Hottoceame The Age of Commercialism

Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

BallWubba Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

jarrodmcdonald-1 What works: the basic story-- about a trusted adviser who is really a menace to the family; the concept of inviting evil into one's home, thinking it is goodness, is a strong one. Also, it is evident MGM poured gobs of money into this film. Cedric Gibbons and his art department have outdone themselves with the production. And the acting is all first-rate.What doesn't work: the story is too drawn out. Too many scenes of the monk (Lionel Barrymore) hypnotizing everyone and everything in sight. Some of it is quite predictable. We knew that the prince (John Barrymore) wouldn't succeed at shooting him in the beginning, because it was too early in the story. And we needed the big fight scene near the end. Plus it was quite unrealistic that the monk doesn't even get a scratch on him when the prince fires a bullet or two into him. I suppose we can question if the monk is supernatural and not of this world, but there could have been a bit more explanation about his apparent invincibility. I almost half-expected Greta Garbo to show up in this somewhere. I was disappointed she did not.

st-shot The first family of theatre the Barrymores get together in this historically inaccurate depiction of the Romanovs in free fall and the man that help facilitate the end of an empire, Rasputin. It is the only time the three siblings appear in a film together and all three performances appear to be wanting.The son and heir to Czar Nicholas of Russia is afflicted with a disease (hemophilia) that confounds the royal physicians. Desperate to heal her son she entrusts his care to the enigmatic Rasputin who through hypnosis and terror becomes the boys trusted enabler. With his new found influence Rasputin wastes little time in consolidating his power deceiving the czarina and corrupting officials. The marquee value of John, Lionel and Ethel Barrymore may well put people inside the theater but unfortunately it is their performances that will move them just as fast to the exit. All three are dreadfully miscast and stilted as they reach for larger than life amid the splendor that was the Peacock Dynasty. John is more or less wasted as the Count trying to bring down Rasputin when he should be playing him. A year earlier he gave a tour de force as Svengali and clearly would have brought the charismatic verve that Rasputin needs instead of the cantankerous Lionel who though chilling is more crotchety than messianic. Ethel coated in layers of jewelery and gowns does little more than fret and add tremulous vocals. Outside the family in the crucial role of Czar Nicholas, Ralph Morgan hardly registers. True, Nicholas was an ineffectual leader but Morgan plays him to near invisibility. Cinematographer William Daniels and set director Cedric Gibbons and crew give the film a regal look of pomp and ceremony but the family Barrymore en masse remains lost if luckier than the Romanovs. At least they didn't get shot for their poor performances.

calvinnme ...forget about it. This film is completely inaccurate in its portrayal of actual events in Russian history. As for the nature and character of the historical figures involved, the three Barrymores give good renditions. There is Ethel Barrymore looking every inch the empress and giving a convincing portrayal of a woman concerned for the welfare of her very ill son - and I would expect that. What I didn't expect is how weird it would be to watch a film in which John Barrymore is the shining hero and Lionel Barrymore is a truly diabolical villain, and each are spectacularly convincing in their portrayals. Lionel is really the center of attention here as he plays the evil Rasputin whose ability to sidestep assassination attempts is legendary, and here a few logical explanations are given to some of his alleged abilities. However, none can explain what happened at the end of his life - how he was poisoned, bludgeoned, shot, and finally thrown into an icy river and still managed to cling to life for awhile.Although Tsar Nicholas is accurately portrayed as a rather weak willed man and the Romanov marriage is also accurately portrayed as one of the few royal arranged marriages that also turned out to be a love match, there is a mischaracterization of the Tsar as being progressive and wanting a Duma only to have Rasputin defeat that plan. In fact, Nicholas was autocratic in his outlook and distrusted any attempt to give the people more say in their government. This sets up one of the great ironic struggles in the film - that of aristocrat Prince Paul Chegodieff (John Barrymore) wanting more for the peasants in the way of both bread and democracy, and that of peasant mystic Rasputin (Lionel Barrymore) saying that it was God's will that the peasants were poor and powerless. Paul wants to save Russia, Rasputin wants to rule it.Another piece of fiction shown in the movie for dramatic measure are the public proclamations about the illness of Tsaravich Alexai, the heir to the Russian throne. In fact one of the things that turned the Russian people against the royal family - besides the fact that they were starving during WWI - was that the people assumed that Rasputin's hold over the empress was because they were lovers. The Romanovs did not want it to be known that the only son in the family and heir to the throne had a serious disease - in this case hemophilia - that kept him in very delicate health and would likely lead to a greatly shortened lifespan. They felt it would leave them vulnerable to the overthrowing of their rule. Ironically hiding the truth and leaving Rasputin's relationship to the empress unexplained also led to exactly that.Watch this one for the high production values and compelling performances by the members of Hollywood's royal family during its golden age, but as for a Russian history lesson, look elsewhere.

herzogvon 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.