User reviews

Once again, A&E brings us a beautiful looking production. The costumes, sets and, of course, performances by an exceptional cast, are stunning as always. However it seems that the writers were getting a bit tired while working on this one. It lacked the cleverness and vivacity of productions such as Vanity Fair and Pride and Prejudice, and the drama we enjoyed in Horatio and Tess. I was also disappointed to find that the version available in N.America is only 90 minutes long, and includes only Catherine's early reign. If you want to see the entire production you apparently need to get the 3-hour version, available in Germany.

All in all, it is worth watching, if only for the visuals and wonderful acting. Catherine Zeta Jones is brilliant and displays her versatility in this dramatic role. I cannot begin to comment on the equally strong performances of the rest of the cast, being restricted to 1000 characters here, but as I say, certainly worth the watch.

I'll have to admit at the out-set, here, that I know very little about Russian history. That being said, I was expecting a great deal more from this movie than was given. Catherine was purportedly a visionary that changed Russian society by instituting laws that helped the poor and was a patron of the arts. We saw none of that in this move, only a person driven by ruthless ambition.

I thought that toward the end of the move we would begin to see some philosophy or ethics form part of her character, but this was not to be. When she allowed her political opponent to be executed at the end of the film, a man both brave and righteous, the movie fell apart. A shame.

Although fairly interesting to watch, Katharina is very historically inaccurate and biased, which is partly due to the horrible miscasting. Just to name a few: 1. Catherine Zeta-Jones as Empress Catherine II: a actress who is young, beautiful, dark in complexion and extremely attractive is certainly a poor choice to play a pale, plain middle-aged nimphomaniac. No one would ever address the real Catherine II as "you pretty thing", as Pugachev did in the film! 2. Jeanne Moreau as Empress Elizabeth: a 70-year old playing a 40-year old (I think this is self-explanatory) 3. Omar Sharif as Count Razumovsky: a 65-year old with a typically mediterranean appearance as a 45-year-old Ukrainian... 4. Rhys-Meyers as Pugachev... Don't know where to start... Apart from the fact that the actor is once again much older that his character, Rhys-Meyers is a BAD choice to play a violent, charismatic, almost demonic, and at the same time very folkish, Emelian Pugachev. Rhys-Meyers just doesn't look like an escaped convict-mass-murdered-highway robber-impostor or any of what real-life Pugachev was. Apart from that, a particularly striking misportrayal is the execution of Pugachev. The filmmakers have it take place in the summer in front of a crowd of about 5, while in reality it took place in the middle of winter on the Red Square in Moscow in front of a crowd of perhaps a 100,000, and was an extremely dramatic event, one the biggest public spectacles in Russia's history. So much for the fillmakers... Also, the story of Catherine's marriage to Peter III is portarayed in a highly prejudiced manner, drawing an all-too-clear line between the supposedly "good guys" (namely Catherine, Orlov, and the bunch) an the "horrible monster" Peter III. The story was not nearly so black-and-white in reality. Apart from that, the film makes fairly decent viewing. Balancing the two, I give it a 6/10

There are two types of people who will like Catherine the Great history buffs and Catherine Zeta-Jones fans. I happen to be both, so I was highly entertained by this romantic biopic of Catherine II, in which the lead actress plays the title character in more ways than one.

Catherine is married to the future Czar, Hannes Jaenicke, and while her marriage leaves much to be desired, she learns to enjoy life in other ways. She takes a lover, Craig McLachlin, and learns the subtle and powerful art of politics in preparation for her reign. With friends, advisors, and adversaries around every corner, Catherine has a very colorful and eventful road ahead of her. With a supporting cast of Jeanne Moreau, Omar Sharif, Mel Ferrer, John Rhys Davies, Ian Richardson, Paul McGann, and Christoph Waltz, the movie will grab and keep your attention from start to finish.

While Catherine Zeta-Jones looks nothing like the historical figure she's portraying, she's still mesmerizing on the screen. She's never looked more beautiful, and Barbara Baum's exquisite costumes will make it impossible to choose only one gown as your favorite. The film is just as, if not more so, entertaining if you're only interested in fashion rather than history. With such incredible eye candy to stare at-the lead actress and the clothes she wears-I'm sure you'll be captivated. And you'll probably declare Catherine Zeta-Jones as the most beautiful actress in all existence.

It's 1745. Catherine (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is a 15 year old princess of a small German principality pushed into an arranged political marriage to Grand Duke Peter by Czarina Elizabeth. After 7 years, they still haven't consummate the marriage and Elizabeth arranges to get an heir at all costs. Catherine learns to play politics and maneuver the palace intrigue. She has a son but Peter continues to be abusive. She joins forces with Bestuzhev (Brian Blessed) to continue the war against the Prussians while Peter and Vorontzov (Ian Richardson) are pushing to end it. The Czarina wants victory but she dies. Peter is crowned Czar and ends the war. Catherine falls for military man Potemkin (Paul McGann). She seizes control with military and church support. She kills Peter and expands the empire by defeating the Ottoman Empire. She aims to end serfdom and reform society but is pushed back. When Pugachev (John Rhys-Davies) pleads for reforms, he is imprisoned. He escapes and eventually takes on the identity of the deceased Czar Peter leading a revolt.

This is slightly before Catherine Zeta-Jones attains her full stardom. She shows quite a lot of charisma and some sexuality for this TV movie. However there is limited style and a less-than-dramatic script. It's a historical costume drama of highlights of a great ruler. It tries to be a romance melodrama but the audience can never buy any of her relationships. She tries her hardest but this is not great romantic material. She and Paul McGann have limited chemistry. They mostly yell or overact in a romantic melodrama. There are other great actors in this and they do some good work especially Ian Richardson. The action is limited and staged amateurishly. The main bright spot is Zeta-Jones and it's interesting to see her lead this.

"Catherine the Great" is an ambitious historical drama that attempts to capture the complexities of one of Russia's most famous rulers, Empress Catherine II. With Helen Mirren in the lead role, the series paints a vivid portrait of the empress's reign, her personal relationships, and the political intricacies of 18th-century Russia. While the series shines in some aspects, it falls short of being as fully realized and engaging as it could have been.

Helen Mirren's performance as Catherine is undoubtedly the highlight of the series. She brings a commanding presence and depth to the character, capturing both the regal authority and the more personal, vulnerable sides of the empress. Mirren's portrayal of Catherine is nuanced, effortlessly moving between the empress's political savvy and her personal desires, creating a multidimensional character. The chemistry between her and her co-stars, particularly Jason Clarke as Emperor Peter III, adds a layer of complexity to the drama, especially in the portrayal of Catherine's often tumultuous relationships.

Visually, the series is lush, with lavish sets and costumes that transport viewers to the grandeur of the Russian court. The cinematography and attention to period detail are impressive, creating an immersive atmosphere that enhances the historical setting. The opulent palaces, expansive landscapes, and exquisite gowns all serve to reinforce the scale and power of Catherine's empire.

However, while Catherine the Great succeeds in showcasing the grandeur of the Russian court and the sharp wit of its titular character, it falters in pacing and narrative depth. The series often feels like it rushes through pivotal moments of Catherine's life, glossing over significant events that could have provided more emotional weight. The political intrigue and personal drama are present, but they don't always reach their full potential. The supporting characters, while competent, often feel underdeveloped, leaving viewers with a sense that the series misses out on exploring the rich history and relationships that defined Catherine's reign.

The writing can occasionally feel formulaic, and some of the historical liberties taken may leave viewers questioning the accuracy of certain events. While the show is entertaining, those looking for a more comprehensive exploration of Catherine's reign may find themselves wanting more. The series seems to skim the surface of its subject matter rather than diving deeply into the complexities of Catherine's rule, which could have added more gravitas to the narrative.

Overall, Catherine the Great is an enjoyable watch, particularly for fans of historical dramas and Mirren's stellar performance. However, it doesn't quite live up to its potential as a detailed, in-depth portrayal of one of history's most fascinating women. With a bit more focus on its storytelling and character development, it could have been truly exceptional.

Rating: 7/10 - A strong performance from Helen Mirren and stunning visuals are somewhat undermined by uneven pacing and underdeveloped storylines.

The Empress Elizabeth II rules mid-eighteenth century Russia. She marries her heir, the physically impotent German prince Peter, to the German princess, Catherine (Catherine Zeta-Jones). Catherine takes a lover, bears a child, plots against her husband and deposes him after he has reigned only six months. She becomes the Empress Catherine II. Well-educated and with liberal ideas, she is an astute politician and wages war with success. Yet when rebellion confronts her with the choice between fostering freedom and suppressing rebellion, she chooses suppression.

Catherine II was a fascinating and complex ruler, the period was crucial in determining the future course of Russia, its expansionary empire, its reactionary society and primitive economy. This film, however, addresses none of these great themes, except in the most cursory and superficial manner. It is a shallow drama of empty spectacle, in which intimate diversions are followed by unconvincing public events, battles and rebellions. The psychological characteristics of the protagonists, the motivations that drive them, the reasons for their decisions are all left unexplained. "There are great matters at stake", says Catherine to Potyomkin (Paul McGann), but we are never told what they are. Such rationalizations as do emerge involve the anachronistic importation of late twentieth-century western liberal concerns into eighteenth-century Russian society.

Television drama need not seem cheap. This film does. There is a good cast, but the dialogue is empty and its delivery perfunctory, although Ian Richardson's Vorontsov is done well and Brian Blessed is surprisingly well-moduated (and exceptionally quiet) as Bestuzhev. Generally, the cast seems dispirited by the trite, thin, lines they are asked to utter. One hundred minutes spent watching Miss Zeta-Jones will always have its rewards. None the less, she is miscast. Most particularly, her voice is in its nature contemporary and middle class, with its very modern inability correctly to pronounce the letter 'r'; it is unsuitable to the role of an eighteenth century aristocrat and Empress. The set pieces are sparse and unconvincing and the direction humdrum.

The story and this cast deserved better than this slight spectacle.

This movie is a good example of how to make a movie about foreign royalty: good acting, a little drama, some good action, and some interesting sidelines. Catherine Zeta-Jones is great in one of her first major roles as the Russian queen, Catherine (Katharina) the Great. There are also some other actors unknown to me who do a good job at portraying how she affected people and what she was like. Though the movie seemed to drag on at different points it still kept you interested. If you've got about four hours on your hands go out and rent it or watch it on T.V. It would probably be good to show to students when studying that point in history, maybe.

8/10

Yes, the Potemkin of battleship and village fame is indeed pronounced Potyomkin. (Stress the second syllable.) And it is good to see an example of acting professionalism in today's sea of carelessness.

Having said that, the film itself is a series of pointless historical happenings, and none of them seem to go anywhere. The only one that made any sense is that members of the ruling elite wanted to modernise Russia by freeing serfs, but their plans were put off by diversionary wars. It might be good if it were made clear if these diversionary disasters were caused deliberately to delay any emancipation.

An incident that fails is the handling of the Cossack revolt. The script writers fail to understand the Cossack society, and have no inkling of the concept of Cossack brotherhood.

It is difficult to measure Cathrine Zeta Jones properly, because she was restricted by a poor script. She reads a lot, so she can quote this writer and that writer at people, and get a counter-quote in return. But there is no development of her character at all. She is still the same Catherine the German who arrives to marry the simpleton heir apparent. In fact, she was Princess Sophia (Sophie in German) and changed her name to the Russian Yekaterina. She changed her religion to Russian Orthodox. She also learned to speak Russian. The years pass, but the obvious character development has passed the script writers by. She is no longer a minor German noblewoman. She is empress of Russia, and - most importantly - she has BECOME a Russian. This would present the script writers with a challenge. How did the Russians regard her? Were they insulted at a German pretending to be a Russian? Did they appreciate the fact she had made an effort to adopt the customs of the country she ruled over? Or was it a combination of the two? The script writers could not rise to the occasion and all the characters surrounding Yekaterina Velikaya were addressing a neutrality.

The acting between Catherine and Potyomkin was not handled well. (According to S S Montefiore, Potyomkin's biographer, they were secretly married.) They might just a well be acquaintances. Of the other actors, it was good to see Brian Blessed successfully playing a role that was not some variant of Porthos from The Three Musketeers.

Some of the opulent scenery inside the palaces are good, if you are doing some interior decorating and you are looking for ideas, but the film is overly long, and you may find it disappointing.

Catherine Zeta-Jones does an outstanding job in this movie about Catherine the Great of Russia (Zeta-Jones earns the title for herself.) The political intrigue of the 18th century Imperial Russian court comes alive as Catherine - to ensure her own survival - seizes the throne from her husband, the dim-witted and obnoxious Czar Peter, and establishes herself as Empress of Russia. Demonstrating her own political skills, she becomes absolute ruler.

There are some very good battle scenes and few weaknesses in this movie. The plight of the Russian serfs might have been made a little more clear. Their revolt against Catherine's authority dominates the latter part of the movie, but somehow we never really get any strong sense of what they were up against. I also would have been quite willing to watch this movie for another hour or so to have been able to follow Catherine's later career. As it stands, the ending left me a bit empty. All in all, though, this movie well deserves a rating of 8 out of 10.

This 100 minute version severely massacred an important period of history, omitting serious events and consequences, lacking in reasoning and rationale, short in character development and recreating history superficially and with little respect to timing and reality of events. The direction was insipid; the action was disjointed; the acting seemed unmotivated and uninspired; the musical score was more suited to a western; the screenplay was incoherent; suspense was linear; the story arc lacking. There were points left unresolved along with loose ends about what happened. Except for the costumes and sets, the film was mediocre at best and trivial at worst.

Hey guys, After having read the preceding reviews and of course having seen the flick I just had to add this comment: I take my movies seriously and I take my history seriously---in general. I will easily admit that this film is a bit weak on both scores. But everybody obviously had a wonderful time!

And sometimes that counts for something. I had not seen Miss Zeta-Jones before but I am certainly glad to have seen her now. I will admit that Mae West was probably closer to the real Catherine (complexionwise, haircolorwise, and probably even sexualproclivitywise) but it was an absolute pleasure to watch a woman who is imperious as well as beautiful play a part in which she is required to be both those things! I mean, she pulled it off! And she looked absolutely great doing it! I Can't wait to see her again. Well now, the historic issues. I am really sorry that Potemkin didn't get a chance to show Catherine a Potemkin village in this particular version, but other than that the history didn't really bother me all that much. The fact is, I kind of liked the plot, even if it does come from never never land. So put me down as a complete Philistine if you will, I can't help but admit that I enjoyed this thing thoroughly, misguided as I may be. And let me throw in one more kudo. Anyone who cut his teeth on "Gunsmoke" as Mr. Chomsky did, and winds up directing a Russian Czarina quoting Rousseau can't be all bad. I hope you like it too.

If you like great period costumes and lavish settings you will like this shallow effort. If you want information about this Russian empress pick up a history book.

Personally, I had never heard of this film before I ran into it on YouTube. Now I understand why. For one thing the casting is dreadful. Look, I know the white race has been rendered very unpopular lately by the reverse-racist "multiculturalists," but anybody who's ever seen a portrait of CTG knows she was a fair-skinned, blonde and blue-eyed woman of rather ample proportions (don't take my word for it; pick any biography with her picture on the cover). Therefore, I found the olive-skinned, dark-haired/eyed slim Catherine Zeta-Jones distracting and annoying. Somebody already mentioned Jeanne Moreau and Omar Shariff so I won't go over that again. Add to that the fact that the history is wobbly at best and you've got pretty much all you need to know to make up your mind if you want to invest time on this film.

Forgettable.

Enjoyed the film. However, a couple of significant departures. First, Peter III did not consummate their marriage due to psychological problems, not a physical problem as indicated in this picture. Knowledge of Peter III's issues comes only from Catherine's own memoirs. Second, Catherine had some erotic furniture constructed. Although she died in 1792, the furniture survived until the mid-19th century when it was photographed. These prints are currently held in the Harvard University museum I am informed. This seems to infer that Catherine entertained more than one lover at once, which could never be put in a film.

Having read the other comments on this film (by the way, I saw the 180 minute TV version), it seems to be the general opinion that Catherine Zeta-Jones was excellent. I beg to differ. Not one moment was there in the entire movie where I felt she was the protagonist, as she was supposed to be. If the real Catherine did do things that earned her the nickname "the Great", they were kept out of this movie. Going to extreme lengths to avoid one inch of her body being seen during one of the many nude scenes (then why play them at all?), Zeta-Jones never convinces as a woman of the world, a strong character, able to stand up to her mother-in-law (played brilliantly by Jeanne Moreau), and toying with the emotions of every man around. Instead she is an ice queen. No warmth, no passion, no sincerity. On the other hand, the movie has many fine performances. Ian Richardson, Brian Blessed, John Rhys-Davies (yes, he is well-cast as a violent peasant-soldier), Tim McInnerny as Iwan, aka prisoner number one. And production is beautiful, just look at Catherine's diamonds. They sparkle whereas their wearer doesn't. Does this movie enlighten the viewer about an important era in Russian history? No, but that would be asking a bit much in so little time. But it does tell a story quite entertainingly. Alas, as with many international productions, some people are simply miscast... All in all, 3 out of 4.

This historical drama has a most interesting story. Catherine The Great was a powerful women and she brought Russia into the modern age.

Catherine Zeta-Jones is terrific in this film. She plays the part well expressing the independence and greatfulness of Catherine The Great. Highly recommended.

a visual delight. a credible Catherine. great cast. and that is not all. it is not a documentary and not a serious analysis of Tsarina reign. it is only a good axis for rainy day and not bad occasion to admire Catherine Zeta-Jones in a pretty role. the acting - a film with Jeanne Moreau,Ian Richardson, Mel Ferrer has not the problems in this domain. and Omar Sharif presence is the best sign for recognize a film who could be not very serious. a brilliant fresco about a Russian period. high ambitions, reasonable solutions. and fun at whole because not only the flavor of atmosphere is important but the nice build of fundamental moments. a film with few drops of fairy tale. good option against the Disney princes fashion.