Opening with the birth of Alexis - the hemophiliac son of Nicholas II (the last Czar of Russia) and his wife Alexandra, this then traces the history of the Romanovs from that point until their eventual execution by the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War. As far as the big picture is concerned, this is reasonably accurate. All of the major events of those years are portrayed, so one gets a sense of the course of Russian history during the era. When we move into the details, the fictionalized material that's added in is believable enough for the most part. The viewer gets a feel for what life was like in Russia during this period, and the point is also made of how isolated the Royal Family was from the struggles of the average Russian family. Having said that, I still thought this movie was lacking. Mostly, it lacked real and believable emotion. I didn't get a sense of passion from any of the cast. They performed their parts well enough. I could "buy" most of them in their roles. But the feeling was strangely absent, which made this very long (3+ hours) movie seem even longer, to be honest. I was somewhat surprised by the somewhat limited amount of time that was given to Rasputin - who in reality became a surprisingly influential figure in the Russian court, but I appreciated the scenes following the Czar's abdication. Somehow I was able to enter into what must have been the extremely humbling (and even humiliating) circumstances into which the Romanovs fell afterward - they, who had held absolute power over the Russian people as the successors to a dynasty that had ruled for 300 years, suddenly at the mercy of those who held them prisoner. The movie depicts them as very dignified in the circumstances, and the final scene is quite brutal, leaving one with feelings of sympathy for the family, and especially their children, who were surely not responsible for whatever evil their father may have been accused of. This has plenty of weaknesses, but is still worth watching if only to get something of a "grand sweep" of the revolutionary era in Russian history.

I remember seeing this film in its uncut theatrical form in 70mm. It was breathtaking. The performances, music, sets and costumes were overwhelming. But most of all I remember the tremendous sense of doom that pervades the film and the sense of lost chances to avoid catastrophe, both for Russia and for the royal family. There are certainly historical inaccuracies but ultimately they do not get in the way of central theme of the film: the genuine love story between Nicholas and Alexandra. (Nicholas was only able to marry Alexandra because his father Tsar Alexander III relented on his deathbed despite substantial objections of the court and and Tsarina to Alexandra.) Michael Jayston and Janet Suzmann are superb in the title roles bringing a heartrending portrayal of two people in love but totally out of their depth ruling the great Russian empire. The final moments of the film remain amongst the most terrifying and memorable of any film I have seen. I recommend this film to any lover of fine film making.

"Nicholas and Alexandra" was clearly a bid to be another David Lean-style historical epic (it was produced by Sam Spiegel, who had brought several of Lean's films to the screen). But the problem is that it didn't have David Lean directing it, and without his particular knack for setting complex character studies against sweeping backdrops, the thing feels like a lumbering, boring pageant. It also doesn't help that it came out in a year that gave us films like "A Clockwork Orange," "The Last Picture Show," "Klute," McCabe & Mrs. Miller," "Harold and Maude," and any number of other films that had their fingers on the pulse of a troubled and restless America. "Nicholas and Alexandra" already felt like a film that should have been made ten years earlier before it even opened. Michael Jayston and Janet Suzman are wooden blank slates as the doomed Russian monarchy who had the misfortune of being the ones in power when the Bolshevik revolution succeeded. They don't successfully bring an ounce of emotion to this story, so we therefore aren't ever made to feel much for them as characters. Instead, we must satisfy ourselves with admiring the luxurious scenery and costumes, of which there are much but which can only take one so far. By the time this film ground into its third hour, I literally thought it would never end. One would expect a film like "Nicholas and Alexandra" to win Oscars for things like Art Direction and Costume Design (which it did) and be nominated in categories like Best Cinematography and Best Original Dramatic Score (which it was). But someone must draw the line at nominating it for Best Picture and Best Actress. That someone I guess has to be me since it was not the Academy. Grade: C-

In Russia, the story of czar Nicholas (Michaels Jayston) and Alexandra (Janet Suzman) until their death after the bolshevist Revolution of 1917 is presented in a beautiful reconstitution of a period. This long movie is a super-production, having a great cast, wonderful costumes and locations. In my opinion, there is a great flaw in the screenplay: the story is too much focused in the breast of the czar's family, and does not provide a great picture of the political situation in Russia and the atrocities committed by the czar with his own people. The war, starvation, execution of the opponents to the system, peasants and workers are only partially described in a shallow way. This movie is very adequate for persons who know history of Russia. In the end, the viewer becomes too much sympathetic with Nicholas, since the story presents basically his relationship and concerns with his own family. And of course, nobody likes to see a family suffering bad treatment and being executed. With such a long running time and available budget, this movie could have presented more details of European history in that period. My vote is eight. Title (Brazil): `Nicolas e Alexandra' (`Nicholas And Alexandra')

This film, amazingly, lacks the extraordinary drama of the people & period it deals with. A fair amount of the fault lies in the script. We're meant to sympathize with Nicholas & Alexandra as a devoted couple and parents. But they were also intractable tyrants whose blindness & ineptitude played a large part in their terrible fate. The screenplay doesn't bother to go into that more complex, truthful aspect. It's hard to understand why screenwriter James Goldman chose to fabricate parts of the story, such as inventing a suicide attempt by Alexis and presenting Rasputin's murder as a "homosexual thrill killing" (the insulting phrase used to describe the Leopold-Loeb case) perpetrated by giggling decadent aristocrats. Isn't the true story dramatic enough as it is? But the bulk of the film's failure rests with the uninspired performances of the stars. They are showcases of the worst tradition of British acting: 'demonstrating' passions that plainly aren't felt. Their emotions aren't believable. There's no psychological delving into characters that, for more talented actors, would be a feast. The fact that a couple of English acting greats (Olivier & Redgrave) swan briefly through this film – as they were wont to do in so many 60s & 70s period epics – doesn't help. Only Tom Baker & Irene Worth give notable performances in supporting roles. All in all, N&A is a wasted opportunity. The story is as close to Greek tragedy as anything in modern history. A better written & better cast film would've been unforgettable.

In the early twentieth century Nicholas Romanov is the Tsar of Russia, presiding over an empire from his palace in St Petersburg, and his wife Alexandra has just given birth to a son and heir. All is not well however; the child is gravely ill with haemophilia, a war with Japan in the East is going badly and another with Germany in the West awaits, there is widespread poverty and resentment, and bolshevik agitators are planning revolution ... Epic historical biopics are often stodgy and overlong and whilst this one (based on a book by Robert K. Massie) could probably do to lose a reel or two, it is nevertheless a powerful, moving and impressive account of the downfall of the royal house of the Romanovs and the Red Revolution of 1917. It's certainly an amazing true story about a couple who literally lost an empire, a mad monk who played a crucial role in their downfall and the transformation of a huge nation from one form of tyrannical oppression to another. It's also a very moving tragedy - Nicholas was not immoral, but his foolish pride in his noble lineage ultimately led to millions of wasted lives and his ignorance of his people's plight sealed his family's fate. The drama focuses on their descent from opulent splendour to powerlessness, exile, house-arrest and ultimately assassination at the hands of the communists. Produced by the legendary Sam Spiegel, the film is filled with amazing sets and costumes, all beautifully photographed by Freddie Young. The largely unknown cast are excellent, most notably Baker as the rapacious Rasputin, who wormed his way into the Empress' affections, and in his own way was more of a revolutionary than Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky, and Olivier as prime minister Witte, who delivers an impassioned speech on the folly of the Great War. This is a great drama and an enjoyable epic, but also a pointed history lesson for those interested in what eventually befalls all nobility. Do you think the Windsors have seen it ?

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

"Nicholas and Alexandra" is one of the last of the grand, sweeping epics that dominated the box office in the 50's and 60's. With the new wave of young, reckless directors who took to the scene in the 70's this kind of filmmaking seemed strangely dated. Ironically enough it kind of mimics the fate of the Romanov family, holding on to ideals that can no longer protect them. The genre, which had started with aplomb with movies like "Gone With The Wind" didn't draw the numbers it used to, and after seeing this movie I can't help but think of what a shame that is. The movie is off to a slow start, and doesn't really grab the viewer until after the introduction of Rasputin. From there on in it's pure cinematic joy to witness the fate of the Tzar and his family unravel. The actors do a tremendous job. It's obvious that the producers wanted their actors to look as much like their characters as possible, and while this doesn't necessarily strengthen the movie by itself it clearly gives it a stronger feel of authenticity. Furthermore they perfectly embody their flawed characters. The czar, beautifully played by Michael Jayston is a warm, caring man who unfortunately is totally unfit to be a czar. He is out of touch with his people, and feebly clings to his autocratic power. Jayston manages to portray an almost absurd certainty in his divine right, and ability to rule while at the same time exposing his uncertainty and fright. Janet Suzman is equally impressive as the loving, but domineering Alexandra. The look and feel of the movie is also fantastic. The jaw-dropping visuals of Russia perfectly accommodates the story, and the music is wonderful all the way through. The pace is slow, and it's easy to see why critics who had just witnessed the exhilarating pace of movies like "A Clockwork Orange" or "The French Connection". But this was how these kinds of movies were made, and "Nicholas and Alexandra" does not shame the genre. It's actually a beautiful end to a spectacular genre which is well worth a look for anyone with a soft spot for David Lean-like movies.

NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA has almost everything to be a successful epic: distinguished cast, impressive sets, good production values; the only thing missing is a real epic feeling. In emphasizing the personal story of the imperial couple, the director neglected the epic grandeur of the tale and period to the point that the result resembles a claustrophobic stage play full of talking heads rather than a real movie that shows EVERYTHING that happens in the story=thousands of soldiers, thousands of civilians, the endless landscapes of Russia, etc. This is a Shakespearean tragedy that demands GRANDEUR, but is instead filmed as if it were one of those bourgeois plays by Chekhov about silly provincial families wasting their time and lives in silly provincial towns. There are so many opportunities for GRANDEUR: the astounding Battle of Tsu Shima--one of the grandest battles in naval history--which ended the Russo-Japanese War; the huge battles of the Great War--Tannenberg, the Brusilov Offensive--; the civil war between the Reds and the Whites=all these would have made dynamic and exciting cinema! Apparently the budget for the movie was exhausted in hiring the all-star supporting cast, for the epic events of Nicholas' reign are merely suggested by symbolic gestures: a few soldiers marching here, a few civilians demonstrating there, photographs of Wilhelm II and Franz Joseph I to represent the enemy at World War I, etc. Franklin Schaffner evidently thought that he was directing a stage production, where representing mighty battles and broad vistas was impossible. How could that happen?! The director of such perfectly exciting movies as THE WAR LORD, PLANET OF THE APES (1968) and PATTON should have known better! All in all, a sadly wasted opportunity; what could have been a brilliant epic worthy of David Lean turned instead into a solid but stolid plod.

I have always been fascinated by Russia's last tsar and his family. I have literally read dozens of books as well as articles about them. This movie puts into perspective what I have known all along. I came across this movie (VHS form) over 10 years ago. I've read Robert K Massie's book and although the movie can never be as concise as a book, it skillfully captures the mood and developed the plot really well as the movie progresses. The casting also deserved a big applause. Jayston and Suzman did a wonderful job portraying the real tsar and tsarista. The only thing I guess (and it is not fault of theirs) is perhaps better sounds and graphics. I had to turn up my volume really high to hear what they are saying especially if the actors speak softly as demanded by the mood of that scene. Oh well..it's the early 70's..what can we expect. Great movie...i would recommend it to everyone.