The penultimate collaboration of the iconic and justifiably famous partnership of Marlene Dietrich and director Josef Von Sternberg is to me one of their best, also perhaps the most entertaining and most visually beautiful.

Historical accuracy is not to be expected here, anybody expecting a truthful account of Catherine the Great's life are better off reading a biography. Taken on its own terms as a film, 'The Scarlet Empress' really impresses and 83 years on is still a great film, what shocked audiences back in 1934 (some of the content is ballsy and ahead of its time) fascinates many now. Where 'The Scarlet Empress' fares least is in the script, some of which going a bit over-the-top on the nonsensical weirdness.

Which may disappoint anybody who loved the archness and sophistication of the writing of other Dietrich/Sternberg films like 'Shanghai Express'.

Otherwise, any debits are far outweighed by the strengths and the size of those strengths. Visually, 'The Scarlet Empress' looks amazing, the production design is staggering in its ornate richness, the cinematography is classy and atmospheric while evoking typically and shockingly lustrous images and the use of light and shadow in the lighting is trademark Sternberg (who also directs as adroitly as ever).

Another element that amazes is the music. Not just the music itself, with pieces of Tchaikovsky, Mendelssohn and Wagner with some of their most famous work and justly so, but also the way it was used. It's constant but music that could easily have been little more than clumsily inserted "popular classical music favourites" has real atmosphere and dramatic power and is used so cleverly. For back in 1934 this use of music was certainly unique, and even now in 2017 'The Scarlet Empress' continues to be one of the most ingenious uses of music, classical or otherwise, on film.

Regardless of any historical inaccuracy, the story is entertaining in its outrageousness while also capturing a real sense of period, a sense of wonder unique regardless of any decade or era and the lusts and intrigues of the court. What could have been completely thankless or caricature characters are interesting and beautifully played. Dietrich certainly lives up to the film's tag-line, she has had so many unforgettable moments on film and her performance in 'The Scarlet Empress' remains her at her most enviously luminous. She is also very commanding on screen, confident and moving even if at times the innocence could have had a softer touch.

She is very well supported by a thrillingly demented but also soulful Sam Jaffe and a formidable Louise Dresser. John Lodge holds up better on repeat viewing, while nowhere near in the same league as Dietrich, Jaffe and Dresser in no way does he disgrace himself either, far from it.

In summary, a great film. 9/10 Bethany Cox

By all accounts Catherine the Great was one remarkable woman. The Queen Consort of Czar Peter III of Russia, she got the throne from him in a palace coup d'etat and ruled for 33 years. She was also a woman of some lusty sexual appetites just like the woman who portrays her in The Scarlet Empress. It's what distinguishes The Scarlet Empress from the Alexander Korda production of Catherine The Great that starred Elizabeth Bergner and came out the same time.

Both tell the same story from young Princess Sophia of Anhalt-Zerbst chosen as a bride for the Russian Tsarevitch. But Bergner plays her almost as an innocent though you see traces of the lusty woman Catherine became. Marlene Dietrich loses her innocence and you see a woman who used sex to get her way whether it was political gain or sexual satisfaction that she wasn't getting from the imbecile who was her husband.

As for Czar Peter, though Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. gives a fine performance, we see a psychotic Czar in him. Sam Jaffe is far closer to the truth, the childlike imbecile who was overwhelmed he didn't measure up in the bedroom or the throne room. This film was Jaffe's screen debut, a far cry from Dr. Reifenschneider in The Asphalt Jungle or the High Lama of Shangri-La, all three very different parts.

In fact historians and scholars debate to this day whether Paul who succeeded his mother was Peter's child or was sired by one of Catherine's many lovers.

Gavin Gordon and John Davis Lodge play two of her lovers. Lodge was a man like Ronald Reagan who made it big in two different careers. A member of THE Lodge family of Massachusetts, the younger brother of Henry Cabot Lodge, Ike's UN Ambassador, this Lodge left the law for acting and then after Navy service in World War II became a Congressman, Governor of Connecticut, and Ambassador to Spain.

To me it's tossup between Flora Robson in Catherine the Great and Louise Dresser as to who the better Empress Elizabeth. Elizabeth was the daughter of Peter the Great, aunt of Sam Jaffe. Her appetites were as big as Catherine's, but her ruthlessness somewhat less. Like Elizabeth I of England, she never married and produced an heir to the throne, but also no one bothered to keep up any fiction about the Russian Elizabeth being a virgin.

With some footage from Ernst Lubitsch's silent classic The Patriot, Joseph Von Sternberg crafted one of the better efforts from his collaboration with Marlene Dietrich. He also drove the Paramount Pictures bean counters absolutely crazy by going over budget. The Scarlet Empress was expensive and looks expensive. Von Sternberg spent Paramount's money in a way they could only justify with Cecil B. DeMille.

Von Sterberg made good use of music to cover many stretches of no dialog. And after seven years of talking pictures, he also used title cards and effectively when 99% of films had dropped them for good.

Paramount did not appreciate the money they lost on The Scarlet Empress, but Marlene, Von Sternberg, and even the bean counters know now they made a classic.

This is an absolutely amazing film to watch. I have seen several other collaborations between director Josef Von Sternberg and Marlene Dietrich and I think this is the best--mostly due to it being like a giant painting or tapestry that was almost mesmerizing. The film is a rather odd look at a brief period of the life of Catherine the Great of Russia. It follows her from her betrothal (when she is a Germanic princess) to her ultimately killing her husband and assuming the throne--the space of just a few years).

During the entire picture, what stood out were the amazing sets. The film begins with some very graphic torture chamber scenes that are definitely "Pre-Code" in that they are so frightening and because of the copious amounts of gratuitous female nudity. While this never could have been allowed once the stronger Production Code was implemented around 1935, it is a captivating and bizarre introduction to the movie and it certainly got your attention!! Then, throughout the film, the sets were magnificent and very twisted--almost like they had been inspired by a combination of LSD, Jean Cocteau's version of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST and the paintings of Hieronymous Bosch! Twisted and grotesque anthropomorphic statues, banisters, candelabras, chairs, etc. grace practically every scene inside the palace--making it look like a combination of Hell and whimsy!! You really just have to see it all to believe it. What was also amazing was how Paramount was able to construct all this without the production bankrupting the company!!! While the dialog and acting is fine, they take a definite backseat to the sets. It's very obvious that Von Sternberg really wasn't trying to humanize the characters or shed too much light on the life of Catherine--it was really more of a work of performance art. And if you accept it as this and NOT an absolutely true recounting of the life of Catherine, then you will be in for a treat.

As for the historical side of the film, there has long been some disagreement about the coup and subsequent execution of Catherine's husband. While it is almost undoubtedly true she orchestrated it (after all, they made her their leader after Peter's death),what isn't so certain is the character of Peter. Some accounts have described him as half-witted or insane (exactly how he's shown in the film) but others doubt if this was exactly the case--it could have just been propaganda used by Catherine to justify her actions. Plus, when Peter died, some apparently reported this was of natural causes and not murder! Considering everything, though, the film had to portray Peter III some way and the evil half-wit was an enjoyable choice--as Sam Jaffe looked so crazed and made the part come alive with his insane-looking eyes and wonderful delivery! Dietrich herself was also very good (perhaps due to her not being so "artificial-looking" like she was in some of her other films due to excessive makeup),but her performance was definitely overshadowed by the sets and Jaffe

By the way, I originally gave this film a very respectable score of 8. However, after seeing "The Rise of Catherine the Great" (which was made the exact same year and covered the exact same material),I saw that this Dietrich film was a lot better by comparison. I especially think that Dietrich and Jaffe were a much better Peter and Catherine than Elisabeth Bergner and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. in the other film.