Rasputin and the Empress (1932)

Very well executed

Tied for the best movie I have ever seen

Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

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.

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.

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.

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.