RASPUTIN, a TV movie from 1996, features a barnstorming performance from Alan Rickman, playing the "mad monk" who inveigles his way into the Russian royal family when he heals their son from sickness. Really, of all the actors in the 1990s, Rickman was the perfect choice for the role: he can do crazy like nobody else, and he dominates the screen every time he appears. Unlike the Hammer film RASPUTIN, THE MAD MONK, Rasputin is no straight villain here, and the filmmakers imply that he did have some kind of supernatural ability.I'm glad Rickman's on board, because without him, RASPUTIN wouldn't have been much at all. As a TV movie it's a very simple, standardised retelling of the material, big on costumes and backdrops but one which reveals very little about the political situation of the era. Still, at least the cast has been populated by decent actors, including Greta Scacchi, Ian McKellen, David Warner, James Frain and the like; but inevitably it's Rickman you remember here, all wild hair and beard, stripping on a table and outraging members of Russia's polite society.

Miracle man or a fraud? Saint or devil? Holy person or someone with good tricks to show? HBO's cinebiography of Father Grigori Rasputin doesn't reveal the mystery and always gives us more and more questions about one of the most influential and controversial figures of Russia during the kingdom of the last Russian tsar.Played by Alan Rickman as an unstoppable enigma, Rasputin was priest, drunken, womanizer and troublemaker, gaining notoriety by helping sick people to get cure for things that were incurable, claiming to have seen the Virgin Mary and working as sort of an holy authority capable of performing miracles. His most famous patient (and strangely selected as the story's narrator) was Prince Aleksei (Freddie Findlay),hemophiliac and the only male child of the Romanov's, tsar Nicholas II (Ian McKellen) and Alexandra (Greta Scacchi), and as many knows the treatment works wonders, surprising everyone in the family and causing some doubts and jealousy among the Royal doctors, suspicious of such miracle maker, who seeks to interfere on the politics of the country. That involvement and his troubled behavior led to a conspiracy in which he was the main victim but taking with him the destiny of a nation and the end of an empire. Favorable points: the great costumes and the detailed, spectacular art direction, and some insights about the main figure specially what concerns about his talent for predicting things like the death of one of Nicholas aides and the fall of the empire. The story, even with its focus on social and political issues, is simple to follow, very informative to viewers.Less favorable points: those who deeply know about the man and his life won't find this film so satisfying or enjoyable. Uli Edel didn't put much vigor in this work, sometimes melodramatic and forced. The cast is good but they don't move us in the it was supposed to; Rickman is the best in show, really exposing some pain and some madness but he's not my favorite Rasputin. I suggest you to check Tom Baker's performance in "Nicholas and Alexandra" (1971) where he stole the show from the leading characters with an amazing realism, natural. He seems bigger than life but at the same time he looks real, believable. And let's face it, that was a better movie as well."Rasputin" doesn't stain the reputation of the man nor judges him; it just incites doubt in our heads in trying to figure out who he really was. A decent film, but far from being memorable. 6/10

Alan Rickman and Ian McKellen are superb actors and it shows in this film adaptation about one of history's greatest enigmas. Was Rasputin a "saint" or "devil?" If you watch this movie, from a historical point of view, you get an interesting glimpse into Rasputin's life which is, for the most part, historically correct. Yes, Hollywood will take its dramatic license when needed, but Rasputin was dramatic enough and really doesn't need any help! Even if you are not a history buff, or interested in history in the slightest, this movie will still enthrall you with its storyline. There are quality plots and subplots in this film, from the influence of Rasputin on the Romanov family to the coming of the Russian Revolution. You will see just how far out of contact the royal family was with reality and the plight of their subjects throughout the course of this movie. To what extent did Rasputin contribute to this? You will have to watch the movie to find out.

Before this film, the Cinematic version of Rasputin was Christopher Lee's evil Dracula-esque version that tried to seduce/murder the Royal Family. But this one is far more accurate. It's a little short and DOES skip alot of chapters in the Mad Monk's life, but nevertheless it's better than the aforementioned Hammer Films version and mercifully shorter than Nicholas & Alexandra. Rasputin was not an evil man as early cinema depicts, but instead a well-meaning one hampered by incompetence and bad habits. Alan Rickman captures both well. Matching him stride for stride is Ian McKellen as Tsar Nicholas II. McKellen's Tsar is a loving father who perhaps can't see very well past his family. When he tells his son that he will preserve the kingdom for him, you realize that a sad end awaits him. But through it all he manages to keep his dignity. And nobody has ever played the Royal doctor better than David Warner has. He mixes loyalty to the Tsar and skepticism of Rasputin's "divine abilities" very well, and has quite possibly the best line in the film: "I have performed many autopsies and never once found a soul." The wisest move, however, was not to end it with Rasputin's death, but to continue to show the fall of the Romanov Dynasty. The entire murder of the Royal Family stands as one of the most evil acts of the 20th Century and those final scenes really hammer home the tragedy.