Catherine the Great (1996)

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

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.

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.

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.

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.