Katherine of Alexandria (2014) User Reviews

There's a Great Story To Be Told About Katherine... This Isn't The Film That Tells It

[gjlewis10 · 2/10 · 31 May 2015]

Anyone who gets a film made should be commended, this, unfortunately, is where the compliments end.

The main fault in the film lies in the script. There is no narrative, the writer/director has essentially cobbled together a bunch of scenes in the hope that they will connect with each other with no real threat or drive for the characters. It is understandable why actors such as the late Peter O'Toole and Edward Fox would be attracted to such a piece, if they were given free reign they'd be munching at the scenery like a rabbit on a lettuce leaf. Yet, they're not. These actors are restrained and make for a dull viewing experience. Seeing actors of this calibre being given the opportunity letting rip is always a pleasure, the fact that they are not is a wasted opportunity.

Nicole Keniheart may look the part, but as a unifying presence for the whole story, she fails. There is nothing of interest to her, and the fate that falls on her doesn't have the emotional wallop that the Director was hoping for as we simply don't care for her. She has no character and as such we never truly connect with her. More could have been made of Katherine's affect on Rome and how she changed the lives of others as such it just feels as if her "followers" blindly accept that she is the second coming and go along with her.

On the whole the film is flat and the greatest crime of all: dull. Ridley Scott's latest film "Exodus" suffered from a similar problem, yet at least it had spectacle. Granted this is on a lower budget, but there was potential to do so much with the material but fails miserably. We don't care for the characters, we aren't drawn into the story and the script is risible. There is a great story to be told about this woman and the last days of the Roman Empire, but this is not that film.

On the plus side, it's in focus.

what a shame!!

[naptown935 · 2/10 · 10 January 2015]

The Producers, Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom, should have backed this movie because it is awful!!! Its a waste of some great actors, some good costuming and scenery.

The story line is confusing. I didn't know who was who, who to follow, or who to root for. I jumps around like a bad dream. I was surprised read here that its supposed to be about Catherine of Alexandria. Her story is lost with all the other story lines they try to tell.

It seemed like the editor tried to save the story line by using long shots with post production voice overs. Many movies use this trick but this movie needed a lot more.

It was also hard watch when in one moment you have on the screen A-list actors in Rome then you jump to chunky warrior women plodding though a Scottish forest killing Romans in B/C-movie fashion.

I'm glad I got this at the library for free.

Very poor, utter rubbish

[robertasmith · 2/10 · 11 April 2018]

I have only given it 2 as Edward Fox is as splendid as always. The story jumps all over the place, it is historical nonesense and utterly confusing. Some of the acting is worse than dire and the direction is appalling. Peter o'toole is sadly wasted but even with a better script this would have been a film too many for him.

I can understand why this film was not given wider publicity - it is rubbish and you will be wasting your time watching it.

A Blight on the UK Movie Industry

[kmichaelpm · 1/10 · 13 August 2014]

Katherine of Alexandria also titled Decline of an Empire...is definitely in line for the title of one of the worst movies ever. Do not be drawn in by the big name stars, Peter O'Toole and Edward Fox, as it becomes obvious very quickly that they are there to lure the unsuspecting movie goer into a false sense of expectation. As great as they are as actors, even their abilities cannot save this disgraceful offering. In fact I am surprised that Peter O'Toole did not take his payment and then get his lawyers to obtain an injunction to prevent the release of this so called movie on the grounds that it will be a blot on a distinguished career. The story,-for the want of a better word- is all over the place. It feels as if the director had numerous different versions in his head and got them all mixed up. The way it jumps from scene to scene is mind boggling, be prepared to be very confused. The acting is non-existent,,,the dialogue is atrocious...the use of the shaky cam for the action scenes confirms that this Hollywood disease has arrived in the UK. The little pieces of the action scenes which you can actually see are unbelievably bad. Indeed a bunch of kids playing at war would have done a more realistic job. The props are rubbish and the constant music score in the background will have your teeth on edge. The very sad part of this disaster is that it could have been a great movie with the right director and script writers. I hope that director Michael Redwood will take up a different career for his own sake and for our sakes. The one redeeming factor in this debacle is the exceptional performance by Nicole Keniheart in the title role. She made the part her own and despite all the obstacles gave a really wonderful rendering. I hope we see a lot more of her. Unless you have two hours to spare and feel the need to punish yourself for past sins...I strongly recommend that you stay far away from this offering.

I wanted to love Peter O'Toole's final film....

[planktonrules · 15 August 2014]

"Decline of an Empire" (also known as "Katherine of Alexandria") marks the final film for Peter O'Toole. Because of this, I was very anxious to see this film. Now, in hindsight I really regret this. Instead of a last chance to see this wonderful actor, I now remember this as a truly dull and awful film--and O'Toole's legacy deserved better than this. Thankfully, his great films will always overshadow films like "Decline of an Empire". The sooner we forget about it and go on, the better.

The story is about a martyred saint, Katherine of Alexandria, a woman who might have lived during the fourth century. I say might because there seems to be little evidence that she actually existed and her life and martyrdom are based on traditions rather than concrete facts. These traditions, interestingly, began about 500 years after her supposed death--further adding weight to the notion that she is a myth. Still, it could make for a very interesting story--especially as it's set during the waning days of the old Roman Empire. Soon, Christianity would become accepted and no longer persecuted--and this is an incredibly interesting period of change and upheaval. As a retired history teacher and film lover, I wanted to love this film and the plot seemed like it was right up my alley. So why did the film go so wrong?

Like too many recent 'epics', the film was obviously made on a micro- budget. This could work in some cases, but seeing scenes where a dozen or so men constitute a major Roman battle is laughable. This can also be said of scenes involving cities like Rome and Alexandria--places consisting of a tiny handful of actors instead of thriving metropolises. There is nothing epic about this...it's just sad and cheap. The dialog is also ponderous beyond belief. So much of it seemed to make little sense and my attention span waned throughout the movie. Much of it just boggled my mind at how dull and silly it sounded coming out of real live people. Additionally, it sure sounded as if many of the characters in the film were performed by actors who didn't understand English and were merely delivering their lines phonetically. Too often, bizarre accents and odd annunciations derailed important scenes and left the viewer confused and bored. This combined with the dull dialog mentioned above really made the film difficult to enjoy.

The film also kept referring to Egyptians as 'Arabs'. Egyptians might speak a variation on Arabic today, but in the 4th century, when this film is set, the Egyptians had not yet been conquered by the Arabs (which happened several hundred years later) and ethnically they were North Africans. No ancient Roman would have called Egyptians Arabs. I know that this is the history teacher in me talking once again--but this and other historical inaccuracies guarantee that even history teachers won't like this dull film.

I could probably go on a bit more why I hated this film. Suffice to say it had little of O'Toole or the other fine older actors Edward Fox and Joss Acklund--so there's little for their fans in this movie. Their presence was very limited and they often seemed a bit lost in the film. And, even for nostalgia value, it wasn't even enjoyable. A sadly awful film. And, incidentally, as I watched it, my older daughter kept begging me to turn it off...and she, like me, usually loves things about the ancient world. I am sorry for putting you through this, Sarah.

Sad, Sad, Sad

[lizapoints · 1/10 · 12 October 2014]

As a huge fan of historical dramas, both book and movie, I was so looking forward to this movie. I've never written a review on here before but my disappointment with this movie was so intense that I felt it needed airing. This was perhaps the worst acting I have ever seen in my life (55 yrs). The drugged stares into space, the stilted line delivery, the over dramatic acting by lesser actors in bit parts, the choppy scene transitions. The whole thing was tragically sad and I finally, after multiple attempts, shelved it, never to be finished.

It's a great story I would love to see it done properly and given it's due diligence. This just wasn't it.

Not the worst film ever, but mighty close

[gwilson-28 · 1/10 · 14 October 2014]

We now know who killed Peter O'Toole. It was Michael Redwood. Assault with a dead film. Inept at best, ham handed writing, lines delivered as if actors were zombies, and Mr. Redwood's claim to fame: music, so over the top as to give the listener instant diabetes. Plan 9 from Outer Space is better than this. Many cite Kineheart as the sole standout in this cast. They are wrong. Vacuous....maybe this is a zombie picture. Maybe Redwood is ahead of his time...Zombies From Rome...dunno. All I know is that I want my money back so I can buy a lobotomy and excise this dreck from my brain. I laugh at those in regard to this film who warn away the end spoilers...the end of this film is a blessing. It's only spoiled in its playing.

Ouch

[shaundarcy · 1/10 · 24 August 2014]

I am a fan of historical fact based drama films. Coming across Katherine of Alexandria and discovering Edward Fox and Peter O'Toole were amongst it's the cast, I was very eager to watch it.

I wasted 108 minutes of my life! Poor (at best) acting and directing, "history" rewritten by the film studio and a general wondering if the whole movie was shot using cheap camcorders.

On the plus side, now I have seen it maybe I am able to steer others away from it. Then maybe my 108 minutes would not seem so futile.

1/10 because IMDb won't let me rate at 0. I will have to watch Lawrence of Arabia now to remind me how great Peter O'Toole was.

A fair review

[jonnycof · 3/10 · 16 August 2014]

Decline of an Empire (or Katherine of Alexandria as originally intended) boasts a great cast and an intriguing premise. Whether the events depicted are historically accurate or not seems to be the common topic of debate surrounding this movie on the IMDb message boards. Who cares? The more important question is 'Is it a good film?' The answer is yes and no. So, let's look at the good: From a producing point of view, it's incredibly impressive that this film was made independently. The scale of it is huge and Michael Redwood (director/producer) has obviously done well to get to the point where this film could actually be made. It features some great performances. O' Toole's performance is especially notable and beautiful words ooze from him here. I especially enjoyed the scene where he is murdered. Very epic and very cool at the exception of a few poor composition choices.

The bad: It's a film full of patchiness and uneven performances. The writing at points is unbelievably awful and cheesy. It's hard for any actor to read some of this dialogue well. Indulgent nonsense some of it and could have certainly done with a draft or two more...Or just a re- write from somebody great at dialogue. At times, the directing is sub- standard. The battle scene was particularly terrible and not believable as a battle scene.

At times, there are also indulgent moments where you just think "Why do that?" For example, there is a scene where O' Toole stands by a window whilst talking with another character. For some reason, there's a column bang in the middle of the frame and they've opted to glide from one side of the column to another. Why? There's no need for movement there, just get rid of the bloody column and the shot will look great! I must say, this is a good effort for a first time director but the film goes from one extreme to the other throughout. I'd say with some of the lesser known actors, their performances were great at points but certainly uneven at others. It has just been played far too big and demonstrates a lack of good instincts on the director's behalf.

Overall, it was certainly worth a watch but I wouldn't watch it twice. Cheesy-ness for the Asda sales bin but a gem when compared with the other films in that sales bin.

Oh, an Ideological Movie, a Blend of Feminism, Christian Beliefs and What Not

[amrittamang · 2/10 · 6 September 2014]

Not only being unaware of any review but also about any fact of its content, I watched it because Peter O'Toole featured in it. However, this is a movie that requires thorough preparation. Not only does one need to know some of the history, and of course the actual Katerina, no also about Eastern religion should one know at least a bit. Sadly it is only the latter of which I know something about.

But first to the movie itself. It was one of Ingmar Bergman's paradigm not to use music unless it is actually played in the scene, e.g. when the stereo plays. This movie is the most extreme antithesis to it. There is a constant stream of string music, occasionally supported by some drums. It would have served the atmosphere simply to not use any sort of music at all. My rating would have gone up at least a star.

While the music poses some sort of (bright neon-) red thread, the film itself lacks it. It is some sort of patchwork that especially in the beginning seem like completely random bits of flashy colors. As an ideology driven under-budgeted piece of work it rather feels surreal. This is the most positive feature of the film Michael Redwood has achieved.

While I absolutely enjoyed Nicole Keniheart as Katerina from the perspective of acting (was that accent natural? If not: Why, Redwood? Why?), her character entrapped herself in inconsistencies.

Not knowing the historical Katerine, I was at first lead to believe she was denouncing any deities, being some sort of atheist. You might think, how I could have done that since it clearly must have been a Christian but I would hold the utter surrealistic atmosphere as possible explanation for this misconception. She does sound a bit like a Buddhist at times. And this is where the grandest mistake of the films writers occurred. Lending from ideologies, philosophies, or religions one should actually have understood their notions. This was obviously not the case here.

While it was a strange mix of feminist and Buddhist/Hindu thought to portray her as the incarnation of Nefertiti, and sort of brave, in the end it did not work. She was confronted by this evil guy--sorry, I did not remember that name--showing her a, rather the, bust of Nefertiti which could identify although she had never seen it, nor heard this name in her present life. Okay, for me its fine to, just like that, introduce reincarnation into Christianity. The question whether that can make sense or it is completely contradictory remains.

Where she got entangled in inconsistency with the foreign source was when she foretold the evil guy that after this life his soul would end. Not only that but that was even a bad thing. The guy got upset and she felt so sorry for him, that she shed a tear. So why is that inconsistent. Reincarnation is part of Hinduism and Buddhism in which it is a rather clearly explained sort of natural law. Both the Hindus and Buddhist actually try to escape this cycle of existences because it entails endless suffering. At this point we have our first inconsistency--unless Katerina shed tears of joy. Which by the way she did not. She gave that evil guy the prophecy like it was something really bad. Now we need to go a bit further. According to Buddhist belief (I am not well versed in Hindu thought) any sort of conventional happiness experienced within this prison of consecutive lives is impermanent and as such is not desirable. The goal is a sort of ultimate happiness, the utter liberation from suffering, nirvana. So, is the evil guy about to achieve this state after his present life? Rather not. How should we understand this state? Katerina tells the evil guy that he would simply stop to exist. That is of course not Buddhist and, granted, it was not supposed to be. The state one achieves at enlightenment is beyond any sort of extremes. This is already in the sutras, i.e. the earliest Buddhist texts. Later the thought was put into a wonderful system by the Buddhist saint (can we actually say that?) and philosopher Nagarjuna. The Buddha made it clear that when achieving enlightenment he will neither be existent, non-existent, both, or neither. He will be beyond such dualistic concepts.

While that was just a bit off-topic, it makes clear that there is much more to reincarnation than what Western media is able to digest. Filmmakers should give such notions more thought before they assimilate truncated, if not completely twisted, versions of them. I mean seriously, there is reincarnation but that one evil guy will simply stop to exist? The last time I was politely told that unbelievers will simply stop to exist after the purgatory at the end of the world was when I actually let in some Jehovah's Witnesses to have a chat with them.

This film should carry a health warning

[jauldp · 1/10 · 25 April 2015]

I had never heard of Katherine of Alexandria. Fall of an Empire sounds like an action movie with epic battles. You'll be very disappointed, it is a disjointed tale with no coherent story, poor actors. acting and dialog. There are scenes from Hadrian's Wall with "Amazon Type" female barbarian warriors, at times it seemed like we were entering a Monty Python world. Two of us watched this but neither understood what the story was about and soon lost interest in the characters. Quite simply it was boring. I take it from Catherine's demise that this is where the "Catherine Wheel" in fireworks originates if so that was the only sparkle in this dire film. I recently reviewed the Homesman with Tommy Lee Jones and felt it was so bad that I had to warn the public that this was not worth the time spent watching. This film falls into the same category. One reviewer says that this is a low budget film but I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would waste their time time never mind money on making this garbage.

9 out of 10 for originality

[darcymaverick2000 · 9/10 · 29 September 2014]

Luckily I went into this film with low expectations, not because of reviews on IMDb (I never trust amateur reviews), but because I'd never even heard of it before...

I love to put an independent film in the DVD player without any anticipation, sit back with a cup of Earl Grey and let the screenplay lift me out of the mediocrity of todays films into a brave new world.

This film did exactly that.

To be honest, I haven't watched too many Peter O'Toole films, even though everyone raves on about him. I didn't expect anything from him either, but boy did he blow me away with his dialogue. Katherine was exceptional and many of the other big names played nice roles too.

Impressive for a very niche Brit production.

After watching it today I came straight on here to read reviews from other fans. I've never shared a review online before myself, but after seeing some of the crushingly negative reviews, I felt I needed to share my thoughts to add some balance.

Firstly, it is blindingly obvious to me that the 1 star reviews here are by a generation completely spoilt by the cheap wizardry of Hollywood, where stories are created sheerly for profit, history is re-written and every story has the same predictable ending fit for an imbecile.

...And so, when a film like Decline of an Empire comes along with an unusual style of storytelling (dangerous), an original cast (what were they thinking), with real actors who are famous for something other than their body parts (oh my god), and an ending that leaves you with a sense of spiritual growth (!!!), instead of the predictable happily-ever-after-brain-mushing-gunk, people loose their minds!... They just can't take it! I am too young to reminisce the times of Hitchcock or Orson Welles, but I am well aware that era is truly dead... albeit for a few unique gems that come my way unexpectedly, but I feel for those who do reminisce a truly lost art.

Thank you for bringing a sweet taste of originality and depth to my screen, it's rare! Very, very rare...

Good movie

[mohill05 · 7/10 · 17 August 2014]

In my opinion I think that there is some unintentional misleading by the movie moguls. I bought the DVD and found out for myself that this movie is clearly the story of Katherine of Alexandria and not an 'Epic battle'. I have heard from friends in Germany and the UK and the focus there is where it should be, on the life story of Katherine. I didn't take this as a religious story, I don't claim to be a religious expert and therefore cannot comment on any 'inaccuracies'. I just wanted to watch a movie, hopefully enjoy it--which I did--and see Peter O'Toole's last performance.

A big story on a small budget always gets my attention. For anyone wanting Hollywood hype and glamor, this educational story is probably not for you.

Awful film (review may contain spoilers)

[sunflowerbex · 3/10 · 24 May 2015]

I was really looking forward to seeing this film. I love historical films & books & had read up on the history of Katherine.

The film was a huge disappointment, it was unstructured, the story jumped all over the place with very little explanation of how things happened, no story of how constintine ended up a great leader, no story line of the mad emperors love or affection for Katherine that is so important historically.

It was just a poor, messy, weird attempt at a film ? Odd casting (Peter o'tool) a legend must of wondered what he had done to be burdened with this as his last film.

awful effects, sound & a bloody awful soundtrack running the whole way through the film, only stopping about twice completely detracting from the dialect (which is also all over the place, you have English, Greek, Latin, several bad European languages all thrown in).

I would really love to see this story told properly & directed much better.

Big let down :(

Strong females!

[erina_g123 · 14 August 2014]

I found this film very interesting not for its apparent all male cast, but rather the strong female characters depicted. Nicole Keniheart as Saint Katherine is just beautiful, mesmerising. Where did she come from!? Empress Vita is strong, authoritative, and the Barbarian women are pretty fun, although pretty brutal at times. It goes without saying that Peter O'Toole and Edward Fox are great. Of course they are, they are Peter O'Toole and Edward Fox! I did find it confusing at times, but it didn't really deter too much from the overall enjoyment. I laughed out loud and cried, so I would recommend that you get comfy with tissues at hand, settle down and enjoy. Nicole Keniheart will be seen again for sure!

Poorly Written and Directed

[pameladevereux · 1/10 · 7 April 2021]

Too much concentration on the music.

Poor script. Bad writing. As if the director had many versions and puzzled together the best bits. What a palaver. Nicole as the lead is questionable not a strong actor at all as if she has had no training. I feel so sorry for these great actors to have to be a part of this drivvle.

Dreadful

[djkennykane · 1/10 · 9 March 2022]

Never left a review before but worst acting in the world - felt like it was done from kids in primary school - I'm had more empathy from a wet cabbage.

Some people are off their rockers!

[jason-158-746965 · 8/10 · 13 November 2014]

I would hardly say this is the "worst film ever made". Grow up. This is far, FAR from the worst film ever made. People are off their heads. It's a fairly decent, low budget indie with a nice message. At least it was a unique story! There is far much more garbage out there. We see Hollywood churning out these horribly made, poorly written horror films, sequels, remakes - all awfully made with an AWFUL amount of money. The reviews this movie have had are scathing, or awesome, there doesn't seem to be a happy middle ground. Which is exactly where this film lies. In the middle ground. It's not great. It's not terrible, it's fine.

Love a barbarian

[smloc22 · 7/10 · 20 August 2014]

Today I watched decline of an empire (Katherine of Alexandria as the Brits called it)I don't quite understand why they changed the title even though it shows the fall of the Roman empire its clearly about the life of St. Katherine. The film boasts a colorful cast and and a good script, plus it's Peter o Tooles last film and a great performance as always. Without mentioning too much, I thought the trial scene was superb, and I found the Barbarian women amusing. I thought Nicole Kenniheart was great as Katherine and beautiful too. On the negative side, sometimes it gets a bit confusing and jumps to different scenes that makes you feel something was omitted. Overall, a good film with religion action and fun.

If your looking for a film with blood and gore and fight scenes like from Gladiator then this film is not for you.

When a womam is both producer and star, and speaks English phonetically, expect the worst. is the

[emuir-1 · 9 April 2015]

Within five minutes I had figured out that this film was made by a woman - a vanity project for the star. It screams feminism. The British warriors fighting the Romans in Northern England are all women, their men having been killed. They even have a token confident assertive black woman ship owner - what was she doing on Hadrian's wall? Katherine's writings are distributed by women couriers, and so on. I was expecting the current obligatory lesbian relationship, but might have missed it when I finally gave up pausing it to do something else and switched it off permanently. Apart from being incomprehensible plot wise, the dialog screamed out for dubbing. I had no problem with the written dialog, just - the - way - it - was - delivered. The leading lady who also produced, spoke in a stilted phonetic English that was excruciating to listen to. Dubbing the foreign actors in normal speed would have sped up the film 75%. OK she gets applause for trying, but the audience deserves better. I really thought I was watching a post war Italian sandals and toga epic.

My question, how did the female Mel Gibson get the funding for this vanity project? It was almost as bad, not quite, but almost, as the independent film about St. Theresa of Liseiux. This film did not even deserve to go straight to DVD, it should have gone into the trash can.

It's a shame this went straight to DVD, rather than to the Theatre!!

[Clusium · 8/10 · 15 August 2014]

Decline of an Empire, tells the story of St. Katherine of Alexandria, a young woman of noble birth, who was highly educated in languages, religions, and philosophy. Enthralled by her beauty, the pagan emperor Maxentius has her brought to the palace, hoping that she will later become his mistress, much to the dismay of his own wife, Valeria. Meanwhile, in the British isles, Barbarian women have gone to battle against the Romans, as there are no men left to protect their clans. They have received messages from Katherine of the onslaughts of Christians throughout the empire. Back home, the Roman philosophers challenge Katherine on her faith in God, hoping that she will renounce Him, and return to the Roman religion. Katherine's knowledge in Roman religion, makes her victorious over all of them, and for her treason, she is killed for her Christian faith.

Not below a 5, come on people, not all history is entertaining, truth hurts don't it!

[cowboyerik · 7/10 · 2 January 2016]

Not all history is entertainment. Yes liberties are often taken, especially with the mundane parts of history like the slow, dreadful, pathetic fall of the Roman empire. Not all characters are thrilling, famous and riveting, some are vanilla, because that is the mold from which they were cast, so no matter who plays their roll, they should not excite if they want to be accurate, that said, we all know the liberties Hollywood, writers, directors, producers love to take to sell tickets, I think because they didn't stick to true history, and maybe tapped other movies fortes, they might have dragged themselves down with the ship. Still I think Katherine's resonating message is well worth portraying and listening to. You won't know until you watch it, unless you want to read some boring, dry Roman historian's account of the period!

Incomprehensible faux period piece

[dutchrig · 14 August 2014]

I have to admit that I am in total agreement with "Had Enough" and his review. This movie is virtually incomprehensible and that's a shame, because the legend of Catherine of Alexandria could have been the basis of a terrific film. Needless to say, this was not a terrific film. There was about as much historical accuracy in this film as there was in Walt Disney and Fess Parker telling the tale of Daniel Boone.

Nicole Keniheart's (as Katherine) performance was the only redeeming quality in this otherwise convoluted mess.

Peter O'Toole seems to have called in his lines (or maybe it was just a CGI rerun of his performance in Troy). This is also a shame as it was Mr. O'Toole's last performance--he died shortly before the film was released.

If you choose to watch this film, drink lots of coffee so as to stay alert, and pay very close attention. The slightest inattention and you will lose the plot, characters, events, and probably your reason for watching this movie, forever.

Beautifly written...a must see

[tc90731 · 10/10 · 28 August 2014]

Like too many recent 'epics,' the film is a good choice for most viewers. This could work in some cases, like this one for example seeing scenes where a dozen or so men constitute a major Roman battle is genius. This can also be said of scenes involving cities like Rome and Alexandria– places consisting of thriving metropolises. There is a golden epic about this film i loved it.You must take the family to see this film. O'Toole great performance as well as the other fine older actors Edward Fox and Joss Ackland–so there's a lot to see in this movie. Their presence was very enjoyable and they often seemed a like Oscar winning performances in the film. And, even for nostalgia value, it was very enjoyable.

Not bad at all...

[hibernia89 · 14 August 2014]

I've been looking forward to seeing this for some time now as I love the late Peter O'Toole. He doesn't disappoint and is his usual great self. I feel like this film has suffered at the hands of a distributor, there seems to be some issues with structure and clarity - the fact that the film is retitled and marketed without the lead character suggests that Lionsgate have had some involvement in these issues. I thought that Nicole Keniheart was wonderful as Katherine, there is some beautiful dialogue, a lovely score, some extremely gripping scenes (the trial of Katherine, the execution etc) - it doesn't fall entirely flat that is for sure. Not bad at all.