Customer Reviews

Catherine the Great

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

My main problem with this A&E production was the fact that they cut about half of the original mini-series that this "presentation" was taken from. As a result the film as A&E showed it is EXTREMELY choppy (particularly the ending, where you can tell they skipped about an hour of the action). The only redeeming thing about this is that at least they kept a lot of Paul McGann (Potemkin), who is one of the best English actors of his generation. Look for the scene were the Orlov brothers beat Potemkin; the Orlovs are played by Paul's real-life brothers, Mark & Stephen McGann. Great if you are a McGann fan; stay away if you have any real interest in Russian history.

I had high expectations for this film before release, but now I expect to sell my copy and return to the far superior 1991 film "Young Catherine" starring Julia Ormond (particularly the unedited 180+ minute version). THAT film was well acted, well cast, well scripted, and convincing in the details. This piece of hackneyed, romance novel-level schlock isn't worth the time it takes to watch. If it was any more cardboard, it would be on the grocery shelves holding cornflakes.

Zeta-Jones can't do anything with the lines she's given, and I expect the chief reason guys might enjoy this is to watch Catherine happily hop from bed to bed with a succession of hard-to-distinguish lovers (generally in pursuit of some political gain). But even this grows joyless very quickly. CZJ's boy toys are so drab, listless, and ugly that one wonders what the producers were thinking. Even the bodice-buster elements in "Young Catherine" at least featured a more attractive male lead.

The so-called battle scenes are pathetic: a tiny handful of extras milling about in confusion. The Turks are beaten several times in inexplicable affairs (all fought in the woods, no less) that last about thirty seconds each. A subplot involving a rebellious Cossack chieftain (capably played by John Rys-Davies -- the Welsh are taking over Mother Russia!) should have added drama but instead only adds to the confusion regarding Catherine's true motivations. Earlier in the movie, when she's casually seizing power (coups were never so clean and easy as presented here), she announces her desire to free Russia's serfs; by movie's end, she is blithely executing her enemies in defence of the status quo. No explanations for this apparent sea-change are given. And we're supposed to find this character sympathetic? It's typical of this film's confused treatment of real history and people. There's no depth of characterization or feel for the intrigues and struggles of the times. And several scenes have been shamelessly stolen from other movies such as "Young Catherine" and "Waterloo".

It's a lazy, unengaging movie that offers little. Seek out the witty, intelligent, and lavish "Young Catherine" (which was actually filmed IN Russia) instead if you want to see a genuinely entertaining historical drama.

Catherine the Great was known as Catherine the Great for a reason. She helped raise the standards of living in Russia, attempted to modernize it, and it was during her reign that the long dream of Russia was realized: they ruled all sides of the Caspian Sea.

They tell you this in the movie...but only in the last five seconds of the film. Most of the movie is spent concerning Catherine the Great's supposedly promiscuous sex life (although many historians think that is just anti-Catherine - and antique - propoganda). Oh sure they give you five seconds of a peasant rebellion, five seconds of some guys that strangle jailors, and five seconds of a Turkish battle...but the rest is pretty much Catherine Zeta-Jones stripping down in corsets.

I mean don't get me wrong, she's cute and all...but I saw the film to see her attempt acting, not cleavage. I would have liked to have known what made Catherine so "the Great."

This accompanied with "The Scarlet Pimpernel" really made me lower my standards for A&E's productions. I really expected better.

I agree with another writer who was the only one who noticed that the A&E Production on DVD IS INDEED MISSING around HALF of the Mini Series that was shown on Sydney's Channel Nine a few years ago.
I am glad we still have the old version on Video and if anyone has that version (ie THE COMPLETE Mini Series) with NO great missing Chunks, I would be keen to buy it.
I liked Catherine Zeta Jones and most of the acting although I did notice some that was very obviously "pretend" fighting.
If I can get a refund from "overman" from whom I bought this DVD or from Amazon.com INCLUDING the horrible postage we have to pay to get things from USA to Australia OR EVEN A REPLACEMENT BEING THE FULL VERSION I would be happy to return the shortfalling A&E DVD.

"He loves me. He loves me. He really loves me," is just one example of this melodrama's inferior dialogue. This may be A&E, but it's no Andrew Davies production. Regardless of the presence of some very good names in the cast, the acting is incredibly superficial. "Catherine the Great" is merely a spectacle to dazzle its viewers with Zeta-Jones' beauty and a series of ornate sets and costumes. There is no time or depth committed to relationships between characters or important events. Battle scenes show comical swordfighting choreography . This film is an insult to fans of historical period dramas. I'm about ready to sell this one back. Not recommended.

The real CTG was a chubby blonde and CZJ is a slender brunette, and, okay, I probably liked watching CZJ more that I would have the real CTG. But surely there must be actresses who could have played the role better. It's a shame we couldn't peel (sorry, I couldn't resist) a few decades off of Diana Rigg, or CZJ's co-star Jeanne Moreau, or better still, Francesca Annis. Get "Lillie" and watch Annis and a much better supporting cast (and direction and production) put CTG to shame (and they did it a quarter-century earlier) in a MUCH better costume show about a young woman who starts as an unsophisticated teen and conquers a man's world, royalty and all. Annis is a lot more believable as she charms, beguiles, teases, scorns, tolerates, manipulates, and sometimes frostily discards kings, princes, artists, ministers, captains of commerce, seemingly whatever men she chooses -- all this without being a princess, czarina, or empress. The boss ladies in "I Claudius" and Lindsay Duncan in "Traffik" likewise showed how it should be done. The fake duchess in "Hornblower" and the perfect cast of "Pride and Prejudice" show that A & E can find great actresses now. Why didn't they do it here? For instance, the actress who played CTG's lady-in-waiting could probably have done a lot more with the lead role.

The one star performance is by Jeanne Moreau as the aging / dying Empress Elizabeth. Too bad she's gone before the movie's half over. Ian Richardson is satisfactorily sly and slimy, but Omar Sharif helps prove that actors, like wines, do not all age well (sorry to say that about a fellow bridge freak). The role of Potemkin could have been so much greater than the hardly believable boy-toy play it got.

This movie is worth watching because it depicts highly significant times and events often ignored in the US as we focus on our late colonial and early revolutionary events occurring about the same time. Also, for the guys, sure, CZJ is definitive delicious brunette yumminess (but Sophia was better), and we get lotsa good cleavage shots, but in a skin flick, I want more skin.

Catherine the Great is one of the most colossal and legendary figures of Russian and Western history. And this movie does her absolutely no favors, not to mention the gross historical liberties taken to push this disjointed aznd rotten "fairy tale" along.

True, the costuming and interior shots are lush and generally well done. But the acting and wooden script can be most charitably characterized as "horrible." Zeta-Jones turns in a wooden performance as a kind of Russian "barbie doll" that does her subject no credit, and the young actor playing Potemkin falls into the same trap. He is less intellectual powerhouse than moody and wishy-washy to the point of just being plain annoying. And John Rhys-Davies, in my opinion, rather just walked around looking embarassed. Further, the historical Catherine never met Pugachev, and was far less a bed-hopper than the script portrays, altough Zeta-Jones manages here and there to capture a glimmer of Catherine's powerful intellect as well as her sometime intellectual pretentiousness. And the main focus and contribution of Catherine's amazing life - her reformist zeal, legislative genius, but ultimate failure of Enlightenment vision - is barely touched on at all. All in all, it's a crashing, sophomoric bore. And with a subject that interesting, that's unforgiveable.

A very bad movie on too many levels to adequately detail here. Avoid.

Do you ever remember seeing a 6 part series about Peter the Great about 10 years ago - you know, the one with an aged Laurence Olivier playing the King of England? Well I thoughtthat was great. I think this is trying to be the same but failing miserably! I feel that this film was once a mini series that has been whittled down to be made into a film - er sorry "movie" for the non-Brits reading this review. It shows. The beginning is not so good. There is a tarty performance by Zeta Jones who just wants "the love of a real man". Oh please! I'm going to throw up! But to give the movie its due, it does pick up and get more interesting as political inytrigue ensues. Ian Richardson is playing his usual role as a shady poilitician, Omar Sherrif is there as an ageing sex symbol, Brian Blessed is playing a fat bloke with a beard - nothing original there either but what the hell Henry out of nieghbours is in it for I don't know. He is the worst actor in this movie! Zeta Jones is definitely very sexy, though. But that has nothing to do withthe merits of the movie. Conclusion. I wouldn't bother!

I usually like period pieces, especially A&E ones like Pride and Prejudice and Emma but I really thought that this movie should have been a lot better. This movie is more historically accurate than Young Catherine but the acting in this movie is so wooden and the guys in the movie are not as attractive in Young Catherine. I am giving this movie away and keeping my edition of Young Catherine because it is better acted, better everything.....

Once again A&E have cut out a lot of the movie. Originally it is supposed to be 180 minutes but they cut it down to 80 minutes which just ruined the movie because it didnt really show the abitious side of Catherine. I do not know why A&E keep doing this. First it happened to Charles: power and passion now this. I advice everyone not to purchase this produce unless you want to waste your money. Rating this movie 1/5 is a compliment, it is not even worthy to give it 1 after all this cut off. IF you are a history buff, wait till the version that is not by A&E. That one is far better and shows the true side of Catherine. I hope this helps future buyers.