AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
6,5/10
1,3 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Um príncipe conspira para matar o Rasputin louco por causa do czar, da czarina e da Rússia.Um príncipe conspira para matar o Rasputin louco por causa do czar, da czarina e da Rússia.Um príncipe conspira para matar o Rasputin louco por causa do czar, da czarina e da Rússia.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Indicado a 1 Oscar
- 4 vitórias e 1 indicação no total
Luis Alberni
- Photographer's Assistant
- (não creditado)
Mary Alden
- Natasha's Lady in Waiting
- (não creditado)
Robert Anderson
- Undetermined Secondary Role
- (não creditado)
Oscar Apfel
- Undetermined Secondary Role
- (não creditado)
Henry Armetta
- Photographer
- (não creditado)
Hooper Atchley
- Rasputin's Henchman
- (não creditado)
Mischa Auer
- Butler Pouring Drinks at Party
- (não creditado)
Reginald Barlow
- General Who Underestimated the Japanese
- (não creditado)
Barbara Barondess
- Woman Getting Cigarette
- (não creditado)
Max Barwyn
- Bald Man Trying to See Duna
- (não creditado)
Avaliações em destaque
"Rasputin and the Empress" has the distinction of being the only movie that features siblings John, Ethel and Lionel Barrymore. However, of the three, Lionel is DEFINITELY the star and he's given ample opportunity to act and overact...and it's all very enjoyable to watch. His version of Rasputin certainly is NOT subtle.
Now there is a problem with making a film about Rasputin and that is there is a lot of lore involved. Many of the supposed 'facts' are obvious exaggerations....with the man having weird mystical powers and his death is clearly NOT realistically portrayed in history books. Fortunately, MGM chooses to make Rasputin evil but 100% human and without laser shooting out of his eyes!
The story begins in 1905, which is problematic since the film ends in mid-1918 with the murder of the Czar and his family. I say problematic because the children in the story never age! Additionally, although Rasputin had a personal relationship with the Czar and his family for about a decade, here in the film is looks like only a few months or perhaps a year. The fact is that the story wasn't intended as a history lesson and MGM made a few artistic changes here and there...something which probably made the film more enjoyable for most audience members.
As far as portraying this evil monk goes, Lionel Barrymore imbued him an amazing over-the-top personality and humanized him. Humanized because the tricks he does in the film are simply tricks--such as hypnotism and spying on folks in order to 'magically' know their secrets. It's all very enjoyable to watch and never is dull.
As for John, he has a relatively meaty role but is far, far more subdued. You do see him emote strongly during the murder sequence (one that varies tremendously with most accepted versions)....but otherwise he plays his role very straight.
Ethel, on the other hand, has a rather normal and even somewhat bland role in the movie. Simply put, any decent actress could have done her part.
So is it any good? Exceedingly so, yes. The story is never dull, is very big and exciting. And, even though they use a lot of stock footage, its inclusion isn't at all a detriment to the movie. Well worth seeing and quite enjoyable.
Now there is a problem with making a film about Rasputin and that is there is a lot of lore involved. Many of the supposed 'facts' are obvious exaggerations....with the man having weird mystical powers and his death is clearly NOT realistically portrayed in history books. Fortunately, MGM chooses to make Rasputin evil but 100% human and without laser shooting out of his eyes!
The story begins in 1905, which is problematic since the film ends in mid-1918 with the murder of the Czar and his family. I say problematic because the children in the story never age! Additionally, although Rasputin had a personal relationship with the Czar and his family for about a decade, here in the film is looks like only a few months or perhaps a year. The fact is that the story wasn't intended as a history lesson and MGM made a few artistic changes here and there...something which probably made the film more enjoyable for most audience members.
As far as portraying this evil monk goes, Lionel Barrymore imbued him an amazing over-the-top personality and humanized him. Humanized because the tricks he does in the film are simply tricks--such as hypnotism and spying on folks in order to 'magically' know their secrets. It's all very enjoyable to watch and never is dull.
As for John, he has a relatively meaty role but is far, far more subdued. You do see him emote strongly during the murder sequence (one that varies tremendously with most accepted versions)....but otherwise he plays his role very straight.
Ethel, on the other hand, has a rather normal and even somewhat bland role in the movie. Simply put, any decent actress could have done her part.
So is it any good? Exceedingly so, yes. The story is never dull, is very big and exciting. And, even though they use a lot of stock footage, its inclusion isn't at all a detriment to the movie. Well worth seeing and quite enjoyable.
By now, everyone - but everyone - has commented on what bad history this movie is. Fine, I won't argue the point. But, what about it as drama? In my opinion, this is one of the most powerful tales of tragedy of it's time. ( This is particularly noteworthy given MGM's later penchant for frivolousness. ) Part of it has do do with the sincerity and conviction of the story. [ Alhough Charles MacArtur and others are given credit for the screenplay, I believe the original story - I have read a copy of the book - was written by a Russian émigré who fled the revolution. Unfortunately, I am presently unable to locate my copy. ] Nonetheless, this would go a long way towards explaining the movie's passion.
As for the acting; it features an outstanding cast, including the three Barrymores, as well as an assemblage of first rate supporting actors of the time. ( Anyone notice Edwarld Arnold as Dr. Remezov? ) Of course, much of it seems dated by today's standards. ( This was 1932, after all. ) Keep in mind that this is high melodrama. In that context, Lionel Barrymore exudes pure evil as the scheming, mad monk. He also brings out the crudity and vulgarity of the man, which generally jibes with historical accounts. Just try not to dwell on the fake beard.
John is fine and properly earnest as Prince Chegodieff, although his performance does seem a bit old-fashioned next to Lionel's. He really lets it all hang out in the murder scene, however. Ethel seems a trifle stiff, but Ralph Morgan is just right as Nicholas. In fact, sincerity and seriousness of purpose seem to be the hallmarks of the entire ensemble. And through it all, there is this sense of tragic inevitability; of events that, once set in motion, cannot be reversed.
One other thing that warrants a mention is the music. The Russian Orthodox liturgical music used in the celebratory scene near the beginning is moving and powerful. It could well put one in mind of the the wedding scene in Michael Cimino's "The Deer Hunter" ( 1978 ). Later, there is a medley of martial music, accompanied by historical footage, as Russia mobilizes for The Great War. Here we hear "God Save the Tsar", a tune which Mikhail Glinka featured in his opera, "A Life for the Tsar", but which was routinely banned during Soviet performances. All in all, exciting stuff.
This is a movie well worth watching, historical accuracy notwithstanding.
As for the acting; it features an outstanding cast, including the three Barrymores, as well as an assemblage of first rate supporting actors of the time. ( Anyone notice Edwarld Arnold as Dr. Remezov? ) Of course, much of it seems dated by today's standards. ( This was 1932, after all. ) Keep in mind that this is high melodrama. In that context, Lionel Barrymore exudes pure evil as the scheming, mad monk. He also brings out the crudity and vulgarity of the man, which generally jibes with historical accounts. Just try not to dwell on the fake beard.
John is fine and properly earnest as Prince Chegodieff, although his performance does seem a bit old-fashioned next to Lionel's. He really lets it all hang out in the murder scene, however. Ethel seems a trifle stiff, but Ralph Morgan is just right as Nicholas. In fact, sincerity and seriousness of purpose seem to be the hallmarks of the entire ensemble. And through it all, there is this sense of tragic inevitability; of events that, once set in motion, cannot be reversed.
One other thing that warrants a mention is the music. The Russian Orthodox liturgical music used in the celebratory scene near the beginning is moving and powerful. It could well put one in mind of the the wedding scene in Michael Cimino's "The Deer Hunter" ( 1978 ). Later, there is a medley of martial music, accompanied by historical footage, as Russia mobilizes for The Great War. Here we hear "God Save the Tsar", a tune which Mikhail Glinka featured in his opera, "A Life for the Tsar", but which was routinely banned during Soviet performances. All in all, exciting stuff.
This is a movie well worth watching, historical accuracy notwithstanding.
The only film with all three Barrymores together and it's a good film, however, the direction is very poorly done, especially the ending scene.
Other than that, Lionel Barrymore portrays an excellent Rasputin and Ethel Barrymore is wonderful as the Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna. John Barrymore is great as Prince Paul, the assassin of Rasputin (in real life, it was Prince Yussupov who assassinated Rasputin).
This is a good film, but if you want a better interpretation of Rasputin's "reign," rent the 1996 HBO version with Alan Rickman or the 1971 movie, "Nicholas and Alexandra."
Other than that, Lionel Barrymore portrays an excellent Rasputin and Ethel Barrymore is wonderful as the Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna. John Barrymore is great as Prince Paul, the assassin of Rasputin (in real life, it was Prince Yussupov who assassinated Rasputin).
This is a good film, but if you want a better interpretation of Rasputin's "reign," rent the 1996 HBO version with Alan Rickman or the 1971 movie, "Nicholas and Alexandra."
Plot in a Nutshell: Russian Prince Chegodieff (John Barrymore) tries to stop the evil Rasputin (Lionel Barrymore) from exerting his influence over Czarina Alexandra (Ethel Barrymore).
Why I rated it a '7': That's a lot of Barrymore! Admittedly, that fact alone doesn't make it a 7, but seeing the three accomplished siblings together here (for the only time in celluloid history) IS worth a few extra points. This is an interesting tale, showing how an unknown/outsider was able to insert himself into the lives of the Russian royal family and influence them in ways one wouldn't think possible. I will say that the film goes out of its way to denigrate Rasputin. I don't think he needed any help, really, but in addition to his actual crimes, he is shown here to be a war-monger, royal rapist and freedom-hating enemy of the peasants. Lol that's quite a despicable guy! Some reviewers have complained that "Rasputin" is not always true to history (in some ways, it's not), but what this tells me is that Hollywood apparently has been making historically inaccurate films for perhaps longer than anyone thought. If you can forgive it that, it's otherwise pretty entertaining.
Best line: "You know, people with visions like yours, my dear father, are sometimes rather unlucky. There was a general, not long ago, who shot himself in the back. No one could understand quite how he did it!"
Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.
Why I rated it a '7': That's a lot of Barrymore! Admittedly, that fact alone doesn't make it a 7, but seeing the three accomplished siblings together here (for the only time in celluloid history) IS worth a few extra points. This is an interesting tale, showing how an unknown/outsider was able to insert himself into the lives of the Russian royal family and influence them in ways one wouldn't think possible. I will say that the film goes out of its way to denigrate Rasputin. I don't think he needed any help, really, but in addition to his actual crimes, he is shown here to be a war-monger, royal rapist and freedom-hating enemy of the peasants. Lol that's quite a despicable guy! Some reviewers have complained that "Rasputin" is not always true to history (in some ways, it's not), but what this tells me is that Hollywood apparently has been making historically inaccurate films for perhaps longer than anyone thought. If you can forgive it that, it's otherwise pretty entertaining.
Best line: "You know, people with visions like yours, my dear father, are sometimes rather unlucky. There was a general, not long ago, who shot himself in the back. No one could understand quite how he did it!"
Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.
Rasputin and the Empress (1932)
*** (out of 4)
Lionel, John and Ethel Barrymore star in this film, which was the only one that all three legends appeared in together. After her son is near death, Czarina Alexandria (Ethel) lets the monk Rasputin (Lionel) pray with her son who eventually heals and the monk gives credit to God. Saving her son, the monk soon finds himself gaining power inside the government but this doesn't sit well with Prince Chegodieff (John) who will stop at nothing to prove the monk is mad. Apparently MGM was sued due to how inaccurate the story is here so if you want a history lesson you should go read a book but if you want to see all three Barrymore's together then this is the only film out there that will suit you. The film should have been a lot better than it is but the thing drags at several points and I'm sure fifteen or so minutes could have been trimmed from the 123-minute running time, although apparently the film ran longer when originally released. The performances aren't what you'd expect but it's certainly fun seeing the three Barrymore's working together. Lionel actually goes way over the top, which is something you'd expect from John but he actually manages to be quite calm and cool throughout the film. John certainly gives the best performance but it's Lionel who steals the film with his fake beard and over the top antics. Ethel is good in her role as is the supporting work from Ralph Morgan. The costumes and set design are wonderful and I really enjoyed the made up ending, which contains some pretty strong violence.
*** (out of 4)
Lionel, John and Ethel Barrymore star in this film, which was the only one that all three legends appeared in together. After her son is near death, Czarina Alexandria (Ethel) lets the monk Rasputin (Lionel) pray with her son who eventually heals and the monk gives credit to God. Saving her son, the monk soon finds himself gaining power inside the government but this doesn't sit well with Prince Chegodieff (John) who will stop at nothing to prove the monk is mad. Apparently MGM was sued due to how inaccurate the story is here so if you want a history lesson you should go read a book but if you want to see all three Barrymore's together then this is the only film out there that will suit you. The film should have been a lot better than it is but the thing drags at several points and I'm sure fifteen or so minutes could have been trimmed from the 123-minute running time, although apparently the film ran longer when originally released. The performances aren't what you'd expect but it's certainly fun seeing the three Barrymore's working together. Lionel actually goes way over the top, which is something you'd expect from John but he actually manages to be quite calm and cool throughout the film. John certainly gives the best performance but it's Lionel who steals the film with his fake beard and over the top antics. Ethel is good in her role as is the supporting work from Ralph Morgan. The costumes and set design are wonderful and I really enjoyed the made up ending, which contains some pretty strong violence.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesAnnoyed that his brother John Barrymore was trying to show him up by placing his hand on him while he was finishing a scene (an ancient actor's technique for drawing attention to oneself), Lionel Barrymore excused himself from the set and went to the back lot to find a telephone. He then phoned the set and told director Richard Boleslawski that "he'd better advise Mr. John Barrymore to not place his hand on me at the close of this scene, lest I lay one on him!" By the time Lionel returned to the set, John has been advised to keep his hands to himself.
- Erros de gravaçãoThe fact that the Tsarevich was sick was not announced publicly as portrayed in the movie. It was kept a secret.
- Citações
Natasha: You don't like him because he's so outspoken. You don't like his manners. Isn't that it?
Prince Chegodieff: No, that's not it. It, its his, smile. It's like a man-eating shark with a bible under his fin.
- Versões alternativasUpon its premiere "Rasputin and the Empress" ran approximately 132 minutes. Due to the famous lawsuits against it, a number of scenes had to be cut for legal reasons. One critical scene that was deleted was one which implied that Rasputin had raped Diana Wynyard's character of "Princess Natascha". The removal of this scene tended to make the character of Princess Natascha somewhat incomprehensible - initially she is a supporter of Rasputin; in the latter part of the film she is very afraid of him. Unless the viewer is aware of the cuts made in the film, there does not appear to be any explanation for the change in Princess Natascha toward Rasputin.
- ConexõesFeatured in Biografias: The Barrymores (2002)
- Trilhas sonorasRussian National Anthem
(uncredited)
[Played during the opening credits and at the end]
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Rasputin and the Empress?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Idiomas
- Também conhecido como
- Rasputin and the Empress
- Locações de filme
- São Petersburgo, Rússia(archive footage)
- Empresa de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 1.022.000 (estimativa)
- Tempo de duração2 horas 1 minuto
- Cor
- Proporção
- 1.37 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente
Principal brecha
By what name was Rasputin e a Imperatriz (1932) officially released in India in English?
Responda