Armand for accuracy and for acting. for care for details and music. sure, for Maximilien Schell in one of his greatest roles. a film like a history lesson, who escapes from artistic temptation effects for present a character and his period, the huge pieces of a work and the life as alive parable. a film about transition and ambitions.and about lessons of a manner to transform a society. far to be a pink picture, it is a good example about the force of accuracy.great cast, wise script. a show and little more. because it present more than a page of Russian history but a portrait of a struggle. a seductive mini-series. and a great occasion for discover the freshness of history air history.

oscar-35 *Spoiler/plot- 1986, Russia at the dawn of the Eighteenth century --- a vast, chilling mysterious land, mostly medieval. A country led by a man whose curious, questioning spirit is eager to learn all that is new and Western. Peter was a monarch who brings his feudal country into the modern world. The power plays, love affairs and international intrigues are brought to life by a stellar cast, featuring Oscar winners. Peter the Great was a shrewd Czar and visionary, statesman, sailor, blacksmith, shipbuilder and military leader. He's a husband and a father. He's a man who dared to dream the impossible dream and succeeded in the greatest measure.*Special Stars- Maximilian Schell, Vanessa Redgrave, Omar Shariff with cameos from, Sir Laurence Olivier, Trevor Howard, and Elke Summers.*Theme- Russia is complicated and eastern.*Based on- Russian history *Trivia/location/goofs- From a NBC TV miniseries. This film was produced with the assistance of the Soviet government. The shooting locations were all in Russia and the real royal, church, and palaces interior shooting scenes were in historical places. The locations, weather, and costumes were extravagant and rich to enjoy. The history facts in this film overused due to 'dramatic license'.*Emotion- The editing of this week long many episodes miniseries into a feature film makes it somewhat boring for the viewer to sit through. There are too many long boring opening establishing shots of lead characters walking into frame at historic places. While some of that is tolerable, sometimes this film is nothing more that a Russian travelogue instead of a narrative feature film. The factual period history is questionable. It's a western point-of-view on a very foreign eastern subject matter and it is very liberally biased. I found myself yearning to see the next Oscar winner to pop-up in scenes or looking to enjoy the costumed battle scenes. The narrative seems to get lost in the beauty shots and landscape views. The huge cast of story characters and the many decade story caused a loss of interest in all of them except the lead roles, so the character nuances of the plot script was too confusing to keep straight in your mind. I found myself feeling like I was watching paint dry and that's a shame for such an expensive film project. Other film project of this size have done it much better like; 'Gone with the Wind' 'Laurence of Arabia', 'Citizen Kane' and 'The Godfather'.

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.

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."