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

This routine Hammer story is definitely not one of the studio's finest - despite a barnstorming performance in the title role from Christopher Lee. The film fails to evoke much period atmosphere or, indeed, excitement, from the authentic historical story of the mad monk who insinuated himself into the Russian royal family. If you've seen Dracula - PRINCE OF DARKNESS, then some of the sets will be immediately recognisable as they were used in both films to reduce costs. Unfortunately as the entire film is set-bound, this lacks the visual beauty of the lush English countryside and woodland which Hammer exploited in their more fantasy-based films.

Another disappointment is that the film plays like a historical drama with only a few explicit horror elements seemingly thrown in to make it more controversial. And the film's opening, which shows Rasputin trying to rape a peasant girl and cutting an attacker's hand off, promises so much more which is sadly not fulfilled. After this we settle into melodrama and court intrigue and things only pick up and become exciting towards the climax, where an enemy has acid thrown in his face and Rasputin dies a long, protracted death scene.

I also felt that the acting was a bit sub-par this time around, apart from Lee, that is. Lee is wonderful here in his over the top role, playing the wild, rolling-eyed psychopath to the hilt, and he obviously enjoys the break from playing his usual aloof, uncommunicative roles. Physically he looks excellent to with his long greasy hair, bushy beard and bright red silk robes. It's a villainous role that Lee really gets his teeth into and makes his own. Barbara Shelley also appears in what I felt to be an acutely embarrassing performance; for most of the film she's either drunk, being hypnotised, or being humiliated.

As for the supporting cast, I did enjoy Richard Pasco's turn as a snivelling sidekick who turns the tables on his oppressor in the final reel, but Francis Matthews gives a lazy performance and seems disinclined to actually act except where is necessary. The problem with the film is that it doesn't really go anywhere - too little is dwelt upon, and much of the action that takes place is trivial. I would have liked to have seen more of Rasputin and the explanations behind his healing abilities - here he's a stock, two-dimensional villain. This film could have been a lot more interesting with an epic, fully-fleshed feel to it, bringing out all the nuances in his character, but it's a simple tale of his rise and fall which never breaks any new boundaries nor tells us anything we don't know. Horror fans will enjoy the beginning and end, but the middle of this film is bound to disappoint everybody.

RASPUTIN: THE MAD MONK is a very fictionalized version of the life of Rasputin---a man whose real life exploits already are filled with myths that can't possibly be true. Because so many wild stories about Rasputin's actions exist, making his actions crazier isn't that bad a thing--his reputation was so bad that people could easily accept practically anything from him. So, in the film when he tosses acid in a man's face, I am sure that a lot of viewers thought this might have happened! And accounts of his many sexual exploits and drinking were so frequent that most today would accept that his was a major perv and lush.

Of all the myth surrounding Rasputin, the way he died is the most outlandish--but also the most documented. So, while the film can take many liberties in his life (about which there is a lot of vagueness),about his death there is one insanely improbably but accepted manner in which he died. Oddly, despite this being pretty much accepted (though impossible),Hammer chose to change his death greatly--actually making it seem MORE likely and believable. In the film, he was merely poisoned, stabbed with a hypo and tossed out a window to his death. In the crazy myths that arose after his death, military officers poisoned, strangled, stabbed, shot and tossed him through the ice--only to have him die from droning (hardly likely!!).

So, now that I have given you a vague history about a vague but sick man, let's talk about the film. To me it was interesting because there was so much craziness and carnality in the film, but the film also became a little confusing since the rise and fall of the man seemed to happen within weeks or just a few months. You have no real feel for his interactions with the royal family and his varied sexual exploits (he mostly focuses his horniness on one woman in the film). And, as a result the whole thing came off as a bit of a letdown. In other words, he came, he slept, he died...end of story. I wish instead they had shown some sort of time-line for his life as well as a connection to the political events of the day--which are totally lacking. The context just isn't there and instead it's just a few nasty exploits of a nasty man--and certainly not a thorough of even semi-superficial version of the monk's life.

Overall, shallow but interesting.