Rasputin: The Mad Monk (1966) - film review

Banished from a monastery for his heretical and licentious behaviour, the monk Rasputin takes to the road and heads for Petersburg.  There he intends to make use of his God-given powers – which include hypnosis and an ability to heal the terminally sick – for his own ends.  Through Sonia, a lady-in-waiting at the imperial court, Rasputin secures the patronage of the Tsarina.  The latter is so grateful when the monk saves the life of her son that she gives him a grand house in which to receive and treat the sick.  Through his influence over the Tsarina, Rasputin soon realises that he has become the most powerful man in Russia.  Unfortunately, others arrive at the same conclusion and they decide that he must be destroyed. Easier said than done...

At first sight, Rasputin: The Mad Monk would seem to be a surprising departure for Hammer, moving away from the Gothic horror films which the company made so well, to what is essentially a biopic, albeit one which has only a scant relationship to historical fact.   Actually, the shift isn’t as great as first appears and, once you’ve watched the film (and coughed up all the chocolates you ate along the way), it is apparent that this is really just another Hammer horror film.  The setting has all the Gothic horror accoutrements and the central character is every bit as chilling and monstrous as the more fantastic creations the genre has given us, admittedly without the pointy teeth, bandages and facial scars.

The film has been criticised for its poor production standards, the result of an unrealistic attempt to make a historical drama on a shoestring budget.  To save money, the film was shot back-to-back with Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966) – which explains the high degree of overlap between the two films, in the sets, locations, costumes and even the cast.  Although the sets are not bad for a Hammer production, no one could pretend that they give a realistic portrayal of early 20th Century Imperial Russia – not unless the film depicts an unrecorded period when the Tsar went on a severe economy drive.  

Whilst the film’s production values may not be up to scratch, Rasputin: The Mad Monk still manages to be a compelling horror fest, offering a fare quota of thrills.  The film’s main asset - some would argue, the only reason for watching the film at all - is Christopher Lee’s bravura portrayal of the titular mad monk.  The six-foot-five actor is renowned for playing powerful characters with a touch of the Grand Guignol (Dracula, Fu Manchu, the Frankenstein monster, amongst others), and so he is ideally suited for the part of Rasputin, one of the most powerful (and badly coiffeured) men in Russian history.

What is so wonderful about Lee’s performance in this film is the realism the actor brings to the part, portraying the monk both as a monster and as a believable human being.  Lee’s Rasputin is a chilling Faustian creation, a man driven by a diabolical will to perpetrate evil, but despite this he somehow manages to retain our sympathy.  It is interesting that whilst Rasputin does a fair amount of exploiting, disfiguring and killing, his victims all seem to deserve their fate, whereas his end seems to be unjust. Like any good horror fiend, Rasputin may chill our blood but we still lament his passing.  Alas, this was one Hammer monster who wasn’t ever going to make a come back. Just think, there could have been a whole series of sequels: Rasputin Has Risen from the Grave, The Revenge of Rasputin, The Evil of Rasputin, The Brides of Rasputin, Taste the Blood of Rasputin... On second thoughts, that might be stretching it.

One of the concerns that Hammer had about the film was how it should portray Rasputin’s assassin.  The man who had killed the monk in real life, Prince Felix Yussoupov, had previously sued MGM over the inaccuracies in their film Rasputin and the Empress (1932).  Anxious not to fall into the same trap, Hammer sought Yussoupov’s approval and insisted that he sign every copy of the script before the film went into production.  He who sups with the Devil... should first make sure he has a good lawyer.

© James Travers 2009

Write a review for this film...

What do you think of this film?