Agony: The Life and Death of Rasputin
November. 15,1985Russian monk Grigori Rasputin rises to power, which corrupts him along the way. His sexual perversions and madness ultimatly leads to his gruesome assasination.
Similar titles
Reviews
Not even bad in a good way
It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.
This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.
At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.
a special film. at first sigh, about a man who was in many others movies used as exotic character. in this case , he represents only the pretext. for a story about a profound crisis, for the chronicle of the fall premises of a monarchy. in same measure, it is a manifesto. the reaction of Soviet authorities about it is the basic argument. because the realities presented by Elem Klimov are against the entire portrait of Tsarist regime presented by official sources. and Rasputin himself is not exactly the expected one. but the film is, in same measure, less than a tool of political opposition. it is an analysis of Russia. the Russia from yesterday and today. the Russia of illusions and leaders and incertitude, hope and faith. and this facts does it a special film. because the fragments of documentary film reminds the powerful shadows behind the artistic purposes.
What an awful movie. Rasputin is portrayed as a completely insane person. We get no insight at all into his personality. This is just another movie in a row of sensationalist movies about Rasputin. The only movie who takes Rasputin seriously is "Rasputin" made in 1996 starring Alan Rickman, Ian McKellen, David Warner and others. It's so tiring to watch yet another Rasputin movie about a crazy evil monster creating havoc. Always we get "The mad monk" angle. Rasputin was never a member of any monk order and therefore never defrocked, but who cares about details like that. There was a real religious side to Rasputin and there was a darker side, but the books and movies only focus on the latter because that's where there's money to be made. I wonder when we're going to see a historically accurate movie about Rasputin. Perhaps never, I fear...
AGONY was a huge disappointment. The subject matter is one of the most fascinating episodes of the 20th century, the collapse of Russia's Romanov dynasty amid world war and revolution, and in particular the pernicious influence of the peasant "holy man" Rasputin over the royal family...so why is this such a dull, turgid movie? In an interview on the DVD, director Klimov makes a big deal about breaking Soviet stereotype by showing Czar Nicholas as a flawed human being (rather than a complete monster), and also about Soviet limitations on showing graphic sex (therefore Rasputin's notorious debauchery is only barely hinted at). So Soviet censorship is at least partly to blame, but so is Klimov's ineptitude. Instead of spectacle or realism, AGONY uses clumsy and dated propaganda techniques to convey its historical context. It delivers not a shred of psychological insight into its subjects, nor even the satisfactions of simple sensationalism. I still await the film that will give me some understanding of the phenomenon of Rasputin.
This film is so odd and bizarre that I was totally immersed in it. In actuality this is a basic story that deals with Siberian peasant 'Rasputin', the mystic whose ability to improve the condition of Aleksey Nikolayevich, the hemophiliac heir to the Russian throne, made him an influential favourite at the court of Emperor Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra. The actor who plays Rasputin is an evil duplicate, a man who is oozing virulence, he has a very charismatic smile that almost looks diabolical.He's a strange character and has a powerful influence on the Czar's family and Russian political life. As the viewer, we are left to wonder, 'what do these people see in him, how does he control them so?'. He soon makes enemies of the church, the state, and local husbands who do not take kindly to his debauchery and licentiousness. The director is brilliant in weaving a documentary montage of Russian events and the ending is one of the most powerful ever envisioned by a director.