Very well executed

SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Lack of good storyline.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

a special film. at first sigh, about a man who was in many others movies used as exotic character. in this case , he represents only the pretext. for a story about a profound crisis, for the chronicle of the fall premises of a monarchy. in same measure, it is a manifesto. the reaction of Soviet authorities about it is the basic argument. because the realities presented by Elem Klimov are against the entire portrait of Tsarist regime presented by official sources. and Rasputin himself is not exactly the expected one. but the film is, in same measure, less than a tool of political opposition. it is an analysis of Russia. the Russia from yesterday and today. the Russia of illusions and leaders and incertitude, hope and faith. and this facts does it a special film. because the fragments of documentary film reminds the powerful shadows behind the artistic purposes.

AGONY was a huge disappointment. The subject matter is one of the most fascinating episodes of the 20th century, the collapse of Russia's Romanov dynasty amid world war and revolution, and in particular the pernicious influence of the peasant "holy man" Rasputin over the royal family...so why is this such a dull, turgid movie? In an interview on the DVD, director Klimov makes a big deal about breaking Soviet stereotype by showing Czar Nicholas as a flawed human being (rather than a complete monster), and also about Soviet limitations on showing graphic sex (therefore Rasputin's notorious debauchery is only barely hinted at). So Soviet censorship is at least partly to blame, but so is Klimov's ineptitude. Instead of spectacle or realism, AGONY uses clumsy and dated propaganda techniques to convey its historical context. It delivers not a shred of psychological insight into its subjects, nor even the satisfactions of simple sensationalism. I still await the film that will give me some understanding of the phenomenon of Rasputin.

I don't understand russian language and I'm not very familiar to russian history, but the events told in this film make a very strong and exciting experience. Much of this is due to Elem Klimovs very conscious use of cinematic methods. The mad monk (Rasputin) as an evil force in russian politics is portrayed with great force. Klimov seems to be one of the great cinematic poets and dramatist who can tell a story of violent and dramatic political events, and also of private and psychological conditions. The actors are first rate in every aspect and make this cruel story a memorable, thrilling and moving experience. Agoniya means of course agony, and that is what the imperial family and the political elite in Russia went trough these years. Klimov had to do some compromises, but this film is in any way a masterpiece.

This film is so odd and bizarre that I was totally immersed in it. In actuality this is a basic story that deals with Siberian peasant 'Rasputin', the mystic whose ability to improve the condition of Aleksey Nikolayevich, the hemophiliac heir to the Russian throne, made him an influential favourite at the court of Emperor Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra. The actor who plays Rasputin is an evil duplicate, a man who is oozing virulence, he has a very charismatic smile that almost looks diabolical.He's a strange character and has a powerful influence on the Czar's family and Russian political life. As the viewer, we are left to wonder, 'what do these people see in him, how does he control them so?'. He soon makes enemies of the church, the state, and local husbands who do not take kindly to his debauchery and licentiousness. The director is brilliant in weaving a documentary montage of Russian events and the ending is one of the most powerful ever envisioned by a director.