Customer Reviews

Anna Karenina

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

The first time I saw this film I was confused. I could not understand the opening, which does not follow the novel, nor the connection between the music and the actions portrayed by the actors. Later, I saw it on a small video screen. Then the movie made sense to me since the small screen focused on the close-ups and subtle shifts of mood in the telling of the story to better effect than the large theatre screen. I recalled the experiment by Eisenstein and Prokofiev in Alexander Nevsky that links music and images together in such a way that the music leads the images in the film. It seemed to me that that may be the key to watching this film, and the next viewing confirmed it. The music is a synopsis of the grandeur, both tragic and comic, of Russia. The novel itself is a tragedy surrounded by the comedy of Levin's recognition of the meaning of God and the proper understanding of marriage within the context of God's providence. I was glad that the scriptwriter kept Tolstoy's clear moral purpose in writing Anna, which was, after all, an answer by him to Flaubert's Emma Bovary. I also thought that the film is an excellent corrective to the rather silly Hollywood emphasis on "amour" above all. The greatness of Anna is her tragic desire to see the affair all the way through to its destructive end. Tolstoy emphasizes her eyes, which squint more tightly as her life comes to an end. Vronsky's tragedy is that he is mediocre and completely out of his element with Anna. Perhaps the criticisms of Bean's performance reflect rather his excellence at playing a mediocre man and an audience's unwillingness to accept the moral criticism implied in the film that the sort of love that Vronsky felt for Anna cannot be the basis for marriage. Levin finds true love in the equality of relationship between himself and Kitty, emphasized also in the Orthodox theology of marriage shown in the wedding sequence (which is also the center of the novel). Although it took me a while to understand how to "see" this film, I think it is the best film rendition of a Russian novel I have seen. It also seems to be the sort of criticism of Hollywood movies I would expect from someone as traditional as Mel Gibson whose company produced the film, and all I can say to that is "Do More."

It's been a long time since I read the book and I think this film takes some liberties with it, but I don't care. I enjoyed it purely as a "doomed love" story. I liked this better than any other version of Anna Karenina that I have seen, primarly because of the beautiful cinematography, the glorious music, the extravagantly beautiful interiors and the presence of Sean Bean, who has to be the sexiest Vronsky of all time. Sophie Marceau was not a bad Anna and at least, unlike some versions I have seen, it wasn't hard to see why she would inspire Vronsky's obsession. And the ballroom scene was one of the most beautiful and sweepingly romantic I have ever seen. There was a little too much of the Kitty/Levin relationship and Levin's voiceover ramblings were at points pretty boring but the movie overall is really a jewel in every way--very romantic, two beautiful protagonists, exotic settings and a score second to none.

Tolstoy cannot be distilled into less than two hours,but the music of Tchaikowsky,Prokofiev and Rachmaninoff coupled with lavish costumes and on location shots in St.Petersburg made this an immense viewing pleasure.The production was very much on the scale of AMADEUS.Director/Screenplay writer took much liberty with Tolstoy's ponderous novel and made a lush presentation showcasing the sounds and scenes of Czarist Russia.The camera work and lighting are first rate.These are some of the films numerous strengths in contrast to the condensed version of the book! This film has much to offer to those who have not read the book.The high points are hit.It should leave viewers the desire to know more of Tolstoy's writings and of Russian history.Again,the Georg Solti conducted soundtrack is worth a watching alone!!!

My wife is Russian and we watched it together. We both enjoyed the scenery and the Russian actors speaking Russian. The costumes are right on. From there Hollywood took over.

There were some massive plot changes from the book, the biggest being that Anna miscarries instead of giving birth to a baby girl. Trying to get across a picture to hold an audience a lot of editting was done that unfortunately cut a lot of the motivation from the main characters. It does not even get close to expressing the Russian soul in the characters, with Lev really the only one expressing something towards it. The impact of the death of Lev's brother is expressed with a jump, and I was left going "Where did that come from?".

If you want the Russian soul experience of the tragedy of Anna Karenina, read the book. Your not going to get it in this movie. One star for costumes, one star for setting and one star for the Russian actors makes three.

There are some (well, many) plot alterations that might bother certain people, but Marceau is fabulous as are Fox (who plays Karenin) and the actor who plays Vronsky. The sound track is truly transporting and in general this is one of my favorite videos. They should have given Levin and Kitty more screen time because those characters are just as important as Anna and her scandal. A good portrayal of the temptation to stray and the severe and grim consequences. Yes, a cautionary tale. Probably what Tolstoy intended.

While this is much edited from Tolstoy's tome of a novel, it is an excellent portrayal of the story of a woman who is torn between duty and passion.

A good cautionary tale about adultery and the search for meaning in life.

Sophie Marceau is excellent.

Let me just say in advance that I am not a harsh critic. When people slammed Hannibal, I defended it, and when people moaned about how dreadful Waterworld was, I insisted it was not nearly as bad as it was painted to be; in summary, I am in general a pretty optimistic person who is willing to see the best in every film. That is, until my patience was tested by Anna Karenina.

I'd read the book and was blown away but it's brilliance, and, knowing full well that no film could ever live up to it, was willing to happily settle for a lot less. A few adequately acted scenes which would bring back memories of the book would have sufficed. But Oh.... My.... God.

The trailer was fairly promising enough: great music, fine cinemaphotography, and a few close-ups of the beautiful Sophie Marceau.... sure, Sean Bean seemed to look a little less dashing than I remembered him in other roles (Lady Chatterley's Lover, for example) but on the whole it was not a bad preview: fast-moving, filled with action and promises of drama and love.

After viewing the film I actually had to question whether I'd seen the right trailer. I logged onto the internet, checked the Anna Karenina site, and played the trailer. Yes, this was the trailer for the awful film I'd just seen; and, interestingly, at least one third of the trailer was edited from the film.

The result of this of course is the trailer being much more entertaining than the film. Save your money and watch that instead. For those who have seen the film already, go back and watch the trailer and look at the stuff they so stupidly edited out in the final cut. And THAT (amongst many other flaws) was the major failing of this film: bad editing. Little snippets which were necessary in maintaining any sort of continuity were eradicated, and I'm at a loss to know why this was done.

The storyline is basically as follows: Levin (given the name of Molina in the film, I think) falls for Kitty: though she is in love with the dashing Count Vronsky and therefore refuses Levin's marriage proposal. Vronsky (who was never serious in his attentions towards Kitty anyway) meets on a train his friend's sister, Mrs Anna Karenina, and from this point onwards pursues their mutual attraction to the point where it can no longer be concealed by a harsh and judging society. Anna leaves her husband and the son she loves to live with Vronsky where they live happily in the country for some time before returning to Moscow where things slowly fall apart. At the same time, Kitty has made it up with Levin and married him, and at the end of the story we find the characters in a situation reverse to that of their opposing beginnings: Kitty and Levin now happy (despite Levin's personal issues with religion and life) and Vronsky and Anna miserable in their love that can never be quite free. The book was excellently written and the characters so brilliantly depicted you felt their anguish and joy as though it had happened to you.

With the film, however, vital points are left out, the acting is wooden, and the chemistry between the two leads is non-existant. One reviewer was right in saying Marceau's Anna did not seem in love because she simply was not. In fact, if I hadn't seen Sophie Marceau in other films such as Braveheart and D'Artagnan's Daughter, I would have believed her incapable of acting at all. Her performance is wooden, Bean's performance is shallow, and ..... what the hell was going on with the characters and their accents? We're supposed to believe they're all Russians, though we're thrown with such varied accents as French (Marcea), British (Bean), and strong American (the character of Oblonsky, Anna's brother)..... all to the tune of a brilliant snowy Moscow setting. Yeah.

It's so disjointed and the scenes so brief you never get the chance to care for anyone. Actually, during the scene where Anna supposedly succumbs to Vronsky's charms and they make love, it was so stilted and uncomfortable I actually felt bad for the actors. I actually winced. At other times I gasped at little things which were vital to the story that had been left out. For example, we see Kitty looking dismal and being visited by a doctor. And.... that's all we see. No explanation why, no reference to it later on. Just a little unnecessary snippet which makes you go "Wah...? Bah...?" like so many other unexplained brief scenes in this film. In fact, in the book you understand Kitty has fallen sick because of the love sickness caused by Vronsky, and as a result she changes into a different person altogether for the rest of the story. But none of this in the film, folks! All we get is a bare back, a doctor with a stethoscope, and Kitty's melancholy face. You assume she is physicallly sick, whereas there is actually nothing physically wrong with her.

I could go on and on about the faults in this film. But don't take my word for it - see it yourself, so you can view firsthand how easy it is to screw up a film on so many levels.

The movie does not follow the book exactly, but it was wonderfully made. I find it highly entertaining. I think that Tolstoy would enjoy this movie.

I am shocked how many people didn't like the movie. I absolutely loved it. Anyone who read the book knows that you cannot make a 2-hour movie from 969-page book without leaving many details out. It is not supposed to be a transcript of the book! I thought everything was done excellently, including the chosen cast and the acting. Perhaps being European I don't need melodramatic scenes of screaming, nudity, explicit love scenes and spilled blood - as Hollywood movies are so "good" at - to enjoy my movies. People who wrote the reviews here expected bloody ending, how sad. The movie was done with such a class, so tastefully, yet so powerfully! Sophie Marceau is one of my very favourite actresses and she, as well as others, have done a superb job! The change in languages gave the movie exotic touch and authenticity and a little taste of Russia. The fact that they mixed French is only a reflection that high class, (educated people nowadays) spoke and used a lot of French in their languages. My language, which is not English, uses French expressions, simply because it is so apropos. So, a lot of people here sadly just missed the point. The "stoic" characters have to do with culture and time, all perfectly in place. People here wanted to see American drama, that's all. I recommend seeing it for yourself before reading these reviews.

But first let me say: the production is breathtaking. The costumes are beautiful, the scenery and sets lavish, and the score (music from Tchaikowsky) fits the theme of the story perfectly.

That, however, is pretty much all that can be said. The major problem in transferring 'Anna Karenina' from book to film is that to do so properly requires a good deal more time than 2 hours. This screen adaptation's script is good enough, but it leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Anna's passion and vitality is sadly missing in this film, and a lot of the scenes seem stilted.

This may or may not have to do with the choice of the leading lady. Sophie Marceau is an admirable actress, and has done quite well in other films (notably Braveheart and several French productions), but here she misses the mark completely. The looks on her face, supposed to be deep passion and vivacity, are more reminiscent of how one would look in the dentist's chair. Her Anna is a complete narcissist; when she at last met her end, I almost breathed a sigh of relief.

That said, the men, overall, perform very well. Sean Bean cuts quite a dashing figure as Count Vronsky, the love of Anna's life (and her ultimate downfall). Alfred Molina is excellent as Levin, the everyman and Tolstoy's hero in the story. And James Fox is very, very good as the disregarded Karenin, the husband Anna deserts for Vronsky.

All in all, it may be worth watching (especially for the grand ball scene, which is breathtaking!) but it has the flaws that all adaptations before have had: it is too long to be interesting, but not long enough to cover the story adequately.