Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Bergorks If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

loza-1 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.

AttyTude0 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.

Steve-602 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.

nasfan 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