This is an awesome film on the mythos of Rasputin, the legend surrounding the mad monk of Siberia. They shouldn't have tried to portray these events as historically accurate at all. This movie doesn't need gimmicks like that archeology scene and narrations by the boy prince.
shareactually, this movie wasn't very accurate historically. the portrayal of tsar nicholas and rasputin was also incomplete. no mentioning of "bloody sunday" or other "bad" stuff caused by dynasty. and i also don't understand why someone would not want it to be historically accurate. this is - despite some shortcomings - a great film about an interesting man and his affect to a giant country - thus the world. it's a very intriguing era with lots of turning points.
shareIt's generally accepted that it's much more accurate than the 1966 version with Christopher Lee.
Great minds run in the same channel, and fools think alike.
At the end of the day, this film was more or less an homage to an intruiging historical figure than an actual attempt to recreate history. As a result, the performances and atmosphere are spot on but some of the events (especially Bloody Sunday...you'd think that would be a major plot point!) are left by the wayside. Despite its flaws, however, I really did love this film.
share