Leo Tolstoys Anna Karenina [VHS]

Product Details

Product Reviews

(5 stars) - "Not A Word, Not A Gesture Of Yours, Can I, Nor Shall I, Ever Forget." Classic Love Story. The Definitive Film Version.
Count Leo N. Tolstoy's classic novel has been transferred to the silver screen numerous times, most notably in 1935 with Greta Garbo & Frederic March and in 1948 with Vivien Leigh & Ralph Richardson. However, this opulent and magnificent version, filmed in Russia (which lends it greater authenticity than previous film and TV versions) is by far the best. Sophie Marceau ("Braveheart") is undeniably beautiful and does a fantastique job as Anna, making her own mark on the tragically doomed title character. Sean Bean ("Goldeneye") is dashing & impulsive as Count Vronsky. The supporting cast includes James Fox as Karenin, Alfred Molina as Levin, Mia Kirshner as Kitty, Danny Houston as Stiva and Phyllida Law as Countess Vronsky. For unknown reasons, the film was cut from its original length of 140 minutes to 108 minutes and the Director's Cut never released to the public. PLEASE, Warner Bros, RELEASE THE DIRECTOR'S CUT ON DVD. Mel Gibson (Best Picture & Best Director, "Braveheart") was an uncredited producer on this magificent movie. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Rated PG-13, but should have been rated PG for mild sensuality.

(1 stars) - Absolute twaddle
Any attempt to condense Tolstoy's epic into a 110 minute film would be a difficult task, if not impossible, and this proves the point.

Not only does this film fail to convey Tolstoy's plot, it's screenplay is positively laughable. Every character is one dimensional, and consequently none of it makes any sense. The result is the viewer doesn't care about any of the characters - the viewer is only wanting all of them to die and for the movie to end as soon as possible. This is not a Merchant-Ivory production !

What is even more staggering is the casting. The directors miscast actors with a melange of accents from British to French to broad American, while also managing to get some real actors - one can only imagine that the credible actors were paid most handsomely, or were given a different script to what ended up after editing was completed. Either way, I don't think any of them would be putting this tripe on their resume.

Granted, the costumes were nice, but costumes without meaningful dialogue and multi-dimensional characters is not enough to sustain a film.

110 minutes of my life that could have been better spent. My suggestion : read the book - much more satisfying.

One star for the costumes.

(4 stars) - A visual masterpiece
One of the most visualy stunning costume dramas I have ever seen! Every thing is so beautifu the actors, the costumes which deserved an oscar nomination, the authentic russian sets and a great score. Sophie Marceau is beautiful as Anna but lacks the acting ability to play such a complex character. Sean Bean as Vronsky and Sophie Marceau have great chemistry. The film has sparks of greatness but fails. Some scenes like the ball scence and Anna's death are beautifuly shot and succeed and most others just seem lukewarm. Levin story is cut to only to a few minutes they probably should have not included him and just focused on Anna's story in my opinion. It pains me to say this but the film is wort buying if only for the visuals. I watch my copy on mute most of the time listing to Air.

(3 stars) - Some splendid scenes, and yet...
Before seeing this adaptation of ANNA KARENINA, I'd been fortunate to see the Greta Garbo version; the Nicola Pagett TV adaptation and the Helen McCrory TV adaptation. They all have good things about them. For one, you can't really go wrong with the story: a beautiful young woman, married to an older man for convenience, falls desperately in love for the first time with a young officer, and he with her.

And this version... The chemistry between Sean Bean and Sophie Marceau is there and they both give excellent performances. James Fox also makes an excellent, not totally unsympathic Karenin (thankfully miles above Basil Rathbone's stone cold performance in the Greta Garbo version.) And Alfred Molina is, hands down, the best Levin I can ever remember. He looks great, too; very trim & handsome.

Also, the hair, makeup, costumes, and glorious St. Petersburg setting (with detours to Italy and the Russian countryside) are simply beautiful. The soundtrack is my next purchase - perfectly chosen pieces of classical music, which enhance this film immeasurably.

But... I have to say the film left me a little cold. For all the care and attention lavished on the scenery, and for all the good performances, little missteps kept bothering me. Why did the screenwriter choose to make Anna's daughter die at birth? Doing this oversimplified the reason(s) for Anna's growing despair and eventual mental breakdown. Also, without the little daughter, the important fact that Anna couldn't feel even a small particle of the affection for her baby daughter that she has for her son by Karenin, is left out. This lack of affection for her baby increases her feelings of isolation.

Why did the screenwriter bump up the time frame from 1875-77 to 1880-83? This didn't make much sense to me at all, because
a) there's no reason for it, and, b) Alexei's departure for the Turkish front during the war of 1877, after Anna's suicide, is left out. Why didn't the writer include the scene where Levin actually meets Anna, and despite that, why have Levin narrate the film if he never meets her? Odd choices.

I just felt a little distant from the story being told, somehow. I loved certain individual scenes -- Levin in the fields with his peasants, marvelous; the ball where Anna and Vronsky realize they love each other (to Kitty's despair). I thought Sean Bean struck exactly the right note as a man loving a woman through an impossible situation, but feeling the frustration caused by her jealousy of his freedom (justifiably so; Anna's jealous because he still has all the freedom to move about in society that she is barred from).

Somehow, all of the good points in this film never quite came together into one compelling drama. All the elements for an emotionally moving film were there, but while this film is very much worth seeing, it did leave me a bit cold.

(1 stars) - Sophie Marceau Spoiled It
Sorry, I just couldn't get into this version of the movie. I began watching it on TV this evening. I've read the book, which is one of the most brilliant classics ever written in my opinion. I also saw a TV series several years ago starring Nicola Paget. This series, I thought, made a pretty good attempt at being faithful to the book, and Nicola Paget portrayed the beautiful, troubled Anna in a most believable way.

Sophie Marceau, however, was too far removed from what I perceived Anna must have looked and acted like. Marceau seemed more like an ordinary present day college girl caught in a time warp. She didn't look particularly beautiful (and those straight bangs didn't help any!) and one couldn't help but wonder why Vronsky would give her a second glance.

Considering the lofty quality of the book, this movie was pretty ordinary.

Popular Searches in Blended