Epic and sweeping, a 1972 blockbuster carrying every name in the British character-actor's book and telling the story of a grand leader who was out of touch with his people, and his wife, who was even MORE out of touch. The cute girls and the imperious young boy were innocent but that doesn't help them. Anyone who wants to know what went on during the Russian revolution of 1917 -- the one that brought us the ever-popular Josef Stalin -- ought to see this. Really. It's beautifully photographed, if nothing else.I don't know how closely it hews to historical revolutionary fact. All I know is that the title of Czar or Tsar goes way back. The first guy to claim the title of Caesar was the Roman Augustus, adopted son of Julius Caesar. The Roman Empire fell apart towards the end of the 400s AD and everybody and his brother began to claim the title. By recent times it had been morphed into "Czar" and "Kaiser". Nicholas wasn't the last Caesar to die. That would be Kaiser Wilhelm II, who didn't die until 1941.At any rate, those whose knowledge of recent Russian history is spotty, like mine, will have some of the blanks filled in. I knew Kerensky's was an interim government and that it fell but I never knew why it fell. Now I know it was partly because Kerensky was a "moderate" who wanted to continue Russia's role against Germany/Austria in World War I, at a time when the Russian Army on its western front was underarmed (sometimes completely unarmed) and in a rotten mood, while at home the farmers were starving and rebellious. "Nicky" wasn't able to grasp this, being under the spell of his opulent quarters in the Winter Palace and the spell of his wife, the batty Alexandria. In the face of all this discontent, Nicky felt a firm hand was in order.Well, his firm hand didn't do the trick and he was forced to abdicate. However he and his family wound up in Siberia, not entirely unhappy. But leaders are symbols, even when they're no longer leaders.This film must have had a budget more powerful than Nicky's army against Germany. Thousands of extras. Long shots of empty landscapes drawn as precisely as those in a Rothko painting or on a kid's notebook with a steel-edged ruler. I was really impressed. There aren't any duds among the performances either. Olivier, Hawkins, Andrews, Redrave -- they all soldier on, mostly with improbably shaped mustaches. The film seems to have gone -- not unregarded but unreported. It followed in the wake of some incandescent hits like "Patton" (Fleischer, same director as here) and "Dr. Zhivago" (same period). So, no wonder it was well funded.

One of the last films in the great tradition of the historical epics which dominated the 1950s and 1960s, it begins with the birth of Tsarevich Alexei, the apple of his parents' eye, on August 12, 1904 and ends with the murders of the entire Romanov family on July 17, 1918. While the film suffers from a few pacing problems, it is nevertheless a hugely entertaining and very well written film with often marvellous dialogue. Franklin J. Schaffner of "Planet of the Apes" (my sixth favourite film of all time) and "Patton" fame does a great job as the director.As the title characters, Michael Jayston and Janet Suzman are excellent, delivering subtle, understated performances. They have great chemistry. Throughout the film, you never doubt that they love each other. Nicholas II is depicted as a weak-willed, indecisive and not terribly bright man who loves his family but whose personality makes him utterly unsuited to his position. He fails to listen to the good advice of his prime ministers, most notably Count Witte, and often takes unwise courses of action at the behest of his strong willed wife. It is not until far too late, after he has already lost his throne, that he engages in some form of self-reflection and realises all of the mistakes that he made. My sympathy for him grew as the film progressed and he became an increasingly tragic figure. He may have been the Tsar but he always seemed to be someone's pawn rather than his own man. I think that, in the film at least, he became a better man after being forced to abdicate. Alexandra - who was hated because she was German - seems to be more intelligent than her husband, who is under her thumb and tells her as much at one point. However, her judgement is as bad as his or possibly even worse as she falls under the influence of Rasputin. She is blinded to his crimes and misdemeanours by her love for Alexei and the mystic's apparent ability to control his haemophilia. She is a less sympathetic character than Nicholas, in part because she says expressly at one point that, on reflection, she could think of anything that she had done wrong in the years leading up to 1917. I've no idea if this statement has any historical basis whatsoever but it worked well in the context of the film as she appears to be as blind to her own faults as she was to those of Rasputin. I sympathised with her most strongly when it came to Alexei's poor health as it was a terrible burden for any mother to bear.Laurence Olivier excels as Count Witte, the Cassandra of Russia whose consistently sensible advice is ignored by Nicholas and who, as in reality, warned that disaster would result from Russia's entry into World War I. I suppose that he was lucky that he did not live to see the Revolution. In his first major role, Tom Baker, cast at Olivier's suggestion, was perfect for the role of Rasputin, playing him with a wonderful sense of intensity. He comes across as a very dangerous, intelligent, manipulative and amoral man who was perhaps the worst possible choice for an adviser. The film has a very strong supporting cast overall: Timothy West, Ian Holm, John Wood, Roy Dotrice, Michael Redgrave (whose daughter Vanessa was considered for Alexandra), Julian Glover, Alan Webb and John McEnery as Alexander Kerensky, who died only a year and a half before the film was released. McEnery looks the image of him, incidentally.On the negative side, the film is too long at three hours and six minutes. It suffers from pacing problems for a full half four (from about 60 to 90 minutes into its long run). They could have probably cut at least half an hour of flab here and there without it making much difference. While the scenes in the first half featuring the Bolsheviks were necessary for later in the film, they weren't terribly good or interesting. The film hues fairly closely to history but takes a few liberties. For instance, Stalin and Lenin meet a few years too early and Stolypin is assassinated in 1913 rather than 1911. I thought that it was rather odd that, while several of the events surrounding the 1905 Revolution were depicted or discussed, there was no direct mention of the Revolution itself. The film jumps forward from 1905 to 1913 very suddenly and it was a bit distracting as, even given the film's length, it felt like it was leaving something out. The second half, beginning with the outbreak of World War I, is much stronger than the first and the film rollicks along at a great pace from then onwards. There is a great sense of foreboding in the second half as the story draws to its tragic conclusion. The film does a fantastic job of contrasting the opulence of the Winter Palace with both the poor living conditions of the Russian people and those of the Romanovs themselves after the Revolution.Overall, this is an excellent film which is neither as successful nor as well remembered as it deserves to be. Were it for its aforementioned problems, I would have certainly given it full marks.

I was really interested in seeing this film, I am intrigued by the story of the Romanovs and when I saw the cast I was like it looks as though I was in for a good film. When I did see it, I was impressed. It isn't perfect though, for one thing at 165 or so minutes it is too long, consequently some scenes felt drawn out and very padded. Pacing was a problem too, I am not saying that Nicholas and Alexandra is the only film to suffer from this problem because it isn't, but there are moments where the film does drag. Finally, there were moments towards the end where it could have done with more drama. The Romanovs's deaths especially could have been chilling, instead whereas I felt sad and angry at how any family could be killed in such a way, the actual scene itself wasn't quite as powerful as it could have been.Flaws aside, Nicholas and Alexandra is sumptuous to look at. The cinematography looks fabulous and fluid, the costumes are colourful and lush and the scenery and buildings are both imposing and beautiful. The score is also beautiful, there are some parts in the film when there is no music and even no dialogue(not a problem at all, merely an observation), but regardless when the music was playing it was rich and sensitive. I also liked the quality of the script, it was thoughtful and intelligent, with a film like this that's what it needed to be. The direction is solid, and the story while some scenes could have done with more drama as I have mentioned already is still absorbing. The strongest asset though is the cast, Michael Jayston and Janet Suzman are both wonderful as the Tsar and Tsarina, Alexandra is the more interesting character but both actors did superbly. Tom Baker is a very charismatic and cunning Rasputin, and the ever great Laurence Olivier is impeccable as Witte.Overall, not absolutely superb but it is absorbing and it looks great. Plus it has the benefits of being impeccably acted by a strong cast and a good script. 7/10 Bethany Cox

..nor,to be fair,do the makers of "Nicholas and Alexandra attempt to diminish the cold indifference of successive Russian Kings towards the suffering of their people.But,for the peasants it made little difference who was in power over them - indeed it is at least arguable that they would have been better off remaining under the unelected aristocratic despots than under the unelected proletarian despots that succeeded them.If you had a few hundred grand recently you could have bought some relics of the last Tsar from an "impoverished" branch of our own dear Royal Family that put them up for auction despite,arguably,their being owned by the Crown Estate.Historically,Nicholas was famously refused asylum in England by His cousin King George the Fifth.He'd probably have more luck today. Presumably his majesty was frightened of a backlash from the exiled Russians in this country. From then on the Tsar's fate - and that of his family - was sealed.Nicholas was a weak man dominated by his wife and his advisors.If not a reluctant monarch he was certainly not an enthusiastic one. But theoretically he was the ultimate power in Russia and,by apathy as much as anything,failed to make any efforts to prevent the deaths of millions of his subjects. After his downfall his successors deliberately caused the deaths of many many more millions of his subjects.And so it goes. Mr Michael Jayston plays Nicholas as a victim rather than an instigator of events.Sensitive,a loving husband and father,he hardly seems like the last Absolute Monarch.It appears that if Lenin had shouted at him he would have burst into tears. Mr Tom Baker - a stranger to restraint - plays Rasputin to the hilt. Miss Janet Suzman,pipped by Hanoi Jane at the Oscars,commands attention as the Tsarina.She is clearly the dominant figure in the relationship but is clever not to let it show to the many politicians and hangers on who haunt the palace. There are parts for many well - known British thesps who do not have to move out of their comfort zones.An honourable exception is Mr Ian Holm who succeeds in making a ruthless unpleasant but honourable man seem believable. Pragmatically,the Communists could not be blamed for wiping out the whole Romanov family,any survivor could have formed a rallying - point for Royalist support at a stage when the Glorious Revolution was not universally popular. One can only hope that the end was as quick and brutally effective as shown in the movie. Having offered the people peace,Lenin and co. then set Russia on a course of unparalleled blood - letting.No one had the stomach to oppose them. If King George the Fifth had had more moral courage perhaps an opposition movement might have been born. His side of the story is offered in "The Lost Prince" with a portrait of the Romanovs at Osborne House that make the events in that cellar seem even more horrific.