Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

SnoopyStyle 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.

Armand 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.

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.

TWD_Cliff_Notes 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