Catherine the Great (TV Mini Series 2019) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
137 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Potential for lavish historical epic squandered for silly soap opera
philc-9874311 October 2019
Was so looking forward to this, as Russian historical dramas are hard to come by. Helen Mirren is of course stellar (as is Rory Kinnear) but its let down by the need to have unrelated/ unnecessary vulgarity that doesn't progress the plot and comes across as unintentionally funny.

The Russo-Turkish War is merely a generic background war, Catherine's enlightenment and progression barely touched on. I echo others in these reviews that are underwhelmed and disappointed.

My advice is to avoid and watch the 2015 Russiabn series "Ekaterina: The Rise of Catherine the Great" currently on Amazon Prime
78 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The not so great
juliepage-97-6325835 October 2019
Hugely disappointed . Amazing costumes and sets but script was slow , too much debauchary and not enough factual history . Jason Clarke looked uncomfortable and Dame Helen was the wrong choice for the part in my opinion
30 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Enjoyable, but poorly researched
ian10007 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I DID enjoy the two lead actors, and Clarke especially was superb as Potemkin.

But, as others have pointed out, the historical errors were huge. I realize that writers sometimes need to take liberties with historical accuracy for dramatic reasons, but some of the these errors appear to be just that - dumb, stupid errors!

My own favourite - the references to "Germany" and the "German Ambassador" (present in one scene). These events took place around 80 years before the formation of that state. It also predates the German Confederation. I suspect that "Germany" was used in order to avoid confusing the poor viewers with the accurate "Prussia" (Catherine's birth state).

Also, her grandson (the future Alexander I) was around 18 when she died, not the child portrayed.

Of course, if the viewer cares little for history and facts, it's a great show.
38 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Didn't like it. Period!
menny-738654 October 2019
It did not feel like an Epic History series. they did not portrayed Catherine the great in a suitable way.

Helen Mirren is a great actress. but why the hell would she agree to play a chcaracter at her 30's while she is 74 years old in real life. it is a total disrespect to viewers. it was rediculous to watch all the love and sex scenes that felt forced.

script was also bad. They could use dialoges more suited to time period and not write lousy dialogs with lots of cursing and too much emotional expression.

waste of time.
42 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Top performances & a so-so storyline
Lew77728 October 2019
I leave to others to pour over the historical innacuracies or the fact that was Helen Mirren to old to play Catherine over a 20 year period. My initial view was that the sets, the scenes , the costumes were simply stunning, held together iby a bravura performance from Helen Mirren - although the story & script were a bit dull. However, after I'd seen all the episodes, I felt the limited story flowed well, that Jason Clarke and others acted immpecably. Yet Helen Mirren was magnificent , a delightful blend of duty, love, and preserving the Russian Legacy. Surely an Emmy awaits her performance in this. If you find it boring , stick with it & the performances will carry you through. Not a classic but a very good attempt.
20 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Always in awe of Mirren but "meh"
dpoland-765898 October 2019
I had such high hopes. It's so unfortunate that they spent an enormous amount of money on sets and costumes when many characters are terribly miscast.

Helen Mirren is a force to be reckoned with in anything she does, never mind age gap being historically inaccurate here. But, her gift is not harnessed because of script. The casting of Potemkin was an outright disaster.

A sad misstep as a show but at least I had a few hours of Mirren.
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Lovers , political intrigue , turmoil and war during ¨Catherine the Great¨ kingdom
ma-cortes13 December 2022
Catherine's life is divided into two parts approximately the same length. Between 1729 and 1762 , she went from being a German princess to a Russian grand duchess ; from 1762 until she died in 1796, she was Empress of Russia . The main source of information about her life is her Memoirs . She was the reigning Empress of Russia for 34 years, from June 28, 1762 until her death at age 67. Catherine collected the legacy of Peter I of Russia, "a window to the West on the Baltic coast", and enlarged it, opening it on the Black Sea. Pedro imported technology, government institutions and military organization and Catalina brought legal, political and moral philosophy from Europe, as well as medicine, art, culture and education. The aging Catherine-Helen Mirren is magnificent in the title role of this television drama . She's constantly besieged by court intrigue , political machinations and wars : Russo-Turkish War (1768-1774) and Russo-Turkish War (1787-1792) and taking part of Partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. And Russo-Persian War in which Russia agreed to protect Georgia against any new invasion and further political aspirations of their Persian suzerains. Catherine waged a new war against Persia in 1796 after they, under the new king Agha Mohammad Khan, had again invaded Georgia and had expelled the newly established Russian garrisons in the Caucasus . Elizabeth had learnt her political lessons in the years of intrigue before she became Queen , she was a brilliant stateswoman, managing a to rule a great empire. It begins after the death her husband king Peter III , then she's crowned the only Queen. The marriage between Catherine and Peter III was a disaster and with the help of Gregory Orlov , Catherine eventually gets rid of Peter and is crowned Empress and Czarina of all the Russias as she struggles to drag her medieval empire into the modern world and she eventually leads the Cossacks army against rebel tartars .

Slow but lavish and engrossing British dramatization of the empress Catherine the Great . This notable historic drama recreates the wars , turmoil , struggle for power and loves , though adding some crude love scenes . Typically lavish and simplist historical retelling relies heavily on the love story between Catherine and Grigory Potemkin . Helen Mirren is awesome as Catherine the Great ; furthermore , Jason Clarke is good cast as Potemkin . Spectacular palaces , the ball-room scenes, the costumes and the uniforms are good . Philip Martin , the filmmaker, and the script-writer Nigel Williams deliver us a fine historical movie with passion and intelligence . Special mention for support actors , such as the notable Richard Roxburgh as Grigory Orlov , Kevin McNally as Alexi Orlov, Joseph Quinn as Prince Paul who'll succeed as Czar though he had an unfortunate final , Clive Russell as Court Fool , Rory Kinnear as Minister Panin , Thomas Doherty as Peter Zavadovsky and Gina Mckee is equally outstanding as the arrogant Countess Praskovya . Wonderful colorful cinematography adds to the atmosphere shot on locations in Pilsrundale, Latvia in Vilnius, Lithuania, but it does help to know some history in order to keep the interesting plot . Director Philip Martin takes a brilliant look at the turbulent life of famous Empress of all the Russias from her troublesome years and machinations surrounding her reign .

Other renditions about this known Queen are the following ones : ¨Catherine the Great¨ 1943 by Paul Czinner with Elizabeth Bergner , Douglas Farirbanks Jr. , Flora Robson. ¨A Royal Scandal¨ 1945 by Otto Preminger, Ernst Lubitsch with Tallulah Bankhead , Charles Coburn , Anne Baxter , William Eythe . ¨Caterina di Russia¨ 1963 by Umberto Lenzi with Hildegard Knef , Sergio Fantoni , Giacomo Rossi Stewart . ¨Great Catherine¨ 1968 by Gordon Flemyng with Jeanne Moreau, Peter O'Toole, Zero Mostel, Jack Hawkins . ¨Catherine the Great¨ 1995 by Marvin J. Chomsky with Catherine Zeta Jones , Paul McGann, Ian Richardson.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Poorly done
ritaromao-3913415 October 2019
Catherine was in her late 30s when the drama starts, and Helen is in her 70s... so it is a little bit, strange. The history is poorly reconstructed and it lacks enthusiasm and the Russian carisma. I was expecting more...
67 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Wtf
elvis-119863 October 2019
Looks like people have forgotten that this series is focusing on older version of Catherine. Like why the fork you think she is playing 30 year old woman. Catherine was in power till 67 years. So it means that this series is about Catherine's later years and it is not focusing on time when she first became empress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
37 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Helen the Great
richardchatten27 September 2022
Dame Helen's strong Slavic features have always been a source of wonder and here they're amply on display as she sweeps about in a variety of enormous wigs and spectacular gowns as probably the greatest Queen Bee of them all. (Not only did she play the title role but her executive producer credit shows she was also a power behind the throne on the set.)

The often anachronistically modern language and frequent use of four-letter words (did she really say "I like to screw young men"?) was probably deliberately in contrast with the plushness of the lighting and decor (with colours that glow with a lustre recalling the heyday of Technicolor). While not exactly good, the sight of Helen striding about in a tricorn hat worn at a jaunty angle as she works her usual magic alone makes it worth your time.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Historically Inaccurate
timetraveller86 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
When Catherine the Great came to the throne she was in her early thirties which is when the series begins. However in the series she is portrayed as being an older woman in her sixties. Helen Mirren is an very good actress but she should have been cast as the older Catherine later in the series.

It is historically inaccurate to show Catherine with the Orlovs and Potemkin at such an age. How will they explain that she had a child with Potemkin?
75 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Sorry, thought it was outstanding
rockphiler29 January 2022
Not understanding the negativity here. I was thoroughly entertained and binged it up until 5:40 in the morning. Sets, costumes, script, continuity, acting were great. Especially the acting of Jason Clarke. There was nothing flat about the performances. Seems many reviewers here are disappointed to learn that their image of Catherine was not what they had been taught. As an avid Romanov scholar, I think Mirren and HBO put forth an exciting but difficult love story.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not Particularly 'Great'
chunterd222 July 2021
I postponed watching this for two years after seeing the mediocre reviews on it when it first came out. Well, after deciding to give it a watch, I can say that the reviews..... are right. As many have pointed out, this series had so much going for it. It had Helen Mirren as the lead, it had the production capacity of HBO, which has already produced several fantastic historical miniseries (including my favorite show of all time, Band of Brothers), and had the chance to explore a relatively unknown piece of history to most people, with a powerful, FEMALE, figure at its center. So what did this show do with all this potential? They made it into a historical SOAP OPERA that was more focused on Catherine's love interests rather than her achievements, both as a ruler and as a WOMAN in the 18th century.

If, like me, you go into this not knowing a whole lot about Catherine the Great, then all you'll have learned by the end of the show is that she was Empress of Russia, she fought two wars against the Ottomans, and she had a lot of sexual relationships, that's it. What you won't know is that she also had to deal with wars against Persia, Sweden, and Poland, as well as Pugachev's Rebellion. This latter fact is depicted in the show, but it has a screen time of less than 15 minutes spread over the course of one episode, and only serves as a plot device to make Catherine more enamored with her main lover, Potemkin. Besides wars, Catherine also made significant advances in the arts and sciences, reorganized the government, reformed the economy, and overall was a very enlightened monarch. Her major goal was to make Russia a recognized power in Europe, which she succeeded in doing. Yet all of these are never mentioned throughout the 4 episode runtime. I had to look this all up on my own once I was finished watching in order to gain more knowledge on her.

Speaking about Catherine in the show, I think Helen Mirren did a good job with what she was given. I will agree though that having her depict a woman 40 years younger than she is herself, at least in the beginning of the show, was not a good idea. This meant that Catherine's promiscuity couldn't quite be shown well, as it's a bit difficult to pull of a steamy scene with a grandmother. Catherine's relationship with Potemkin is also severely overplayed, and while I do think both actors did a good jump, having this be the main focus of the show made it rather dull. It also proved to be a bit detrimental as Catherine always becomes upset when Lover-boy heads off to fight the wars, and all she does is mope and write letters to him about how much she misses him and wants him to return. They make the Empress of Russia unable to function without her man there to give her strength and comfort. So much for a powerful female figure.

The history being told is also a major problem. I understand historical shows and films can't show every single detail in history, as it would be too much, and so certain elements have to be omitted for the sake of plot. However, there is no comprehension of time within this show; it flies by. The first episode starts at the beginning of Catherine's reign in 1762, but by the end they are already talking about going to war with the Turks, which is in 1768, and the time it took to get there only feels like a few days. Unless you know you're history, or look up the events as they are mentioned, you'll have no idea what time they are supposed to be in and how much of it has passed. It is also clear that the writers had little to no care for the history they were showing, and one of these biggest aspects for me is actually quite a minor detail overall. There are several German diplomats and aristocrats that appear throughout the show, and they are all referred to as coming from Germany. However, Germany wasn't a name on a map until the mid-1870's, 80 years after Catherine died. So it seems to me that the reasoning for this, rather than saying they are from one of the German speaking states such as Prussia or Wurttemberg, is because the writers instead assume the audience is dumb and won't know what those places are and so makes it easy by simply saying they are from Germany. While this may be simpler for those unfamiliar with German history, for those who do, it's a slap in the face. This wasn't the only aspect of the show that irked me, but it was the one that made me realize the lack of effort being put in to showcase the history.

If there is one positive thing I can say about this show, it's the sets, costumes, and colors. All are amazing to look at, and it's why I love watching shows that depict this period in history.

Overall, while my comments have been very negative, Catherine the Great is NOT a show I can say I don't recommend. It is watchable, just not as a biography. If you're into Soap Operas and would like to see one in a historical setting, then by all means give this a look. However, if you're looking for an insight into the life and reign of one of Russia's greatest monarchs, you'll probably get more enjoyment from reading her Wikipedia article instead.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
What a disappoint.
alanpatterson-239063 October 2019
Great sets, costumes and cinematography. Let down by a tedious script over peppered with graphic debauchery and foul language.

Was looking forward to this but felt totally underwhelmed.

Not Mirren's best work.
119 out of 137 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What a failure!
cmp_gr24 August 2022
Having seen the Russian series Ekaterina (2014), I was completely disappointed by this one. They don't come even close to the historic reality, or the deeper sense of the life of this great woman.

No vote. Just pity.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Despite historical inadvertences, that's a good show.
valentinmh3 January 2021
I don't agree on the poor performance, all of characters are quite OK, IMHO. Including Helen Mirren. And about the so-said debauchery and atmosphere of soap-opera peppered with foul language, depicted here - I think that was a defining trait of the Tsarist court at that time, but that's unusual for, and bit of hard to digest by the anglo-saxon viewers who gave low reviews.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Enjoyable
bendonpr9 October 2019
It's a drama not a documentary and I enjoyed episode. It was fun and funny, included within the beginning of the dilemma of being a liberal ruler - whilst living in violent times and at constant risk of being asasinated.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Something's missing
veniagian7 October 2019
Although the actors are good something is missing... i think the way it's directed is below average. It looks like the director can't wait to finish his job and go home.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Boring.
mimidewinters14 October 2019
I can't believe I'm saying this about a period drama set in 18th century Russia, with helen mirren & lots of sex scenes, but what a dull pile of durge. No chemistry between the actors, scripts fall way short of being even remotely interesting; just so boring. How can anyone make Catherine the great's story so blah?! That in itself is quite the feat. Plus notes.....great sets and costumes. Such a shame as I was so looking forward to this. Helen's age being a lot older than Catherine's at the time was not a bad thing for me either-more 'older' women should get the juicy tv roles. Just make the shows decent.
101 out of 116 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Wonderful costumes and cinematography but.....
jeanette-479637 March 2022
Helen Miran is such a wonderful actress and she pulled it off even though she was much older than Catherine & the rest of the cast. Jason in the lead role, did come over as tough and strong but good looking ..... I don't think so. Compressing the story into 4 episodes was challenging & should have been better with 6. The costumes were fantastic and the cinematography outstanding.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Interesting but inaccurate in many areas
paul-rose7-246-6182310 October 2019
Whilst I found the screenplay good I found it hard to see Helen Mirren in her seventies portraying Catherine at any age let alone mid thirties when she started her main long term affair and fell pregnant. She is even too old to play the part in her later years when she was fifty to early sixties.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bad and historically inaccurate.
Xardas_120 October 2019
I stop watching when she started her speech against slavery. It is beyond historical inaccuracy. She was big proponent of serfdom and true champion of nobility. She owned over 500K serfs personally and over 3 millions as Empress of Russia. She gifted over 1 million serfs to her favorites. During her rule time 7 large uprisings was put down with extreme prejudice. With my greatest respect to Helen Mirren she should't be casted for that role. It is like casting James Earl Jones as Martin Luther King.
40 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The queen's role played by the queen herself
foskla18 October 2019
The woman is indeed a queen and an amazing actress Very interesting story, extraordinary dialogues , great plot and good casting But Mirren is the one that makes it unbeatable!!!!
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A-list actors B-list script
tcmaniac-258-55915314 December 2019
I was really looking forward to this series. Helen Mirren is a favorite actress of mine so I try to keep up with her filmography. She did a phenomenal job of inhabiting the characters of Queen Elizabeth I and ll. I couldn't wait to see her portrayal of Catherine the Great whose character and life is full of great material. Unfortunately this script gave little for Mirren to work with. There was too much exposition and not enough compelling dialogue that was befitting the shrewd intelligent historical figures of Catherine and Potemkin. The settings and costumes were breathtaking but during the early scenes the actors (all of them) appeared to be too old for the age of the characters. What a snoozefest! Literally, I dosed off on the second episode. I usually can endure any period drama even if it's not something critically acclaimed but the writing was lazy and cliche. The conversations could have easily been between characters from a Hallmark channel movie or soap opera. I have seen Helen despite her age pull off being a sex symbol but I wasn't buying it that these young hunks were enamored with Catherine. There just wasn't any chemistry or well written dialogue to sell it. I made it through all four episodes in hopes the series would redeem itself by the end. Not. So I'm generously giving 6 stars because I love Mirren and for the costumes, settings/production value, and some splendid cinematography for a few scenes. Otherwise I might give it 3 like a previous reviewer.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Plodding, vulgar and dull
mannin1120 October 2019
I was so looking forward to this mini-series but was woefully disappointed. Helen Mirren is a wonderful actress and proves it yet again. Alas, the script was deadly dull, Jason Clark was miscast in the role of her lover Potemkin, having zero chemistry with Mirren, and the beginning, with the murder of Catherine's husband, Peter, which should have been shown as a flashback with a much younger actress, is instead shown with the seventy something Mirren. Historically inaccurate on more than one level, including the reference to Istanbul instead of Constantinople. After two episodes this viewer was reluctant to watch the last two episodes and it was a plodding deadly dull task. The language was vulgar and the sex scenes crude. All in all it needed a much better writer. Dragging yesterday's historical figures down into the gutter to satisfy today's mores is not the way to go. Major disappointment.
69 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed