Nicholas and Alexandra 1971 123movies

Watch: Nicholas and Alexandra 1971 123movies, Full Movie Online – The tragic story of Nicholas II (Michael Jayston), the last Czar of Russia, set against the backdrop of the Russian Revolution. It is an inside look into the private lives of Nicholas and his wife Alexandra (Janet Suzman), their daughters, their only son, and the painful secret about their son and heir apparent which bound the Imperial Couple to the mystical Grigori Rasputin (Tom Baker), and the eventual execution of the entire family..
Plot: Tsar Nicholas II, the inept last monarch of Russia, insensitive to the needs of his people, is overthrown and exiled to Siberia with his family.
Smart Tags: #russian_empire #1910s #bolshevik #princess #character_names_as_title #czar_nicholas_ii_character #tsarina_alexandra_of_russia_character #vladimir_lenin_character #josef_stalin_character #period_drama #man_in_drag #opium #british_actor_playing_foreigner #three_word_title #romanov #child_in_jeopardy #costume_drama_history #grigori_rasputin_character #anastasia_nikolaevna_romanova_character #execution #russian_revolution

Find Alternative – Nicholas and Alexandra 1971, Streaming Links:

123movies | FMmovies | Putlocker | GoMovies | SolarMovie | Soap2day

Ratings:

	7.2/10 Votes: 5,109
	67% | RottenTomatoes
	57/100 | MetaCritic
	N/A Votes: 51 Popularity: 6.985 | TMDB

Reviews:

Among the last of the “thinking man’s epics” and one of the best.
At the time of it’s release in December of 1971, “Nicholas and Alexandra” must have seemed like an anachronistic piece of film-making, especially when compared with fellow Best Picture Nominees, “A Clockwork Orange”, “The French Connection” and “The Last Picture Show”. Based on a best-selling work of popular history, it was film making on a grand scale, boasting for it’s cast a veritable who’s who of the English speaking stage, a sweeping love story spanning many years, thrown over thousands of miles, using the conflict of World War I and the Russian Revolution as it’s background. It must have seemed to many like the best film David Lean never made. And superficially it does resemble Lean’s epic of a few years earlier, “Doctor Zhivago”. Indeed three of Lean’s close associates, Producer Sam Spiegel, Production Designer John Box, and Cinematographer, Freddie Young all shine in this production. Unfortunately having arrived late in the historical epic film cycle, it was largely dismissed at the time of it’s release by critics, but time has revealed it’s many virtues.

Produced with lavish care and attention to detail by Sam Spiegel for Horizon Pictures, “Nicholas and Alexandra” is among the last of the great “thinking man’s epics” and one of the best. This is due in no small measure to the wonderful screenplay by James Goldman. Goldman, who also scripted “The Lion in Winter” and “Robin and Marian” had a fine ear for dialogue, and “Nicholas and Alexandra” is a pleasure to listen to as well as to behold. Like Robert Bolt’s “Lawrence of Arabia”, Charles Wood’s “Charge of the Light Brigade” and Robert Ardrey’s “Khartoum”, all fine historical epics, Goldman’s “Nicholas and Alexandra” is elevated by an intelligent script laced with fine dialogue. Transposing history onto the screen is never an easy task, but the story of the last years of the Romanov Dynasty is well served by Goldman. He skillfully telescopes events, while still remaining basically true to historic fact. One way or another, all films dealing with history compromise fact for drama. The best of them achieve a balance between the two. Those pedants who quibble over this fact of life, please refer to the historical plays of Shakespeare for it’s validation.

Among the film’s many pleasures is the high level of acting by an impressive cast. Michael Jayston and Janet Suzman are simply magnificent in the lead roles. It was an uncanny and bold choice using two unknowns to star in a film of this scope, and they have no problems carrying the three hour film. Both create complex, three-dimensional characters, deeply flawed, yet appealing, sympathetic and infuriating. it is the film’s unwillingness to portray them as simply victims that gives it tragic grandeur. A special note must be made of Tom Baker’s performance as Rasputin. Too often in previous movies film-makers have exploited the sensational events of the man’s life and nothing more. This film actually had the courage to downplay those lurid elements, striving instead for complexity of character. Here we have a tortured individual, a charlatan and a monk, lascivious yet craving spiritual redemption. The Imperial Children are also sensitively depicted, with a standout performance by Roderic Noble as the hemophiliac only son, Alexis. The internal angst he brings to the part in his later scenes is impressive. Franklin J. Schaffner’s able direction keeps the film moving along, and at no time is there any danger of the film losing focus on the two leads. This was no mean feat considering the powerhouse supporting cast that included, Laurence Olivier, Michael Redgrave, Harry Andrews, Irene Worth, Jack Hawkins, Ian Holm, Michael Bryant, Brian Cox, Eric Porter, Timothy West, Peter McEnery, Julian Glover, Roy Dotrice, Maurice Denham, Alan Webb, Guy Rolfe, Steven Berkof and John Wood, all of whom do memorable turns.

In the first half of the movie, the filmmakers vividly bring to life the isolated fairy-tale world the Imperial Family inhabited. The beautiful palaces, and villas provide a striking contrast to the shabby, squalid prison quarters of the film’s second half, which deals largely with the Romanov’s exile and imprisonment in Siberia. The murder of the Royal Family in the basement of the Ipatiev house, the so called “House of Special Purpose” is one of the most strikingly directed scenes in the film. The brutal suddenness with which it is depicted packs quite a wallop. Filmed in Panavision, the film is gorgeous to look at. John Box’s recreation of Imperial Russia at the turn of the century truly deserved it’s Academy Award for Best Production Design, as did Yvonne Blake for Best Costume Design. Freddie Young’s stunning cinematography and Richard Rodney Bennett’s haunting music score were also nominated, though they both lost to other films. Finally it is a beautifully edited film, a marvelous example of invisible editing used to create a subtle, but powerful sense of irony. A superb film that deals intelligently with the problems inherent in transposing history onto film.

Not an epic, but a long drama
I’m not that interested in genre fights, but I think I have to step my toe into a very minor and rather inconsequential one with Nicholas and Alexandra. You see, the film is often referenced as an epic. It has some of the markers of one, for sure. It’s over three hours long, about historical people, and it involves a nation’s activity in two major wars and a world-shaping revolution. It has to be an epic, right? Well, except that the movie almost entirely takes place in little rooms and through small conversations. This is a glib description, but Nicholas and Alexandra is ultimately a drama about a man who can’t balance his work and family lives.

As presented in the film (I assume that all historical films are roughly 90% ahistorical), Nicholas was a very kind man, and out of that kindness in personal interactions bred absolute callousness for this people in the aggregate. He was a devoted husband to Alexandra and father to his four girls and one sickly son, and by being so devoted to them and to the family who came before him as he presides over the three-hundredth year of Romanov tsarist rule of Russia, he wants nothing more than to pass onto his son what his father passed onto him. That means all of the powers that Nicholas II inherited from Alexander III will pass to Alexei, no matter the cost.

Nicholas needs to pass on martial glory to his son, so he keeps Russian troops in Korea fighting Japan in the Russo-Japanese War well beyond any reasonable marker for success has faded away. He must pass on the full powers of the tsar to Alexei, so he will put down any efforts to create a parliament and liberalize the backwards country (his mother calls Russia in 1904 an 18th century empire in the 20th century) so that Alexei will have what Nicholas had. It’s these acts of kindness (along with his later unwise and guileless decisions that helped lead to the explosion of hostilities at the start of The Great War) that ultimately spells his fate, the fate of his family, and the fate of his country into communist repression at the hands of Vladimir Lenin.

The movie makes a lot of Alexei’s hemophilia, describing the illness and its potential ill effects while Alexandra dotes on her sickly son, keeping him from any bumps that could lead to deformities or death, and it serves as an apt metaphor for Nicholas’ handling of state affairs. He has a series of small bumps that cannot be treated once made, ballooning with blood and ultimately deforming the form of the state.

Alongside Nicholas is, obviously, his German wife, Alexandra. They are obviously deeply in love throughout, but their relationship is not quite even. She lords over him in subtle ways, most prominent in her embrace of Grigori Rasputin, the mystic holy man she brings to court above everyone’s objections. She sees him as the key to Alexei’s health, attributing every decline in the boy’s health to Rasputin’s absence and every relapse into good health due to Rasputin’s presence. Nicholas cannot fight this line of thinking and allows it, perhaps even subscribing to it himself. That is, until Rasputin’s enemies kill him with several poisons and bullets.

Everything collapses, though, as the Great War drags on, more Russian soldiers die, supply lines never improve, and St. Petersburg descends into a state of anarchy that only the tsar could possibly abate, but Nicholas moves too late. By the time he gets back from the frontier, calls for his abdication have moved from quiet corners to the lips of some of his greatest friends in government. He cannot continue to rule and ends up, along with his family, shuttled around the vast nation with no one wanting to take ownership of him, not even his English cousin, King George. Eventually, as civil war between the monarchist Whites and the Bolsheviks rages closer to the Romanovs, drastic action erupts in the execution of the whole family.

It’s a solid telling of the story. It’s firmly entertaining with strong characters from beginning to end on which to hang the story of Russia. I think it’s easy to call to mind The Last Emperor, which told a somewhat similar story of the final emperor of a great nation. As a drama, it’s good, but, I do think that genre mixup could point to something. The story feels like it should be an epic. What the movie gives us is, again, good, but I have a feeling that a rework of the material to make it an epic that more cinematically mirrors the journeys of the Romanovs with the evolution of life in and the government of Russia would have benefited the material, in much the same was that The Last Emperor saw the journey of Puyi and the evolution of China as part and parcel with each other. But, Bertolucci was one of cinema’s greats while Franklin Schaffner was, while quite skilled, more a workman than an artist.

Still, you review movies for what they are, not what you wish them to be. And what Nicholas and Alexandra is ends up being a firmly entertaining story of a man who cannot manage his work and family life. Again, it’s glib, but I feel like it’s an accurate description.

Other Information:

Original Language en
Runtime 3 hr 3 min (183 min), 3 hr 9 min (189 min) (UK)
Budget 0
Revenue 0
Status Released
Rated GP
Genre Biography, Drama, History
Director Franklin J. Schaffner
Writer Robert K. Massie, Edward Bond, James Goldman
Actors Michael Jayston, Janet Suzman, Roderic Noble
Country United Kingdom
Awards Won 2 Oscars. 3 wins & 11 nominations total
Production Company N/A
Website N/A

Technical Information:

Sound Mix 70 mm 6-Track (70 mm prints) (UK release), Mono (35 mm prints)
Aspect Ratio 2.20 : 1 (70 mm prints), 2.35 : 1
Camera N/A
Laboratory N/A
Film Length N/A
Negative Format 35 mm
Cinematographic Process Panavision (anamorphic) (as Panavision ®)
Printed Film Format 35 mm, 70 mm (blow-up)