Young Catherine (1991)

Did you people see the same film I saw?

An absolute waste of money

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

.Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Released in two episodes for television, "Young Catherine" has a lot going for it.Young Julia Ormond plays Catherine and manages to convey both the naivete of the young German princess (named Sophie), who was selected to marry the Russian heir to the throne, and the resolution of the more experienced Catherine who must marshal all of her strength and all of her allies to overthrow her husband, Peter, and assume the throne.Peter is wonderfully played by Reece Dimsdale as a childish, spoiled, and inept young man. In reality, Catherine met Peter when he was only age 10. This is one of many diversions from historical fact that the film includes, often for convenience.But if one watches the film as a fairy-tale, it is quite enjoyable--at least up until the death of Empress Elizabeth (Lynn Redgrave), who sponsors Catherine and, in fact, gives her the new name. At that point, the film devolves into melodrama, though it still affords some enjoyment.Redgrave is convincing as the imperious royal, demonstrating governance by whim so well, providing a framework for understanding the extent of royal indulgence. Another actor who shines in this piece is Christopher Plummer, as Sir Charles, a British diplomat assigned to Russia and a confidant of Catherine.In addition to the acting, this film offers fine production values all around. The opulence and ostentation of the court and the church is on full display. The costuming is stunning.Unfortunately, my grade must be reduced by several points for the film's divergence from fact. Its pace is courtly, allowing the viewer to really enjoy the story's unfolding; it's a shame that the producers felt that the patience of viewers could not accommodate a more accurate rendering.

in this story with lot of historical mistakes. There are two big miniseries in the 90 about Catherine The Great, the second one with Catherine Zeta Jones was much better. Zeta Jones character was cult but intringuing, while Ms. Ormond (even when she shines with her beauty and acting skills) is little more than a damsel in destress. However there is a thing that save this miniseries for the total melodrama. And that's it Vanessa Redgrave as Elisabeth Petrovna. She really rules, and she looks young, the Empress Elisabeth died in her early fifties, while she met Catherine in her last thirsties. And Redgrave look young, passionated and energic, the quite opposite of the pale version of Jeanne Moreau who was too old for the role in Zeta Jones miniseries.

I absolutely love this film! Having seen it for the first time as a pre-teen Russophile, I became enamored with the scenery, costumes, and history of imperial Russia. I got to see these things and places for real during college, and it was literally the most thrilling experience! The "empress' own sleigh" is in the Kremlin museum, as is Catherine's coronation gown, and some of Peter III's suits--he was such a tiny little man! I must admit, however, a great disappointment when I finally, just last week, read Carolly Erikson's well-researched biography of Catherine, and found many inaccuracies in the film. For one, Catherine actually had several children, not just Paul. It does simplify the story, however, to keep him as an only child (like how in Gone With The Wind, Scarlett's children by her first two husbands are completely left out of the film). The most frustrating inaccuracy, however, was that she really did not even meet Orlov til she was nearly 30 years old, and had already had several lovers.The love story in the film is much more screen-worthy, however, so I can forgive their decision, it was just saddening to me to have my understanding of this amazing woman altered after so many years. The film's portrayal of the struggles of Catherine's early life is true-to-life in its essence, however, as it introduces a modern audience to this bold, brave, and incredibly intelligent historical figure.

This film is rare in that it tries, and almost succeeds, in giving an accurate impression of Russian history. There are only three points on which it flounders, and unfortunately, the second one of them, at the end of the film, is quite unforgivable. The acting is excellent. Christopher Plummer is a true delight as a sardonic and kindly old diplomat, while Vannesa Redgrave is truly stunning as the mercurial and autocratic Empress Elizabeth. Julia Ormond is good, skillful and inspired in playing an intelligent young woman, who possesses a grand will and a superb mind which will not allow her to stay in the background. It is easy to see that the roles were studied well, and that the memoirs of Catherine the Great played a large part in the planning of the film. The shooting of the film was done, thankfully, on location, for a large part in the Catherine Palace at Pushkin (formerly Tsarskoe Selo). The costumes (with the exception of the black fox winter coats), were well studied and planned. All in all, this film is done well, intelligently, and it almost manages to avoid the fatal flaw of romantic hollywoodism. Almost, but not quite. Here we come to the flaws of the film. The first historical error is, I admit, a very small one. The winter coats worn in the film are made of black fox. Unfortunately, this animal was bred for the fur only in the nineteenth century, long after Catherine's death. Had bearskin coats been used, or sable, or ordinary red fox, the general effect would have been a bit smoother. The second flaw is the condensation of the film into a reasonable time period. True, I realize that this was unavoidable. But the fact remain, Catherine was married to Peter III for no less than seventeen years, and was a mature woman in her thirties when she planned her palace coup against her (very well played here) incompetent and sickening husband. Truth to tell, though, after reading her memoirs one begins to wonder why she did not poison him after the first six months. Heaven knows, any normal woman would have. And finally, the third and worst flaw of the film. Unfortunately, here, the romantic notions of the movie industry took over from historical accuracy and common sense. The scene of Peter III's death at the hands of his guards and Alexej Orlov (not Grigorij), was well described in the documents of Catherine's time. Allowing, in the script, for the "romantic" scene in which Grigorij Orlov strangles Peter, and then tells Catherine of it in bed is the largest mistake of the film. It neglects historical fact on a fairly major point in favor of cheap theatrical effect. To sum up: this is a beautifully and accurately filmed movie, with excellent acting, an intelligent (and almost accurate!) plot, and a good sense of history (something you will not see in the 1930's film). It is worth watching, but if you are a historian, or even a person interested in Russian history, try not to take it too personally.