Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
62 of 66 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A surprisingly involving (and more faithful) adaptation, November 22, 2004
It may be somewhat sacrilegious to admit this, but I actually prefer this production to the David Lean classic. That is an admission however that I do not take lightly, the Lean version having left an indelible impression on my younger life and the beautiful Lara's Theme having haunted me since I first saw the original version on television back in the 1980s.
No, when I sat down to watch this 2002 adaptation of the Boris Pasternak epic I was all prepared to be both disappointed and resistant to a newer version of the Omar Sharif/Julie Christie favorite - so what happened? Why am I now sitting here so impressed and involved in what should by all accounts be a poorer step child to the colorful, star-filled 1960s movie.
Simply put this movie has the advantage of time. A whole hour longer than the other movie that extra time gives the production of filling in some of the blanks that inhabited the original and more fully exploring the human relationships and interaction between characters. Matheson may not have the acting ability of Sharif but what he does have is the opportunity to more fully realize the character of Zhivago. In this sense this movie is more faithful to the source material and all the better for it.
Matheson plays the part of Zhivago, a man brought up in the shadow of tragedy who feels the pull of loyalty to his wife (and childhood friend) Tonya and a deep infatuation for Lara. With the violence of World War I and the Russian Revolution as a backdrop, Zhivago travels through life torn by conflict.
Less colorful than the original this mini-series compensates with a strong, well defined script and some star turning peformances by Sam Neill and one-time Bond girl Maryam D'Abo (as Lara's mother). Many have also dismissed Keira Knightley in her role as Lara, but I found her both competent and powerful in the role. I found myself both involved in her story and convinced by her portrayal - she was certainly a different Lara than the one depicted by Christie some four decades ago, but one no less realized or compelling. In fact, I would go as far as to say that Knightley's Lara is a more rounded character than Christie's, no doubt due to Knightley's impressive screen presence, but also the longer screentime afforded to her character.
One device I found both clever and interesting was real archive footage from the period that is woven into the story in a fascinating manner.
Included on this DVD is a text biography of author Boris Pasternak as well as over an hour of interviews with the cast. Prepared to be surprised by this DVD and be prepared to fall in love with a whole new version of the DOCTOR ZHIVAGO story.
|
|
|
18 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Russian history brought to life...(kleenex in tow), April 28, 2006
I have never read the book by Boris Pasternak nor have I seen the original 1965 movie (I plan on reading the book and renting the David Lean version soon, though). That said, I loved it! I was really impressed by Keira Knightley's performance, especially as she was only 16 or 17 at the time. Hans Matheson plays the torn poet/physician to perfection. (Other reviewers who panned the two leads must have a different standard of acting than I have...they were great in my book.) Yury Zhivago and Lara cross each other's path three times b/f they work side-by-side as doctor and nurse during the end of WWI and the onset of the Russian Revolution. Lara peers into the window of a cafe where Yury is sitting with Tonya and his friend, Mischa (the three friends are discussing the nature of love and whether or not it can be analyzed); the future lovers' eyes meet and they exchange smiles. Their second meeting is more dramatic. Dr. Zhivago resuscitates Lara's mother after she attempts suicide. Their third meeting is the most dramatic. Before the Revolution, Lara tries to avenge the seedy Komarovsky, who has misused her. She interrupts an aristocratic party that Yury attends by storming in and firing at Komarovsky; unfortunately, she misaims. Boris Pasternak penned a villain we love to hate in the character of Komarovsky: an opportunist without much of a conscience. His urbane mannerisms do little to compensate for his complete want of emotional intelligence or integrity. Lara feels defiled by the same man who was only a short while ago her mother's lover. When she tries to break with Komarovsky, he won't let her, and from then on, he unrelentingly pursues her.
Yury does love Tonya, but I get the idea that his love for his wife is more of a friendship and based on Yury's sense of obligation to his adoptive family. (Yury and Tonya were basically raised as brother and sister, so I can see how it would be difficult from Yury's perspective to suddenly transform his brotherly affections for Tonya into a passionate, romantic love, despite Tonya's many noble characteristics.) Mischa loves Tonya romantically, but never acts on his feelings and remonstrates Yury for not fully appreciating Tonya. (The actor who plays Mischa is very handsome, by the way.) Lara marries Pasha, a young man who will soon help bring about a bloodbath in the name of the Revolution and because of a misguided attempt to protect and impress Lara (in such a way that will only further endanger and horrify her). Pasha senses that Lara does not really love him romantically, and he resents that his wife "treats him like a child." They have a daughter together, as Yury has children with Tonya. One of the themes of this movie seems to be mismatched couples. Yury delivers (in my opinion) the film's most memorable lines when he says to Lara, "I wish I could live two lives. My own and the other to see you well and happy..."
I read in another review for this movie that in the novel, Yury has another lover whom he has known since childhood (Marina). This movie makes no reference to Dr. Zhivago's third lover.
I'm glad that Pasha lived to regret his mistakes and rued that after all the bloodshed (no small part of which was at his direct orders), men like Komarovsky were still in power both before and after the Revolution (and despite the ideals of a "classless" society, lived in luxury). Sam Neill was uncanningly convincing as Komarovsky, one of fiction's most detestable villains. (Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Sam Neill isn't really like the character he portrays, but his acting is so "method" :-), that he leaves chills.)
This series was very well done, and I look forward to comparing this remake with the original movie. This remake integrates archival film clips into the movie, which makes the movie even more haunting, as a love story becomes a history lesson (also, we see the real victims of these harsh times, not actors portraying them). This movie didn't have its actors adopt a Russian accent. For example, most of the actors are British and kept their British accent.
|
|
|
17 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
New is not always bad., March 22, 2007
I too prefer this version.
But I am odd-man out because I never loved the original screen adaptation. Perhaps because although full of great talents, it failed to make me care about the characters. I did love the "making of" footage on the collector's edition I bought, but the film never impressed me. Like many of the other reviewers I have a great deal of respect for Julie Christie as an actress but her performance fell flat, which I blame on the director. Lean may have been great at epic scope, but making an audience connect with and understand the main characters seems not to have been his focus, in this project at least.
This new Zhivago does not leave you scratching your head wondering why it's such a celebrated love story. Yes that is due mostly to having more time for the story to unfold. We get to know the characters and sympathize with them. This version gave me a much greater respect for Tonya, and made Yuri's struggle between his passion for Lara and his devotion to Tonya plainer to the viewer. Andrew Davies (writer) has a brilliant talent for bringing the essence of a story to the screen in the miniseries format.
The real stand out for me (other than the always delightful Sam Neill) was Kris Marshall. He was a brilliant Pasha. A far cry from the dorky Colin of "Love Actually." He is also great in "The Merchant of Venice" with Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons.
The comparisons I have seen of "Matheson to Sharif" and "Knightley to Christie" have been inappropriate. Acting, though essentially the same, was done in a rather different style back when the original was made. Rather wooden compared to some modern interpretations (not a statement of quality, just saying I'm used to something different). This was not always the case but I consider it as good a reason as any why two such great artists as Christie and Sharif failed to move me in that film. I'm not entirely convinced those who criticize the new leads by comparing them with the old aren't looking more at the lifetime of work the former actors have to their credit, rather than their specific performances in Dr. Zhivago. "Luminosity" can be acheived with proper makeup and lighting.
One might also consider what the filmmakers intended to convey. If their goals are acheived, it should be considered an accomplishment regardless of personal taste.
In honesty I must admit that I have not yet been brave enough to tackle the book. Something about Russian drama in literature intimidates me, I suppose.
I don't expect anyone to go by my review really. I simply offer my opinions to counter those I see here with which I disagree. See the film for yourself and decide. There is no law that says anyone must love any adaptation.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|