7/10
The man who wouldn't die
16 January 2020
You don't have to be a Bolshevik to find that this movie gives an historically unjustified positive view of the Romanov family in the last days of the Russian Empire. I suppose that, in 1932 when this was filmed, MGM wanted to make Communists, who were gaining popularity in Depression-era America, look bad. And that this movie does. But turning Nicholas and Alexandra into intelligent and sympathetic characters wasn't really necessary.

What I found most impressive in this movie was Lionel Barrymore's incarnation of Rasputin. Yes, it's very dramatic, and sometimes melodramatic. But so, evidently, was Rasputin. Barrymore presents him as a thoroughly repulsive creature completely devoid of morals, sometimes to the point of turning your stomach. The scene where he makes advances at one of the young daughters of the imperial couple is so well played that it's very hard to watch: you feel a terrible sense of revulsion at the suggestion of what Rasputin is clearly thinking about doing.

The other scene that impressed me was the last one between Rasputin and the Russian noble played by John Barrymore. The latter definitely goes too far near the end, but Lionel B. is magnificent as the man who would not die.

For me, the movie should have ended with that scene, or very shortly afterward. The rest of the movie is devoted to the final days of the imperial family. It is standard-fare bathetic, meant to evoke a lot of tears, and really takes the movie away from its central core, the power of Rasputin over that family and the government.

MGM clearly spared no expense on this movie. It sometimes goes off the track on "production numbers." But it is certainly worth seeing for Lionel Barrymore's Rasputin.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed