it reminds one of the most significant tragedies from the XX century. and the desire to propose a portrait, not realistic but decent of the young Alexei is one of the good things. because, the first temptation is to critic the film as pathetic. or to ignore the motif for take the prizes. but, it is real simple. it is the image of the most vulnerable Romanov. and the desire of a 13 years old tsarevich to save his country and his family. nothing strange. only the basic opportunity to see, again, the roots f an event who was the start change for the transformation of East Europe. and, against the mistakes, the not impressive performances or Mark Moses as not the best Nicholas II, the film has the virtue to propose another reflection about a time and about a crime as its root.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
