patcars 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.

DarthBill Ah, the story of Catherine the Great of Russia told in all its glory & splendor... as much as A&E can capture on a modest budget anyway.Honestly, an okay but not terribly spectacular account of Catherine the Great's life & exploits. Primarily of interest for seeing a young, pre-stardom Catherine Zeta-Jones getting stripped naked and what not. One scene in particular where her night clothing is cut off and removed from her lovely body is a very pleasing visual to behold on the screen, not to mention the sight of her making love by the fire and bathing.Made around 1995, three years before Catherine Zeta-Jones found fame and fortune - an a very iconic strip scene - in The Mask of Zorro opposite Antonio Banderas.

Rob Hendrikx 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.

sddavis63 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.