Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Joanna Mccarty Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

chengiz The production of this series is top notch and a treat. The sets, the snow, the costumes, everything is brilliant.The casting and acting are respectable as well, although I'd have liked to see a taller, fitter Peter. At one point an out of shape Schell huffs while liting an axe then wields it with the wrong hand. Peter, always described as tall, strong and with boundless energy, would disapprove.What truly lets down this series however is the scriptwriting. Here you have a great story, a stellar cast, and all the right ingredients, but the screenplay is a series of shockingly fake sounding set pieces. It's just a mystery to me with all the nice things this movie has to offer why they couldnt have come up with a better script. After the battle of Poltava, Menshikov says to Peter, "You have saved Moscow" and Peter says, "We have secured our access to the sea". Really? You're gonna announce the conclusions of a battle you just fought like you wrote a term paper? This sort of thing abounds in the series. Another example is the highly unnecessary and historically doubtful "Peter in Newton's lab" scene. It's like their research dug up that Newton was around at the same time Peter was in England, and hey let's have them meet. Then it's also the struggle between keeping things chronological yet interesting, which kinda falls flat. Peter talks about St. Petersburg from a rather early age, and builds it only towards the end of the movie. It's never really shown. That is like one of his most interesting achievements and the screenplay pays it the usual lip service.This could have been so much better.

Steve-602 The Polish commentator (see above) has it right. Some of the facts may be inaccurate but this is a superb film, visually and dramatically.Most important, the basic theme of a brilliant but eccentric and sometimes viciously cruel ruler who despite all of his shortcomings is determined to drag his country into a modern world is undoubtedly correct.Roosevelt and Churchill would have loved him. The Massie novel has been described as one of the most illuminating portraits ever of Russia as it really is.Too bad old Karl XII (actually it was a Swedish General namedLoewenhaupt) lost the battle of Poltava, but he did. And when Karlhimself fell victim to a stray battlefield bullet a few years later,one of his senior officers commented, "Gentlemen, the comedy is over."

theowinthrop I remember watching this series and trying to explain a critical short scene in it (regarding Charles XII of Sweden and his fencing teacher) to a friend of mine. Charles is a young man (like his Russian opposite number Peter), but he has a small country of limited resources which by a fluke has become Europe's number three political power in 1699. Peter has a nation weakened by civil wars and foreign invaders, which he is striving to modernize. It has population and resources. If he can do it, he can make it the third greatest power in Europe (after France and Britain). Charles is aware of this so he will become Peter's greatest enemy. But while Peter is involved in every facet of modernization, Charles rules a modern country. He just has to concentrate on military matters. Charles however has a flaw: he is not a realist but a romantic. He reads Plutarch's Lives of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, and believes he should mold his character to reflect their better characters. So while his political ancestors, Gustavus Adolphus, Queen Christiana, used the military on limited grounds, Charles would use it to avenge his personal honor. This flaw is shown in the scene where he is in fencing training. He is a good fencer, and has cornered his teacher, but momentarily lets his guard down for some trivial reason not concerning his fighting ability. But the fencing master, because he has been trounced so thoroughly, sees he can end the game on a fencing technical error - he moves and prevents Charles from picking up the sword. Charles is award of the technical mistake, but between gentleman in a training session it should be lightly forgiven and definitely not taken advantage of. This does not happen. The fencing master smiles as he politely lifts his foot off Charles' foil blade but announces the King has lost. Charles waits a moment, and then slices the fencing master on his cheek as punishment. Sadistic - yes, but it was based on the fencing master not behaving as a gentleman and not showing respect to his employer.That was Charles - and he certainly might be considered certifiable. His wars with Peter lasted a decade, and two of them, the Swedish victory at Nerva, and the final Russian victory at Poltava are shown. Charles is frequently said to be the forerunner of Napoleon and Hitler in mistakenly invading Russia. But he invaded Russia when Peter was trying to modernize and organize it. It was a better run country in both 1812 and 1941. And Charles did one thing the other two never grasped. He never fully had the supply problem of Napoleon (with his half a million men invasion force) and Hitler (with his multi-hundred thousand men armies), but when it was cut, Charles simply ordered his men to consider themselves a vast robber-band to plunder the Russians for supplies. It worked for a decade (longer than Napoleon's half year or Hitler's two and a half years) - which suggests that there was a possible solution to the supply mess that destroyed the other two leaders. It was a failure of Charles' army at Poltava that made the Swedish invasion a disaster. Had he returned with his forces intact, we would consider Charles a military genius today.There are little scenes like that that made the series worth watching. But it did not go deeply enough into Peter's motivations and limitations (like Stalin he could panic too easily). His important reforms in government structure were not dealt with (possibly too boring for the audience - but it is part of his record). He is a really important figure. But on many points it struck the record properly. I also recommend the peculiar double tragedy of Peter and his son's religious differences, which led the Tsar to have the young man executed in 1718. When realizing that the Tsar had to pursue modernizing his country, while his son wanted to maintain his right to worship Russo Orthodoxy in the old (reactionary method) - so the boy was standing up for religious freedom of conscience. It was a very odd double tragedy.

rajan Peter the Great, from the perspective of an AP European History student: I was surprised any production agency would pursue creating such a powerful movie on a topic destined never to be watched for entertainment. Any viewers strapped to a chair and forced to watch this movie will probably groan (if they are truly cultureless), but will leave that chair in tears. This emotional 3 video series is a true classroom hit which everybody should be proud to display in their home video collection.