Anna Karenina (1997) User Reviews

Eye candy which barely misses the mark!

[kriddd · 7/10 · 7 February 2006]

I'm not sure how this movie slipped past me, as I try to stay on top of the period movies that come out. Nonetheless I caught it on one of the Encore channels last night, and I'm glad I did. Visually this movie is incredible! The cinematography could not have been much better, down to small details such as Levin "mowing" in the fields with the scythe in perfect rhythm with the workers.

As much as I like the film, however, I'm disappointed that Sophie Marceau's portrayal of Anna was not more passionate. On the whole I thought her performance was pretty good, but I agree with the comments above that she could have exhibited a much more involved and emotional presence in the face of a love that she could not resist. Ditto for Sean Bean, although he was somewhat better at it than Sophie. It's a situation where one fervently wishes that the actors were better than they were, because you know that it would have made the movie a "10." Both Bean and Marceau did provide some excellent glimpses into the souls of their characters, but only glimpses. One would wish for more intimate looks into their motivations and their respective desolations. I was not at all put off by accents of the actors. So Marceau has a mild French accent...French was the dominant language of the Russian court up to the Revolution, so it would not have been out of place at all.

The story of Levin and Kitty fares better, if only because of the stellar performance of Alfred Molina. Offhand I can't think of a more underrated actor (save perhaps Ron Perlman). Ms. Kirshner was fine as Kitty, although her journey from infatuation with Vronsky to love for Levin was given short shrift.

Overall I loved this movie, but I just wish it had been two marks better.

Half the material

[ferdinand1932 · 5/10 · 5 July 2011]

While the production design, photography costumes etc are all quite spectacular this is only half the book. That it is not really the book which may seem a normal quibble, but all the other details which are so rich in the original, is lost here and what is left is a melodrama.

One reason is that the length of a great novel cannot ever be crammed into a film of normal endurance. The problem then becomes one of audience engagement and also character motivation because the characters are so attenuated in the film. The rich back histories and the social settings and discussion of current ideas is also fundamental to a Tolstoy novel and here it is only hinted at in parts.

Some level of implication is good in a film, unlike a novel, but in this case it is reduces a novel to a text message.

The result is not a bad film, but is unfortunately superficial. The task the filmmakers set is enormous - too big for what is accomplished. It's solution is not in this medium and at this length: a multi-part TV series would be have been better.

Lovely.... absolutely lovely.

[nessa_tulcakelume · 7/10 · 30 April 2006]

This was surprisingly good. I'm not that much a fan of the Romance genre, if truth be told, but I'll make an exception for this one. The film is carefully crafted. Every emotion, every dialogue enhanced the overall tone of the film, slowly but surely escalating in its momentum up to its tragic climax.

Sophie Marceau was brilliant. As was Sean Bean. I wasn't quite sure if they would be able to possess the kind of chemistry needed to pull this off, if truth be told, considering how they (in my opinion) seem to be of different temperament artistically (Sophie being more sensitive as seen in Braveheart and Marquis, while Bean is more explosive). Nevertheless, it worked out fine although, ironically, their relationship seem to be more believable whenever they fell out of odds with each other. :)

Imperfect, but beautiful nonetheless

[angel-131 · 2 September 2000]

Now, perhaps I'm out of my element writing a review for "Anna Karenina" without having read the book, but I shall do so regardless. Many criticised this film because it did not follow the book, or omitted one thing or another. That is all well and good, but what feature-length film *can* capture the entire scope of a novel the size of "Anna Karenina"? I watched the older version with Greta Garbo and--though I cannot imagine why--it never truly caught my attention. This version, however, captured me from the start. And I am usually the first one to complain about what is wrong with a remake in comparison to the old version. A paradox, indeed.

This film first caught my eye because of Sophie Marceau. I admire her immensely as an actress, having seen her in several films, both French and English. Then, I recognised Bernard Rose as the director of "Immortal Beloved", a film I had enjoyed some months before, mostly due to a magnificent performance by Gary Oldman, some of the most glorious music caught on film.

The music, I can probably cite as one of the main reasons I loved this film. I can think of no better love theme for a doomed romance like that of Anna and Vronsky, than the first movement of Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony. The use of "Swan Lake" at various points was also wonderful, and the interplay during the scene at the ballet held me mesmerised. Vronsky speaks of Anna being trapped in her marriage as the Prince seeks to capture the Swan Queen. Perhaps I'm just rambling, but somehow that connected.

On the whole, the performances were good. Sophie Marceau was perfectly believable as Anna, and some of her scenes sent chills down my spine, though my favourite performance of hers still has to be "Firelight". Sean Bean had me worried for a few seconds, with a mannered reading or two, but improved quickly as the film progressed. Another reviewer pointed out that Vronsky was meant to be a shallower character than Anna, and now that I think back on it, I believe that is very true, and that Sean Bean's performance reflected this superficiality. Mia Kirshner was adequate--I didn't particularly care for her--but Alfred Molina and James Fox both gave fine performances (a standout for me was when Anna wrote Karenin from Italy and Karenin wavered before refusing to let her see Sergei).

However, equally on par with the actors, was the setting. Very few films, I have to admit, can look *so* beautiful. Especially the ballroom scene, with the seemingly neverending hallway of gilded doors, the location photography was spectacular. The costumes were stunning, and the cinematography made even snow seem alive. Even if you do not care for the story or the acting, this is a film to watch for visuals.

Thus, I believe that this film deserves far more credit than it received. I, personally, loved it for varied reasons, but I have to admit that what truly captured me was the way Bernard Rose can take an average script and transform it into a beautiful film using visuals and music. Very few directors take the time to put music and image together if they use classical scores (my favourites would be David Lean and John Boorman), and I believe Bernard Rose should be watched in the future. I should love to see what he would do with a film set in late 19th century Italy, when opera was at its height!

***1/2 out of ****

not too bad

[samantha-stevenson · 7/10 · 30 November 2004]

I will hereby join the legions of ladies (and perhaps some gents too?) that sat down to watch this version of Anna Karenina simply because of the presence of Sean Bean.

I have to say, I was not disappointed, though in this version Vronsky's screen-time is drastically reduced. I was very impressed with Alfred Molina and James Fox, both played their parts with conviction and in my opinion stayed true to the characters from the book. I wish I could say the same for Sophie Marceau, but unfortunately I found her rather shallow and annoying. Perhaps it was just because her accent was so out of place, but whatever the reason, I found her portrayal of Anna unrealistic and unsympathetic.

The best Anna Karenina that I have come across so far, is easily Vivian Leigh in the 1948 version, which to date I believe to be the best one yet. If you are looking for only one version of this movie to watch, I recommend that one, although it is of course sadly lacking the dashing Mr. Bean :-)

A poor telling of an oft told tale.

[=G= · 6/10 · 22 April 2001]

"Anna Karenina", (circa 1997) is a lavish abbreviated retelling of the Tolstoy classic which tries to do too much with too little time. The capable cast seems to have mostly British accents (except for Marceau's rather obvious French undertone) which seem out of place in a film shot and set in Russia. This leap-frogging flick does resound with the import of one maxim: If you can't do it right, don't do it at all.

A worthy version to appreciate, with a creative visual interpretation of the famous ending

[ruby_fff · 7/10 · 26 May 2003]

Like "Ivansxtc" 2002 (also based on a Leo Tolstoy novel, and featured Wagner's "Tristan und Isolde"), writer-director Bernard Rose optimizes classical music compositions with thoughtful imageries on screen vs. literal dialogs in his 1997 "Anna Karenina," produced by Warner Bros. and Icon Productions (Mel Gibson affiliated). Sophie Marceau is Anna. Take a close watch at her nuanced facial expressions towards the seemingly 'interminable' end - a remarkable four-minutes worth. Of course, director Rose has everything to do with the visually creative presentation. This version of "Anna Karenina" could be one of the more positive of endings. Yes, it ends not with the usual ending by the train tracks. Bernard Rose the screenwriter gives us enhanced perspectives - there is the parallel story of Levin and Kitty beyond the famous couple of Anna and Vronsky.

The story is told from the point of view of Alfred Molina's Levin - we hear his voice-over comments now and then throughout the film. Molina gave a remarkable subdued performance, a rather quiet one compared to his explosive, high energy manic characters in other films. Sean Bean is Vronsky. Mia Kirshner is Kitty. Danny Huston, who's the brilliant main focus in "Ivansxtc", plays Anna's brother, Stiva - friend to Levin and brother-in-law to Kitty. James Fox is the husband, Karenin, and briefly, Fiona Shaw as Lydia, influencing Karenin and becoming the 'unspoken threat' to Anna.

The film was authentically shot "entirely on location at St. Petersburg and Moscow." Several Tchaikovsky pieces featured were performed by the St. Petersburg Philharmonic Orchestra, conducted by Sir Georg Solti (Symphony No. 6 in B Minor, Op. 74 - Pathetique; Eugene Onegin; Violin Concerto in D Major, Op 35; Swan Lake).

I have seen the silent B/W version of director Edmund Goulding's 1927 "Love" with Greta Garbo and John Gilbert, and director Clarence Brown's 1935 "Anna Karenina" with Garbo and Frederic March. Somehow I found there's more spark, passion and drama in director Rouben Mamoulian's 1933 "Queen Christina" with Garbo and Gilbert. Perhaps it's about the period of 1880's restrictive Russian society, a more emotionally successful portrayal of love affair is Martin Scorcese's 1993 "Age of Innocence" (Edith Wharton's story of late nineteenth century New York high society) - Michelle Pfeiffer and Daniel Day Lewis (Countess Olenska and Newland Archer) certainly gave a titillating relationship on screen of forbidden romance. For sensitive depiction of angst, pangs and passion of marital infidelity, try Tony Goldwyn's directorial debut "A Walk on the Moon" (1999) with Diane Lane as Pearl the wife, Viggo Mortensen as Walker Jerome the blouse man, Liev Schreiber as Marty the husband, and an equally poignant performance from Anna Paquin as Alison the teenage daughter growing up during the summer of Woodstock.

If you appreciate Sophie Marceau and costume drama, she gave a refined portrayal of an 1800's governess with a secret/restrained emotion and passion, opposite Stephen Dillane (who's Leonard Woolf opposite Nicole Kidman in "The Hours" 2002) in writer-director William Nicholson's directorial debut "Firelight" (1997).

Visually and audibly stunning, but overall one of the weaker adaptations

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 29 July 2015]

Along with War and Peace, Anna Karenina is one of the greatest Russian novels and one of the greats of 19th century literature, the story is heart-breaking and intense and the characters compelling. Anna Karenina has often been filmed, and of the film versions the 1967 Russian and 1935 Greta Garbo films fare the best and the 2012 Joe Wright-directed version the weakest. This 1997 adaptation from Bernard Rose (Paperhouse, Immortal Beloved, Candyman) has a good amount to like but is one of the weaker adaptations.

Visually, the film looks absolutely stunning and along with the 1967 Russian film it is one of the most evocative adaptations period detail-wise. Although some of the editing is choppy, the cinematography is ravishing and the costumes and sets are some of the most beautiful and evocative of any adaptation of Anna Karenina, especially in the opulent ballroom scene and the gorgeous wintry landscapes. The Tchaikovsky-laden music score makes for an aural feast and couldn't have fitted more perfectly.

Three performances are good. Coming off best is Alfred Molina, who brings authority and many layers to Levin, wish more was done with developing the character more in terms of writing but at least the film included the character and his subplot with Kitty. James Fox is a ruthlessly cold and haunting Karenin, the character played consistently well in all the Anna Karenina adaptations even in the not-so-good ones. Sean Bean is a handsome Vronsky, but brings a steely intensity to the role that stops the character from being wooden or tragic, rightfully avoiding the dashing heroic figure stereotype.

Sophie Marceau however I found miscast as Anna, she looks splendid but is pretty vacuous and lacking in passion. Her chemistry with Bean convinces in the latter and more turbulent parts of the relationship but dull in the early parts. Mia Kirschner is also rather too modern and lightweight for Kitty. This version of Anna Karenina is a visual and aural stunner with a few impressive performances, but is one of the least successful and interesting versions in terms of script and how the story is told.

The dialogue doesn't always flow naturally, and feels very dry in tone and with little depth and substance, and the narration was rather unnecessary. Rose's direction shows terrific technical assurance but lacks the same kind of momentum in telling the story. It's the story where the film most falls down, feeling far too short and far too rushed, with about half of the story (or so it feels) being told but all in Cliff Notes version, and it even feels like more of the film was filmed but cut due to studio interference. Neither of the romances are dealt with well, Anna and Vronsky's is too rushed and the very incomplete-feeling one between Levin and Kitty sometimes really slows down the film.

Overall, not a bad version but a less than ideal one, as an adaptation and as a film on its own. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Faithful to the novel and a pleasure for the eyes.

[piapia · 9/10 · 15 March 1999]

Of all the versions of the Tolstoy novel which I have seen (two with Greta Garbo, the deplorable one with Vivien Leigh, another with Jacqueline Bisset), this is the one that really reflects the scope and social observation of the book. The careful direction and art direction, the St.Petersburg backgrounds, as well as the exquisite cinematography, make this movie a real feast for the eyes, with magnificent plastic compositions and lighting in every shot. The abused Tchaikovsky music was used discreetly. Sophie Marceau plays a very young Anna, and makes her credible all the time. Sean Bean and James Fox, as Vronsky and Karenin, are admirable. And even if the screen play by director Bernard Rose is a little too literary, the complete story was told, and the result was the best Anna Karenina the screen has offered.

Nice time killer

[Merely · 6/10 · 17 April 2001]

Watched this because I had never read the book nor seen any theatrical version. Was basically to familiarize myself with the story (Even though I knew the ending from watching "Micki and Maude") The story was a great one, but this film was nothing to write home about. The acting was so-so and I really felt nothing for the characters due to this. I'm not sorry I watched it though. Is a nice little time waster....if you have the time....and don't want to read a Tolstoy novel...I hear they are long.

Somewhere inside this lukewarm movie, there's a very good movie struggling to get out.

[bijin_chick · 4/10 · 7 March 2005]

"Anna Karenina" isn't quite a terrible movie. The scenery is pretty; the score, courtesy of Tchaikovsky, is great; and the attempt to balance the two types of relationships is a noble one. Unfortunately, "Anna Karenina" is a severely hobbled movie.

The biggest problem, it pains me to say, is the miscasting of Sophie Marceau in the central role. She is never passionate enough to make us understand why she gives up everything for Vronsky (Sean Bean). Even during some of the more passionate scenes, she is still too composed and collected (Bean suffers from a similar problem, although not as severely as Marceau). Moreover, her French accent is seriously distracting. I admire anybody who can speak multiple languages, but it's all wrong for this movie. The wildly different accents destroy the rhythm of Anna and Vronksy's conversations, and it sometimes feels as though they're not even in the same scene. This, in turn, disastrously torpedoes their chemistry -- a fatal flaw when your entire movie is based on a hot, illicit love affair.

Ironically, both Bean and Marceau have their best moments after the affair goes sour. Vronsky's impatience is the first time we see true sparks from the character; Anna's hallucinations, and the separation from her living son, are genuinely disturbing.

The filmmakers try to juxtapose Anna and Vronsky's whirlwind affair with the slow-but-steady love that develops between rich Levin (Alfred Molina) and Princess Kitty (Mia Kirshner). Although the effort is noble, it has the same effect as the smorgasbord of accents, that of entirely destroying the movie's pace. It feels rushed and superficial in some places, but ploddingly slow in others.

Taken on its own, however, Levin's story is far more compelling than the main plot's lukewarm attempts at passion. Wringing every last drop of psychological depth out of the script, Molina gives a wonderful glimpse into the character's loneliness, melancholy, and eventual peace -- you almost found yourself wishing the movie were just about this guy. As his love interest, Mia Kirschner is a total lightweight and her Canadian accent is as jarring as Marceau's French one; fortunately, Molina has enough gravitas for both of them. If the script had been better, he would have brought the entire movie into warm focus.

As it is, the movie feels disjointed and rambling. Had it been better organized -- and perhaps differently cast -- we might have seen an interesting meditation on the various kinds of love. As it is, we see only a few bright spots amid a sea of disappointment.

Terrific, just plain terrific

[RJBENNETT · 10/10 · 20 February 2005]

According to an earlier review, this movie is supposed to be "just plan awful." The writer probably meant "plain" instead of "plan," and that misspelling may be an indication of the quality of the review.

There is much to be said for the viewpoint that this film version of Tolstoy's novel, starring Sophie Marceau, must certainly be one of the greatest versions ever produced.

Tolstoy himself lived to see just the beginning of the era of the motion picture and was said to have been fascinated by the possibilities the new medium presented. If so, he would no doubt have been quite astonished at the beauty and the extraordinary quality of this rendition of his story about Anna Karenina. The production values are among the highest there could possibly be. The costumes, the cinematography, and the sets – unlike earlier versions, the film was shot on location in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in Russia – are at such a remarkable level that the action almost does appear to be really taking place in the Czarist period at the end of the nineteenth century.

As for Sophie Marceau's mild French accent – which the above-mentioned reviewer found so irritating – it is quite likely that many upper-classes Russians of the period actually did speak with a French accent. It was not Russian but French that was the dominant language among the Russian nobility and aristocracy of the time – for some, French was in fact their native language, since many of them never learned to speak Russian at all, except perhaps a few words and phrases they could use to communicate with the servants.

What is perhaps most remarkable of all in this film is the utterly believable way that the behavior of the of characters is presented. Their motives are suggested with great subtlety, not in the somewhat simplistic tones of the (nevertheless still magnificent) MGM version of the film that starred Greta Garbo seventy years ago. Anna's husband is not a monster, for example, in this new version, but a rather pathetic, right-wing government bureaucrat with obsessively strict moral values. Moreover, the portrayal of Anna's behavior throughout the film, and especially in the final scenes, is a masterpiece of sympathetic psychological insight and understanding.

This film is a – for the time being, anyway – neglected classic.

Cliffs Notes were never better

[grimace-7 · 7/10 · 10 August 2001]

I watched this movie after having just read the novel again, because I was told that it was "very faithful." After seeing it, I have to agree that it was very faithful to the original novel, even if certain parts were breezed over or even eliminated in the movie version. I was especially happy to see Levin, who I consider to be the character with the most complexity (perhaps because, as the film points out - and perhaps a little too heavy-handedly - he was based on Tolstoy himself,) to be the narrator. But I found the treatment of Levin in particular to be completely breezed over. Little more than a footnote in this production, Levin's book - which was one of the strongest forces behind the creation of "Anna Karenina" - was eliminated. But overall, this is possibly the most visually stunning movie I've seen in some time. Having watched "Eyes Wide Shut" just the day before I drew amazing parallels in the cinematography. Make no mistake about it, this is a great movie for anyone seeking an introduction to Russian literature.

Disappointing "Cliffs Notes" version of novel

[SKG-2 · 5/10 · 15 February 1999]

Bernard Rose showed with IMMORTAL BELOVED that he's a good director, but this and CANDYMAN show he's flawed at writing. This is deservedly known as one of the great novels of our time, but you wouldn't know it from this movie. Admittedly, it looks breathtaking, and the performers all look their parts quite well. The main problems are when the actors speak, and the way Rose makes this a "Cliffs Notes" version of the novel. We only hit the high spots, and there's no emotional connection to the story at all, plus we miss the humanity of Tolstoy's view towards his characters.

Sophie Marceau may be good in French films, but I wasn't impressed with her in BRAVEHEART, and I'm not impressed with her here; her reading of Anna is too shallow. Sean Bean, for some reason, plays Vronsky like he was playing 006 in GOLDENEYE, and while Mia Kirschner (an excellent actress), as Kitty, tries, she's too modern. James Fox is Karenin, and this is a role he's done so many times he can do it in his sleep, which he does. Alfred Molina is another actor I'm not a big fan of, but as Levin, he gives the only believable performance.

Why did it not win anything?

[hernan_amado · 6 December 2001]

When I saw this movie I thought it won many awards, but when I found out that it didn't. I was thoroughly disappointed. How come it didn't? It has amazing cinematography, costumes, performances, etc. I do not understand why it was quite under-rated. It should have won at least an award for best costume design. Sophie Marceau was stunning, She was plausible as Anna Karenina, she really did her best as a woman who gave up everything to be with her frustrated love Vronsky (Sean Bean). Sean Bean envelops himself into the role very well. The costumes were flashy as well as the scenery. It was wonderful since I could really see all seasons in Russia like spring, Fall, Summer, especially winter. It was amazing to see the credible snow and cold wind. It really deserved some awards, but anyway What can I do? The best part of this movie was its tragic ending as Anna Karenina commits suicide by falling onto the train tracks. It certainly made me think. It's worth watching. Don't miss it. 8/10

Audacity

[nemo_cinema · 3/10 · 18 November 2005]

It's time directors should refrain from distorting the language of literature (not just some best selling silly fiction). With expensive sets, historic backdrop, all kinds of grandeur and glamorous actresses they simply forget what the main story is all about. And things go absolutely disastrous when do the same kind of treatment to Tolstoy (one of the greatest authors the world of literature has ever seen).

This is absolute audacity. Anna Karenina is not just a story of a naive infidel wife. And when there is an attempt to fit in just a few snapshots within those few hours all you get is a bogus piece of movie like this. It's meaningless to talk about how the movie did not match up to the novel. Watching this movie is just another (silly) experience of costumes and glamorous sets; like watching a fashion show and nothing else.

This is one of my favorites

[dixxiedarlin911 · 9/10 · 12 August 2005]

I disagree that this was terrible. I am a big time historical movie and costume buff, so I watch everything I can get my hands on and there is hardly a period drama I have not seen. I have also read the book. While the story line of the movie doesn't necessarily follow the novel, I am still sucked into it every time I see it. I found their chemistry wonderful, the costumes lovely and very period accurate, the music and cinematography fabulous. I have seen it over a dozen times (bought the DVD) and STILL never get bored. Sophia Marceau was a perfect choice in my opinion. She is classically beautiful, and the right combination of all the elements that made her character.....chaste wife turned star crossed lover, strong, confidant woman melted to vulnerable young girl. I adored Sean Bean also. I found him totally believable, and I fail to understand how anyone even remotely interested in period dramas could fail to appreciate this film.

The usual story but with a vaginal hemorrhage bonus!

[benoit-3 · 2/10 · 30 May 2008]

To think this story has been filmed probably most often of all the Russian novels and that all the preceding versions managed to preserve their dignity while never quite getting to the point of the original novel... And then, this little bit of fluff had to come along. I caught this on Canadian Bravo tonight and what a disappointment. It strictly adheres to the European school of literary-adaptations-as-a-series-of-medical-emergencies-and-body fluids-melodrama. Sophie Marceau is no Greta Garbo or Russian grande bourgeoise, Lord knows. But would it be too much to ask for her to keep her facial features from contorting into a very anachronistic crack addict's at the slightest hint of "drama"? And the scene of her violent vaginal hemorrhage is definitely not in the novel but must have seemed de rigueur for the producers' sensibilities: childbirth was such an ordeal in those barbaric times, don't you know - we just had to show it... The music is by Tchaikowsky, Sean Bean is the sexiest man alive even when forced to wear clothes, the sets and costumes are by God, but the script is strictly Extreme Harlequin. As my late mother wisely used to say about most modern pap of this type: "Ils font exprès pour nous écoeurer!"

Oh yes!

[Blitzie · 10/10 · 2 February 1999]

I have to say, I was dragged to see this one by my girlfriend and to say I was sceptical about it's likely entertainment value would be a considerable understatement. Unfortunately for my pride, this film completely blew me away.

I won't dwell on the story, as it is apparently very well known (except to heathens such as myself), but I do know that it did capute love and denial and sadness in a way I've never seen before.

The cinematography is also fantastic. Watch out especially for the dancing scenes in the ballroom and the horse racing.

If all period costume movies were like this, then I'd abandon Sci-Fi altogether!

Nice backdrop, shame about the acting

[andrew-chapman0 · 1/10 · 19 August 2009]

The BBC made a serial of this in the 70's and despite the lack of funding that went into that series, they pulled it off rather well. So finally about the iron curtain had been taken down, the filmmakers could use the best scenery Russia had to offer including the Romanov palace. And you would have thought Sean Bean in a 'Sharpe' style uniform would have made it a certain winner. Afraid not. This is a story of passion and romance and forbidden love, one where you feel for the characters, get entwined with them and almost beg them to stop whilst wishing they could get away with there illicit affair. This 1997 version, I felt no connection to the characters and couldn't really care less about the 2 dimensional performance. If I had bothered to watch it to the end, instead of hanging on the edge of the seat to stop Anna from jumping on the rail tracks, I probably would have volunteers to give her a push. A wonderful Russian tragic love story, though the only tragedy here being this lot bothered to make it.

Visually stunning, but truncated...

[mirky · 21 October 2003]

Which is entirely to be expected with a novel the size and complexity, I'm told, of Leo Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina", which I have not read.

I will blushingly admit that I first viewed this film mostly because of Sean Bean's presence. I found him a superb actor in the Lord of the Rings, and hoped to find more in his other works.

Truthfully, his portrayal of Vronsky feels somewhat light in this film; I attribute this to three factors: the severe compression of the novel (as happens with all film adaptations), the actual nature of the character itself, and the slightly boring task of playing mostly passion. Unlike other viewers, I found it very difficult to sympathize with Vronsky, and his repentance hollow. My heart melted somewhat, though, during his flashback to Karenina's corpse at the railway, and his brimming eyes as the train pulled away. Redeemed slightly at the very last moment.

Sophie Marceau is stunning as Anna Karenina; I found her enchanting from the start. Marceau plays the title lady with dignity, elegance, and grace; in her more intimate and emotional moments, she portrays Karenina's motherly and passionate sides with skill.

The inevitable flaws of adaptation show through in this film; there are numerous location changes, and multiple "quick" passages of time. Every event feels strung together by a thread, which they likely are, chosen for their narrative value. Yet it doesn't work, as the overall result lacks a palatable sense of cohesion. The love story of Karenina and Vronsky feels chopped and rushed, as does the tale of Levin and his Kitty -- which is too bad, since they are both the anchor narratives. The contrast of the two, however, plays well, and reminds me of the romances in Michael Ondaatje's "English Patient" (I'm well aware Tolstory precedes Ondaatje).

The greatest features of "Anna Karenina" lie in the atmosphere. Despite the out-of-place original accents of the actors, Russian is spoken skilfully, and the chosen music is beautiful and appropriately evocative of an older, grander time. and the lovely landscapes of Russia play a beautiful role in the background. The costumes and sets are breathtaking; the highlight is surely the ballroom scene, when all are attired for an evening "out" and Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake Waltz is playing.

While an excellent effort, "Anna Karenina" eventually feels like what it is: a cinematic adaptation of a novel.

I'd give it a 8 out of 10.

I have never seen a more unsettling death scene

[conchie · 1/10 · 20 January 2006]

I saw this movie probably nine years ago, and although I have read the book, the scene of her death- and showing her body, the blackened lips, open, that horrible expression on her face... it killed the entire story for me. It overshadowed the characters, the love, the passion, the obsession, everything.

Although the acting, music, cinematography, set design, the costumes-- everything was quite close the ambiance I felt in the novel, that last scene just put an enormous cloud. I firmly believe that our modern-day obsession with the gruesome took over the director and screenwriter and they turned a classic tragedy into roadkill.

It is an unfortunate use of classic literature, contemporary fine actors and modern mediocrity.

In regards to Anna Karenina

[nikolaikim · 10/10 · 30 March 2000]

The novel Anna Karenina by the genius Leo Tolstoy's a superlative example of what makes literature so wondrous. The movie for the most accurately gauges the majesty of his novel. Overall the movie's a fantastic adaptation with Sean Bean whose performance's always excellent. Sophie Marceau looked beautiful and played the role of Anna superbly. Some scenes were omitted or altered but overall, a fantastic book to movie adaptation.

unwatchable

[pilot1009 · 3/10 · 31 May 2022]

Unless you read the book this is totally unwatchable, no idea who was who and frankly I didn't care after 25 minutes. Only for those who really like Tolstoy and Russian period stuff. At the moment I'm not too keen on Russsians.

a beautiful moving masterpiece

[katryona37 · 10/10 · 4 November 2000]

I first saw anna towards the end when i was home from school sick. I could not take my eyes off the television and was spellbound. i did not even know what the movie was called and I caught only the last half hour but I went out the next day and rented it and ended up with a 7 day late charge. It was so deeply moving and beautiful. I was mesmerized. The only flaw in this film was the weak link named mia kirschner, but it can be forgiven because marceau and beans performances were absolutely stunning. I have cried my heart dry watching this film every time and i watch it once a week at least. Bean is brilliant throughout but he is incredible at the end talking to tolstoy in the train about going off to die. he is so restrained and holding pain within and trying to hold up some sort of front that is strong and it is made so clear to the audience exactly what he is going through. both actors go through great transformations from beginning to end. the dazzling socialite and the handsome virile soldier who become shells of those former selves drowning into madness and grief. Perhaps the two most poignant parts for me are the scene of anna playing with the doll and the smile on her face just as she falls onto the train tracks. Sorrowfully beautiful,utterly romantic, and tragic. One of my all time favorite movies.