with his family, shuttled around the vast nation with no one wanting to take ownership of him, not even his English cousin, King George. Eventually, as civil war between the monarchist Whites and the Bolsheviks rages closer to the Romanovs, drastic action erupts in the execution of the whole family.

It's a solid telling of the story. It's firmly entertaining with strong characters from beginning to end on which to hang the story of Russia. I think it's easy to call to mind The Last Emperor, which told a somewhat similar story of the final emperor of a great nation. As a drama, it's good, but, I do think that genre mixup could point to something. The story feels like it should be an epic. What the movie gives us is, again, good, but I have a feeling that a rework of the material to make it an epic that more cinematically mirrors the journeys of the Romanovs with the evolution of life in and the government of Russia would have benefited the material, in much the same was that The Last Emperor saw the journey of Puyi and the evolution of China as part and parcel with each other. But, Bertolucci was one of cinema's greats while Franklin Schaffner was, while quite skilled, more a workman than an artist.

Still, you review movies for what they are, not what you wish them to be. And what Nicholas and Alexandra is ends up being a firmly entertaining story of a man who cannot manage his work and family life. Again, it's glib, but I feel like it's an accurate description.

I watched this movie for the first time this weekend (on DVD). It's been troubling me ever since because I still don't know how I feel about the last Czar: flawed man trapped by circumstance or bumbling autocrat responsible for countless deaths, including his own family's??? The movie doesn't portray the last Romanovs as absolute heroes or absolute villains. And this, my friends, is the sign of a well-crafted historical epic!! I've read Robert K. Massie's book; while it is overwhelmingly historically detailed, I think some of the humanity of the characters is lost. That is where this movie excels: it reminds us that Nicholas, Alexandra, Lenin, Rasputin, etc. were flesh-and-blood and not mere historical paper-dolls. I'm not going to comment on the individual actors because this movie is great because of the sum of its parts. The bottom line: I'm still haunted by this movie and I'm deeply affected by the tragedy of errors which affected so many people during this time. I've read many books on the Russian Revolution, but I've never felt the human tragedy as much as when I watched this movie. It may not be the most conventional movie, but it's worth spending the time to get through it.

I am a huge Russian history fan so I am biased in that way because I love anything about the czars and czarina's life. One thing I loved about the movies of the 1970's (I can say the same about all miniseries of this time) the actors do not have to be beautiful but real. They chose the best two who actually looked similar to the real people. Today we don't do that as long as the actor is making some political statement or exceptionally beautiful they get the part.

Epic and sweeping, a 1972 blockbuster carrying every name in the British character-actor's book and telling the story of a grand leader who was out of touch with his people, and his wife, who was even MORE out of touch. The cute girls and the imperious young boy were innocent but that doesn't help them. Anyone who wants to know what went on during the Russian revolution of 1917 -- the one that brought us the ever-popular Josef Stalin -- ought to see this. Really. It's beautifully photographed, if nothing else.

I don't know how closely it hews to historical revolutionary fact. All I know is that the title of Czar or Tsar goes way back. The first guy to claim the title of Caesar was the Roman Augustus, adopted son of Julius Caesar. The Roman Empire fell apart towards the end of the 400s AD and everybody and his brother began to claim the title. By recent times it had been morphed into "Czar" and "Kaiser". Nicholas wasn't the last Caesar to die. That would be Kaiser Wilhelm II, who didn't die until 1941.

At any rate, those whose knowledge of recent Russian history is spotty, like mine, will have some of the blanks filled in. I knew Kerensky's was an interim government and that it fell but I never knew why it fell. Now I know it was partly because Kerensky was a "moderate" who wanted to continue Russia's role against Germany/Austria in World War I, at a time when the Russian Army on its western front was underarmed (sometimes completely unarmed) and in a rotten mood, while at home the farmers were starving and rebellious. "Nicky" wasn't able to grasp this, being under the spell of his opulent quarters in the Winter Palace and the spell of his wife, the batty Alexandria. In the face of all this discontent, Nicky felt a firm hand was in order.

Well, his firm hand didn't do the trick and he was forced to abdicate. However he and his family wound up in Siberia, not entirely unhappy. But leaders are symbols, even when they're no longer leaders.

This film must have had a budget more powerful than Nicky's army against Germany. Thousands of extras. Long shots of empty landscapes drawn as precisely as those in a Rothko painting or on a kid's notebook with a steel-edged ruler. I was really impressed. There aren't any duds among the performances either. Olivier, Hawkins, Andrews, Redrave -- they all soldier on, mostly with improbably shaped mustaches. The film seems to have gone -- not unregarded but unreported. It followed in the wake of some incandescent hits like "Patton" (Fleischer, same director as here) and "Dr. Zhivago" (same period). So, no wonder it was well funded.

"Nicholas and Alexandra" was clearly a bid to be another David Lean-style historical epic (it was produced by Sam Spiegel, who had brought several of Lean's films to the screen). But the problem is that it didn't have David Lean directing it, and without his particular knack for setting complex character studies against sweeping backdrops, the thing feels like a lumbering, boring pageant.

It also doesn't help that it came out in a year that gave us films like "A Clockwork Orange," "The Last Picture Show," "Klute," McCabe & Mrs. Miller," "Harold and Maude," and any number of other films that had their fingers on the pulse of a troubled and restless America. "Nicholas and Alexandra" already felt like a film that should have been made ten years earlier before it even opened.

Michael Jayston and Janet Suzman are wooden blank slates as the doomed Russian monarchy who had the misfortune of being the ones in power when the Bolshevik revolution succeeded. They don't successfully bring an ounce of emotion to this story, so we therefore aren't ever made to feel much for them as characters. Instead, we must satisfy ourselves with admiring the luxurious scenery and costumes, of which there are much but which can only take one so far. By the time this film ground into its third hour, I literally thought it would never end.

One would expect a film like "Nicholas and Alexandra" to win Oscars for things like Art Direction and Costume Design (which it did) and be nominated in categories like Best Cinematography and Best Original Dramatic Score (which it was). But someone must draw the line at nominating it for Best Picture and Best Actress. That someone I guess has to be me since it was not the Academy.

Grade: C-