Nicholas And Alexandra (1971)

Apr 2014
Istanbul Turkey
Just watched this. Suprisingly good (costumes were great) but both Romanov dynastry , monarchy and late Tsar and his family were too romanticised I believe. Tsar Nicholas II was much more dimwitted and much more easily influenced / manipulated than depicted in this movie I think. Suprised many great actors from 1960'ies and 1970'ies im this production : Laurence Oliver (Count Sergey Witte) , Michael Byrant (Vladimir Lenin !) , Brian Cox (Trostsky) , Timothy West (Dr. Botkin) , Julian Glover (Father Gapon) , Ian Holm (Bilbo Baggins as Bolshevik Commisar now I have seen all) , Jack Hawkins (before he lost his voice) and Tom Baker as an impressive Rasputin..Trailer is in link below :

Last edited:
Apr 2016
Raleigh, NC
I don't understand why this film is so underrated. I've seen the criticism that Nicholas and Alexandra were too ordinary to carry the drama, but that's the whole point! I saw it when it first came out. To this day, I remember the response when Nicholas asked the head of the soldiers guarding him in Ekaterina what he thought of him, and the officer replied, "I think you have no imagination." It stuck with me as the great political sin.
Likes: Linschoten
Aug 2011
I saw this film when it first came out, I was in High School, I really liked it, saw it again later in life to see how it held up, marginally I felt was just OK.
Apr 2014
Istanbul Turkey
I thought that Nicholas was portrayed rather well - that is to say as rather the kind of man whom I imagine him as having been!
I think Fall of Eagles (1974) depicted him better , dimwitted as well as incompatent and with mind of a child combined with narrow mindness. In Nicholas and Alexandria he was all too smiling all too decent and depicted as a victim of events beyond his control. His bad decision making and mistakes committed over and over brought those events though.
Aug 2010
Welsh Marches
As a private individual I think he was by no means lacking in attractive qualities, and he would have made a good and even benevolent country gentleman if he had been born into the English landed gentry; but he was totally out of his depth as Tsar of all the Russia, had a weak and stubborn character that amplified his failings, he absorbed very unpleasant attitudes from the surrounding atmosphere (e.g. with regard to Jews), and was totally lacking in imagination, a worse fault in him Ithink than mere lack of intelligence. But I wouldn't diagree that the portrayal in Fall of Eagles is more rounded and brings out his worse qualities. (For anyone who doesn't know itt is a wonderful series by the way and can be watched in full on youtube, this is my favourite episode, Nicholas and all:


Similar History Discussions