Reviews & Ratings for
Rasputin and the Empress More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

19 reviews in total

---

21 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
Don't Watch This for Historical Accuracy, 18 February 2008

Author: jtyroler from United States

Rasputin and the Empress shouldn't be used as a lesson of pre-Soviet Russia. Names have been changed (and that didn't prevent MGM from law suits) and a lot of the information we now know about this period of Russian history - was not known in 1932.

As other people have commented about this being the only film that Ethel, John, and Lionel Barrymore appeared together, this movie doesn't show why the Barrymores have the reputation that they have. John Barrymore's career started going downhill after the introduction of sound. Lionel Barrymore, wearing one of the phoniest fake beards, tries to capture the charisma and sense of control that Rasputin had over Czarina Alexandra and the Czarevitch. Ethel Barrymore gives an understated performance - too understated at times. When her only son seems to be close to possible death, she doesn't seem all that bothered.

C. Henry Gordon is a great Grand Duke Igor, Ralph Morgan is a convincing Czar Nicholas II, but they don't appear that frequently. Don't expect anyone to speak with a Russian accent or even attempting and accent.

Rasputin is one of the most interesting people in the world during the early 20th Century. He was also one of the most enigmatic and contradictory. A holy man who was accused of raping a nun, excessive drinking, and being power hungry. Barrymore's portrayal of Rasputin plays this up, plus making claims that he will be Russia. He seems almost like Charles Manson at times in the way he can make someone, especially the Czarevitch, behave like they are totally different people compared to the way they acted before meeting Rasputin.

It is best to watch this movie as just that - a fictional representation of various accounts of what happened in the royal court of Russia in its final days. The writers included Charles MacArthur, Ben Hecht, Robert Sherwood, Mercedes de Acosta, and Lenore Coffee - some of the best writers of the period.

It's worth a view - don't expect historical accuracy, but it is an interesting film that tries to show a much different world than what Americans would have known.

---

16 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Good film but..., 25 September 1999
Author: Shannon from So*Cal

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."

---

13 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
The Malevolent Monk, 2 February 2008

Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In Margot Peters excellent book The House of Barrymore she characterized what MGM had to deal with in the only time the three Barrymore siblings were in a film together, John on drink, Lionel on drugs, and Ethel on her high horse. More truth than humor there.

John's drinking and self destruction from same are well known. Lionel was on all kinds of pain killing medication which Louis B. Mayer kept him supplied with in return for being the fifth column of management whenever his contract players started getting ideas. For Ethel however this was her first venture into sound films and she was one who took the title of First Lady of the American Theater quite seriously with all the royal prerogatives of same.

Somehow this retelling of the last days of the Romanovs did get made and in it Lionel Barrymore who had the most colorful part of the film, takes the acting honors. His Rasputin, the malevolent monk who held sway over the Tsar and Tsarina because of his ability to control the symptoms of the Tsaretch's hemophilia is a classic study in evil. Ethel is properly regal and John is the noble prince who eventually does something about the curse over the Romanovs, though too late.

Rasputin was bad enough in history though here the writers went a bit overboard. There's no accusation against him of having designs on the royal princesses, yet we see Lionel casting a lascivious eye on the Princess Anastasia.

Though the name was changed for the film, the real assassin of Rasputin, Prince Felix Yousapov did sue MGM and collect a bundle from them. Personally I think he robbed the lion studio because if anything John Barrymore's portrayal was far more noble than Yousapov was in real life. To add insult to injury though another guy with the name of Chegodieff which was John's name in the film also sued MGM and claimed he was defamed and won.

The biggest historical error I find though was the fact that Rasputin was urging Tsar Nicholas to enter World War I. In fact the opposite was the case. Speaking of the Tsar, he's played here as the nebbish he was in real life by Ralph Morgan.

For reasons I don't understand the film did not end with Rasputin's demise. Dramatically speaking it should have. But the film continued on until the execution of the royal family by the Bolsheviks. No proper dramatic foundation was laid for that event. There is some mention of revolution in the air, but nothing in the story suggests what will take place.

Rasputin and the Empress is bad history and mediocre drama. But it is a chance to see the Barrymore siblings all in the same film and shouldn't be missed for that.

---

10 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
A powerful tale of tragedy, 10 March 2008

Author: herzogvon from Waukegan, IL.

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.

---

12 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Good News Bad News Scenario, 4 May 2005

Author: Sharclon8 from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The Good News: All 3 of the Barrymores are together in 1 Movie. In fact, it is the only time they are together in one movie. It is done by MGM so the costumes, scenery, background etc are all lavish even delicious. The acting is even quite good. And it is great to see John Barrymore in a good role even a romantic role before his drinking made him a caricature of himself. The Bad News: It is historically so inaccurate that it drives you crazy. Lionel Barrymore was a very good actor, but for reasons I will explain his performance was way overwrought and overdone. The part called for him to play Rasputin as if he had the cunning and the outright intelligence to maneuver state heads to do his bidding. The movie was made in 1932 which was just 15 years from the actual Russian Revolution and so the people that made the movie really did not know what we know now. Even so the actual facts of the death of Rasputin were known and to my mind the truth was far more dramatic than the way this movie portrayed Rasputin's killing. Even then they knew that The Empress never did figure out what a scoundrel Rasputin was, whereas in the movie she finally sees through him and calls on John Barrymore to save the throne by getting rid of him. I guess MGM wanted Ethel and John Barrymore to seem heroic. Knowing what we know now just makes Lionel's performance of Rasputin seem completely off the mark and throws the whole movie out of whack.

---

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Condensed History, 15 November 2007

Author: gjampol from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This could have been a true classic. However, it strays far from actual events and abridges the period between the outbreak of the Great War and the killing of the royal family.

The three Barrymores -- Lionel, Ethel and John -- are fine as Rasputin, the Empress and Prince Paul, a fictional character who assassinates Rasputin (the real assassin was Prince Feliks Yusupov, who was distressed by the damage that Rasputin was doing to the public image of the royal family).

The film correctly shows how Rasputin was interfering with the government and the execution of the Great War. But we don't actually see any sign of the February and October revolutions and the abdication of the czar. In the movie, the royal family is taken by train to a house where they are shot by the Bolsheviks. All of these events happen so suddenly in the film that a casual viewer would lose sense of the chronology.

Moreover, the direction is poor and many scenes last too long, making the movie drag.

---

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Fun example of old Hollywood., 19 December 2000
Author: Glenn Andreiev (gandreiev@aol.com) from Huntington, NY

A true example of the assembly line style film-making of the old studios, where one doubts if the screenwriter ever visit the set, or did the director ever sit at an editing bench. Lionel Barrymore, however is a treat as the grimy, kooky Rasputin. He doesn't go for one-note scary. He's seen as a fun party animal, a believable healer, and the world's worst dinner guest. Other than that, John is wasted as the hero, as is their sister Ethel.

---

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Interesting but overdone and inaccurate, 26 August 2006

Author: longrush from United States

While this film may be of interest to film purists because of the three Barrymores together for the only time, the movie is lousy history. The acting is more than a bit overdone, a carryover perhaps from the silent days when double takes and facial quirks had to tell the story. Rasputin's death is inaccurate. He was probably not poisoned at all (as an ascetic, he did not eat sweets, poisoned or otherwise), and he was shot several times, not hit over the head with a poker. And the deaths of the Romanovs was not outside in a courtyard but in a closed, dingy cellar. Their doctor died with them--he didn't escape to London. However, in defense of the screenwriter, many of the details of the Rasputin/Romanov disaster were unknown until after the fall of the Soviet Union. Several books published since, including photographs of Rasputin's dead body, for example, do much to fill out the real story.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Great as dramatic history but as for Russian history..., 7 August 2010

Author: calvinnme from United States

...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.

---

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Three Barrymore's, 25 February 2008
Author: Michael_Elliott from Louisville, KY

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.

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Ratings	Awards	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user reviews
Your vote history