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.

bkoganbing For me Peter the Great was excellent. It is the kind of topic and life that the mini-series concept was invented. It would take six hours to go into both the policy achievements of his reign and the various struggles for power with all the intrigue surrounding them during his reign.Peter Romanov, Peter the first of Russia was born to Czar Alexis who was the second Czar under the new Romanov dynasty. Alexis had two wives and Peter was born to his second wife. Alexis had several children by both wives, but only two sons, one by each wife. Peter was clearly the one with the abilities and personality to rule, but Ivan who most charitably can be described as a dullard, but dullards have their uses if they can be manipulated by ambitious people. Maximilian Schell plays Peter as an adult and the mini-series allows him to develop all facets of his character. The western quarter of Moscow intrigued him, the foreign colony where people dressed so differently and seem to be always innovating. His Russia resisted all change be it technological, be it fashion, be it in its special brand of Christianity the Russian Orthodox Church. Because of that they were hemmed in and he decided things had to change. He meets resistance with those with a built in interest for resistance and the general inertia. But before he's done he has a modern army and navy, a new capital and functioning seaport on the Baltic named St. Petersburg, and certain changes in fashion come to at least the intelligentsia of the regime.But history has its ironies and Peter who won the succession battle dies without a named heir and for the next 15 years there are several czars among Peter's descendants until 1740 when his daughter Elizabeth becomes Empress and has a 22 year reign that was very popular. He also married twice and the children of both wives were rivals. Peter had a son also named Alexis and that proves to be the biggest tragedy of his reign.Some familiar faces are in the cast in supporting roles. Peter made a grand tour of Europe the first czar to see what was beyond Russia's borders. He met with such people Isaac Newton played by Trevor Howard, King Frederick William of Prussia played by Mel Ferrer and a much too old Laurence Olivier playing William of Orange King of Great Britain and Statholder of the Netherlands. If I had to single out one in the cast for special praise it would be Vanessa Redgrave as Peter's scheming half sister Princess Sophia.If you find that Peter The Great resembles I Claudius you'll be in agreement with me. What this series does represent is fine history and fine entertainment.

heatherceana I read a prior comment and was rather shocked. I was always taught that if entertainment becomes too like real-life, it ceases to be entertainment. That one should suspend one's disbelief for the term of the film - unless the film is claiming to be a documentary or to be of educational value.Anyhow, I am not a Russian ex-patriot. I'm an American, born and bred. I loved this movie! My father is an History professor. I was well aware that the film was not entirely historically accurate. I will grant you that by 1986, one would wish to have a bit more accuracy regarding the major historical events.I must disagree that there was a prophetic quality to the 'visionary aspects' of the character Peter the Great. I felt that it came across more as a burning passion. He seemed better educated and thus possessed of a better understanding of what the 'Western European' knowledge/technology could do to help strengthen Russia.Maximilian Schell is perfect in this role! Although he is a Austrian actor, he is the epitome of a burly Russian Czar.If you are looking for historical accuracy - look elsewhere. If you are looking for an intense, sweep-me-away drama filled with riveting acting - you've chosen well.

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.