Watch Nicholas and Alexandra For Free

Thanks for the memories!

Overrated and overhyped

Lack of good storyline.

Blistering performances.

It is perhaps because of the legend of the alleged surviving daughter, Anastasia (as well as a spooky priest named Rasputin), that the historical saga of Nicholas and Alexandra is remembered today, but unfortunately, the story of the end of the Russian royal line is cemented only in history, not in culture. This film shows the last years of their reign, the strong love that kept them going in spite of the many trials and tribulations in their marriage that brought a nation to its knees, and their determination to remain strong as they lived in exile. It is a story of family. It is a story of a poverty stricken country where millions of undocumented children died of starvation, leading to a revolution, and then finally, it is the story of a new power rise that is a story all in its own, touched on here by the brief presence of Vladimir Lenin, a Bolshevik leader who founded the Russian Communist party. As played by Michael Jayston and the Academy Award nominated Janet Suzman, it is obvious from the start that Nicholas and Alexandra are truly in love, but the weak-willed Nicholas doesn't really have what it takes to really be a great leader, and the single minded Alexandra has only one agenda: to cure her son Alexi from hemophilia.It was very wise of the casting directors to choose the rather unknown Suzman in the role of Alexandra over a more popular British actress, with both Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson very busy at the time. She is obviously a loving wife and mother, but as history has pointed out, she never was able to connect with her husband's people. Looking glorious in the lavish gowns, furs and hats (one of which makes an appearance in Alexandra's ghostly state in the Broadway musical version of the animated musical film "Anastasia"), Suzman is a conflict of emotions, often cool with her husband and daughters, and one sighted as she becomes manipulated by the sinister Rasputin (an excellent, multi-dimensional performance by Tom Baker) who soon has the nation in an uproar. Assassinations of other various Russian political figures and the Arch-Duke and Duchess of Austria, show the onslaught of World War I, and the very bitter war between Russia and Germany becomes the catalyst of Nicholas's decision to abdicate, setting into motion his own death sentence.The last hour of this film that shows the royal family in captivity is particularly sad because of the audience's knowledge of where this will lead them to in the final scene. There are moments when it seems that they might make it out, but when even Nicholas's own cousin (King George V of England) must deny him a place of exile, they all seem to know that their destiny is set. The actor playing the crippled guard in their final home might be creepy looking from the first long shot of his appearance, but from my childhood memory, it was the kindness he showed them that stood out which leads to the shocking developments of their final moments. There are great moments of joy where the royal daughters have a snowy Siberian dance with the soldiers guarding them, and yet the sad fate, particularly of the ailing Alexi who shows much more strength in many ways than his own father. Also particularly memorable is the way in which Rasputin is dealt with and the two strong scenes of Irene Worth as Nicholas's mother, a character who would later play an important part in the legend of the allegedly fake Anna Anderson who claimed to be Anastasia. This is a beautiful film which is best seen on a large movie screen or digital TV in its original widescreen format. The costumes, sets, photography, music and editing are all spectacular, and as directed by Franklin J. Schaffner (fresh off his triumph of "Patton"), it is rarely dull in its over three hour length. Certainly, even with the long running time, some of the facts or details seem to be missing, and a few facts have been proven to be altered, particularly the assassination scene which history has shown to be much more brutal than what is presented here. There are so many well known actors in small roles that it is very difficult to really review their participations in it, but such legendary actors as Laurence Olivier, Harry Andrews and Jack Hawkins do deserve at least a brief mention. Nicholas and Alexandra marked the end of an era in the history of any monarchy where their absolute power meant much suffering for the poor and much frivolity for the rich. They might not have the fame of the guillotined Louix XVI and Marie Antoinette of France, but theirs is a story which after seeing this film you will not soon forget.

In 1971, the era of the grand epics were over. The last great epic leading up to this year was 1965's Doctor Zhivago. Every once in awhile, an epic will come along trying to repeat the glory of the past. 1971's Nicholas and Alexandria is an example of that. Does this movie succeed in returning to it's former glory? Not quite….but I very much enjoyed this movie, more so than many people it seems. The film has its issues which I'll explain momentarily, but this was a valuable history lesson to those who know little about the Russian Revolution or Czar Nicholas II-the last Czar in Russian history.This movie tells the story, the tragic story of Czar Nicholas II (Michael Jayston) set against the backdrop of the Russian Revolution. This movie goes inside the private life of Nicholas and his wife, Alexandria (Janet Suzman) as well as their daughters and only son. Their son spends most of his childhood crippled with sickness, so the family hire the mysterious Rasputin (Tom Baker) for help in curing him. On the political side of things, Nicholas is very unpopular and is the root cause of seven million deaths because of their involvement in World War I and domestic problems such as starvation. All of these problems has Nick and his family paying the ultimate consequence.This is the second of two movies to have the Russian Revolution as the backdrop. The first film was the big musical hit, Fiddler on the Roof. That movie occurred pre-Revolution. But this film focuses on the causes of the Revolution and the immediate aftermath. Or so it's supposed to. My biggest problem with the film is that it treats the Revolution itself as an afterthought. There are cameos by very important characters such as Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin-but they hardly had any effect on the film. I wanted to know more about the Revolution itself and how Lenin took over Russia. I can't be too upset because this film is about the life of Nicholas after all. I wish I wasn't tantalized with the scenes of Lenin however.I divided up this epic into two sections. The first section is what I find to be the more glorified, beautiful part of the film. Many epics rely on vast landscapes, but this epic does something a little different. It relies upon vast interior decoration designed to take your breath away. The Russian architecture, especially on the inside is certainly something to behold. The art direction and the production design certainly are incredible in this film. The first part mainly tells us how life is like for Czar and his family despite all the war and suffering going around them. The second half is a different kind of story. It's a sad, painful story that shows how life of the Czar fell apart after the Revolution which culminated in a very sad, but brilliantly-made ending scene showing the execution of Czar Nick and his entire family. Of course as a student of history I knew what happened, but that scene had tears coming from my eyes. Nicholas was not an innocent man, but he tried his best with what he got-but he couldn't get any better.This film was brilliantly-acted. That impresses me because the two lead actors (Michael Jayston and Janet Suzman) never worked in film prior to this film. They were seasoned British stage actors but they made the transition to film really well. If you can get used to Jayston's overreacting facial expressions, you probably will appreciate what he brought to the role as the czar. A man who had a good soul, but is largely blamed for the death of millions. Suzman does an incredible job as his wife, Alexandria who had a role in why Russia was in such bad shape. She sometimes controlled her husband to the point where it seemed like he was a puppet. They had great chemistry with each other, so I was impressed what they did with this film. Tom Baker gives a good performance as the mysterious Rasputin. There is one thing that bothered me about this character. There is a scene where all of the sudden he becomes a homosexual. I'm not sure if history supports that notion, but the way the film showed it out of the blue kind of bothered me. The supporting cast all do well in their roles. Any movie that features Jack Hawkins, Laurence Olivier, Ian Holm, and Brian Cox in the same cast is a good one by my book.Nicholas and Alexandra is quite a fascinating epic. The first half is a movie about style, about grandeur during a time where peasant living conditions were terrible. The second half of the movie is a haunting story of the Czar's downfall. I loved the production design and the film was given an authentic feeling. It must be nice being so rich like the Czar was. The second-half is my favorite section of the film and that final scene is a powerful, very emotionally-driven scene. The story itself was good, but it could have been much better if the actual Revolution was not used as an afterthought. But given this movie seems to be the only one in existence about Czar Nicholas II and his final days, I am very satisfied with this film. Maybe my grade is high because of the powerful last few minutes, but there is no denying this is a good epic that came out in an era where these kind of movies were seen as dead.My Grade: A-

A historical movie can appeal to many different types of audiences, but to be beloved, it has to choose at least one target audience. This movie seems unable to muster the energy to perform this most basic of tasks.It doesn't have the grandeur, the Lawrence of Arabia or Dr Zhivago visuals that excite one viscerally. To be honest it looks like the various low budget BBC historical dramas from the early 70s. It doesn't have any characters for one which feels much sympathy or admiration. (This is honest, but fails as a movie.) And it doesn't have the intellectual depth that is, I think, its natural strength. The history can be approached in two ways --- as a Shakespearean tragedy or as a Greek tragedy. The approach taken was Shakespeare, so we're shown (over and over again, oh god it gets tiresome) how Nicholas is a weak man, how he's a stupid man, how he's a deluded man; and what follows is a consequence of this weakness and delusion. Nothing there of any intellectual interest, nothing there that's unfamiliar to anyone with even the slightest familiarity with the history. Vastly superior would have been a Greek tragedy approach: the tragedy was inherent in the situation, and was pretty much inevitable. The movie could then, instead of the constant emotionality and petty psychologizing, have spent that screen time engaged in some interesting discussion --- perhaps between some Bolsheviks, perhaps between Kerensky and some of the old guard. I'd have used that time to have characters ask how one avoids these ontological tragedies, tragedies of situation. Obviously the Greek answer (to one version of the problem) is the Oresteia --- you avoid cycles of revenge by giving law and punishment up to the state rather than engaging in it as individuals. The equivalent question here is how could the execution have been avoided, given the very real fact that the Whites were fighting back, were doing well, and were likely to reinstate the Royal family. My answer, in these imaginary dialogs I'd have play through the movie occasionally, would be to discuss individuals like Henry VII, or Charles II, or William III (all of England) --- individuals who were willing forgive and forget, who were willing to mete out punishments less than death, who were willing to share power. Basically this particular tragedy was resolved in the West by converting politics from a blood sport to "mere disagreement"; and if Nicholas had been willing to go down that path (from day one of his accession, not when it was too little too late) things could have turned out very differently. A movie like I suggest, full of dense discussion and historical allusion all the way through, would obviously not have mass appeal. But at least it would have SOME appeal, unlike what we've been given, which just doesn't work well for anyone.

I show this in class more because of its unintentional humour than for any serious merit. Tom Baker's Rasputin is remarkable and makes the film memorable. Lenin is played the usual lapel-grabbing way with such lines as "You have the right to criticise me. But I have the right to kill you for doing so." A peasant telling Father Gapon how he just wants to kill people because he's living in a dive of a place. Stolypin waiting an extra two years to get killed. Alexei constantly climbing mountains or falling over hedgerows to be saved from certain death by his trusty minder. And Olivier playing the usual prophet respected by none playing up the role to the hilt. The set pieces are more American 70s TV shows than Lawrence of Arabia, but for teenagers it's enjoyable to share a laugh with. www.tracesofevil.com