Rasputin: The Mad Monk is not one of those films where you should expect a history lesson, about two things are true but apart from that the film does play fast and loose with Rasputin and his life, which will leave historians in despair. As a film on its own terms(which I've always found a much fairer way to judge), while not great and while nowhere near Hammer's best(somewhere in the middle for me), Rasputin: The Mad Monk is fun.
It has two main flaws. One is that Rasputin: The Mad Monk has some very confined sets- in number and sometimes visually- that look like they were left over from previous Hammer films(quite a departure from Hammer's usual production values standard), when the film could have shown the beautiful Russian landscapes which would have given more of a sense of place. The wealthy also at times could have been more extravagant, the costumes are very attractive don't get me wrong but the low budget stops it from being more than that. The other flaw with Rasputin: The Mad Monk is the rather shoddy script, that contains flat dialogue, one-dimensional character writing(and this is including Rasputin, one of the 20th century's most colourful and interesting historical figures) while ignoring the political state of Russia at the time which would have brought some tension, and a few decent ideas that were sadly vaguely explored.
Francis Matthews is also rather stiff and dull, very like how he was in Dracula: Prince of Darkness, and while she does a decent job still Suzan Farmer has very little to do other than look as fetching as possible. As exciting, hugely entertaining and as tense as the climax was, it also was a touch anti-climatic and Rasputin's death was handled too quickly and too easily(from personal view).
However, the lighting is both colourful and eerie, and Rasputin: The Mad Monk is filmed beautifully and stylishly. So the film didn't look completely cheap, despite the obviousness of the low-budget. The music score is thunderously grandiose in the most thrilling of ways, giving off genuine chills and excitement. Sharp's direction is efficient enough, managing to mostly keep the story interesting and maintaining the appropriate mood. The story is mostly fun, and includes some horror elements that are handled with tension and creepy atmosphere without being gratuitous as well as some mystery elements that bring glimpses of suspense.
The best thing about Rasputin: The Mad Monk is the cast. Barbara Shelley(better utilised than she was in Dracula: Prince of Darkness) is luminous but also brings vulnerability and vast dramatic intensity, and Richard Pasco is effectively twitchy. Christopher Lee walks away with the film though to the extent that he literally IS the film, with his larger than life presence, wild appearance, chilling penetrating stare and deep and very distinctive voice it's a towering performance in every sense of the word, and it's so much fun to watch him.
On the whole, Rasputin: The Mad Monk is not a great film as such and people should look to the 1996 film starring Alan Rickman for a more accurate account of the man and his life, but it does provide some good entertainment when not taken seriously and viewed as it's meant to be and is worth catching for Lee alone. 6/10 Bethany Cox
It has two main flaws. One is that Rasputin: The Mad Monk has some very confined sets- in number and sometimes visually- that look like they were left over from previous Hammer films(quite a departure from Hammer's usual production values standard), when the film could have shown the beautiful Russian landscapes which would have given more of a sense of place. The wealthy also at times could have been more extravagant, the costumes are very attractive don't get me wrong but the low budget stops it from being more than that. The other flaw with Rasputin: The Mad Monk is the rather shoddy script, that contains flat dialogue, one-dimensional character writing(and this is including Rasputin, one of the 20th century's most colourful and interesting historical figures) while ignoring the political state of Russia at the time which would have brought some tension, and a few decent ideas that were sadly vaguely explored.
Francis Matthews is also rather stiff and dull, very like how he was in Dracula: Prince of Darkness, and while she does a decent job still Suzan Farmer has very little to do other than look as fetching as possible. As exciting, hugely entertaining and as tense as the climax was, it also was a touch anti-climatic and Rasputin's death was handled too quickly and too easily(from personal view).
However, the lighting is both colourful and eerie, and Rasputin: The Mad Monk is filmed beautifully and stylishly. So the film didn't look completely cheap, despite the obviousness of the low-budget. The music score is thunderously grandiose in the most thrilling of ways, giving off genuine chills and excitement. Sharp's direction is efficient enough, managing to mostly keep the story interesting and maintaining the appropriate mood. The story is mostly fun, and includes some horror elements that are handled with tension and creepy atmosphere without being gratuitous as well as some mystery elements that bring glimpses of suspense.
The best thing about Rasputin: The Mad Monk is the cast. Barbara Shelley(better utilised than she was in Dracula: Prince of Darkness) is luminous but also brings vulnerability and vast dramatic intensity, and Richard Pasco is effectively twitchy. Christopher Lee walks away with the film though to the extent that he literally IS the film, with his larger than life presence, wild appearance, chilling penetrating stare and deep and very distinctive voice it's a towering performance in every sense of the word, and it's so much fun to watch him.
On the whole, Rasputin: The Mad Monk is not a great film as such and people should look to the 1996 film starring Alan Rickman for a more accurate account of the man and his life, but it does provide some good entertainment when not taken seriously and viewed as it's meant to be and is worth catching for Lee alone. 6/10 Bethany Cox