Anna Karenina

My review: When I entered the movie theatre, I knew a lot about Tolstoy's book, but nothing about this specific movie release. I knew who were starring the movie and that was it. Usually, when going to see movies, I always check out trailers and features and interviews before actually seeing them on the big screen, but this time the title of the movie was plainly enough. I have been a big fan of classical Russian literature from very young age, so I thought I knew what to expect. I was wrong in many levels. When the opening scenes were over, I knew that this movie was very different from any other movie version of Anna Karenina. Well, it was different from any movie based on classical literary fiction! It was mesmerizing and I was hooked from the first minutes and I did not want to leave the dark room of the theatre even when the credentials were running and most of the people were leaving the room. I wanted to stay in the world that the movie makers had created! Screenplay: Let me start with saying, that screenwriter Tom Stoppard kept the story very close to its original and I was very happy about it! It seemed that there was a clear understanding between the late Lev Tolstoy and the screenwriter Tom Stoppard. There were only very few places in the story when I realized, that it is slightly different from the original and even that was falling nicely to its place in the movie. The story was dramatic, heart-wrenching and beautifully executed! It's an epic forbidden love story which takes place in the Russian aristocracy. Anna Karenina is unhappily married, but she has no greater expectations to love, at least until she meets Count Vronsky. The moment they meet, there is attraction and as much as they try to deny it, it is inevitable. It's forbidden love in the society, because Anna decides to leave her husband and asks for divorce. As the isolation from friends, family and everybody else for Anna grows, the more consumed she is by darkness. Karenin does not give her divorce and it does not matter how big the love is between Vronsky and Anna, it gets dramatic consequences. Directing, sets, visuals, choreography, design and music: What made this movie exceptionally unique was the fact, that director Joe Wright staged it on a theatre. Watching the movie was like watching a theatre stage where the scenes were elegantly changed as the story folded out in front of the audience. Scene after scene the settings were changed even though the room was the same. It was original and I loved it. I also realized the the only sets which were used outside of theatre were about Levin and his life on the countryside. This change was nicely balanced where you had the hectic life of Sct. Petersburg and Moscow in one side and the picturesque and slow scenes from Russian nature. There was a lot of attention on choreography and physical contact in Anna Karenina. It was a movie where choreography was a main storyteller. It was often where choreography was substituting words and you can say that in Anna Karenina a picture told more than 1000 words. The ballroom dancing and even a simple touch was sometimes telling more than words. It was tense and filled with passion. Another thing which was special in Anna Karenina, were the close-ups. The facial impressions were as important as the huge scenes with many people. One of the interesting visuals were the usage of lightning and colors. For example there was a clear contrasts when Anna was together with Vronsky compared to when she was with Karenin. The scenes where Anna and Vronsky spend time together are brighter and softer, and the scenes at home with Karenin, the lightning is murkier and darker. It gave some nice effects to the plot and to the mood. I would also like to mention the design of the costumes and the music in the movie. The costumes were breathtakingly beautiful, especially the ones designed for Anna and Kitty and the music was coherent with the development of the story: the intensity of which grew in the rhythm with the drama surrounding it. Casting and ensemble: I liked the characters picked for the roles. Keira Knightly as Anna Karenina was a good choice. She was capable of mirroring Anna Karenina's essence showing both love, passion, courage, pain and last but not least jealousy. When Anna is consumed by isolation and jealousy and realization that the society will never forgive her, Keira Knightly gave her best to show these different reflections of woman in love and pain. I liked that a lot! Jude Law as Karenin was faceted. I liked that he did not show Karenin as a simple man. He loved Anna on his own way and I liked that Jude Law showed his soft side combined with the religious and hurtful side. I really enjoyed the way he played Karenin. I was surprised by Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Vronsky. I have seen him in Nowhere Boy and realized that fact actually after the movie. He has matured as actor and he as Vronsky was a very good choice. He showed passion, tenderness, love and passion of a man in love. Another surprise was Alicia Vikander as Kitty. This Swedish actress was perfect to the role. I was amazed by her grace when she played in A Royal Affair where I was stunned by her presence in acting. I loved her as Kitty, she had spark and sassyness and humbleness when she met Levin after denying him as a husband. I also enjoyed performances of Domhnall Gleeson as Levin and Matthew Macfadyen as Oblonski. Dislikes: The only minor thing that I was disturbed by and it was how the Russian names were pronounced. It sounded awkward to my ears, but this is probably because I grew up in the environment where Russian was used as a second language. I have the similar experiences with many other English spoken movies and I do understand that Russian words and names are difficult to pronounce, but in a classical drama based on Russian literature I think this could have been improved. Generally: I think Anna Karenina was brilliantly made bold version of Tolstoy's novel. I loved the experience and I know that I will watch it again! I highly recommend it!

Jude Law and Kiera Knightly give a very good performances and the costumes are great. Overall an enjoyable film but not the best production

This film seems to have divided opinion. But I agree with those who found it imaginative, moving and refreshing: a new take on period drama. I didn't have high hopes for it (although I usually love Stoppard, I find it hard to warm to Keira) but watched it once, became entranced, and then had to see it again. I have to admit I have not read the novel. A great deal is inevitably lost in reducing 800-odd pages to 2-hour's screentime. That said, I believe Joe Wright and Tom Stoppard have achieved something else with this film: a masterpiece in a new medium. I hope we shall see a greater appreciation of it over time. Other reviewers have said they found it odd that much of the action takes place in a theatre. To me that was successful, the stylised setting mirroring the artificiality of the world the characters inhabit. It reminded me more of a ballet than a play or a musical: the constant movement of characters around the stage / auditorium reflecting the inexorable motion of the story towards tragedy; the steam train indeed. I came away with sympathy for every one of the main characters. Even Vronsky. And I am now determined to read the book. For a film, that's quite an achievement.

I understand that many people enjoyed this film but I found the production very irritating and almost unwatchable - a matter of taste I guess.

Yes, I have read the book and I did enjoy it. There is a lot to take in and understand but it is well worth persevering. This film is equally enjoyable. I go to the cinema to be entertained and not to sit there, notebook in hand, pulling apart someone else's interpretation of a novel and characters, however much of a classic it may be. I fully intend to order the DVD so that I can appreciate it all over again. It's a lovely film, thoroughly watchable and, yes, entertaining. If I want 100% accuracy at the cinema (which I don't), I'll be waiting for ever. There will, no doubt, be another another version of Anna Karenina in the years to come, so we'll see what that brings. Finally, if this film encourages just a few people to take the plunge and read the book, then possibly move on to read other classics they may not have considered, that can't be a bad thing, can it?

I have seen many performances of "Anna Karenina" on the stage and movies; this film is the best. It has everything that should be in the movie: fantasy, entertainment, teaching, and of course the classic love story. For me, personally, it is not always important "WHAT ABOUT" , it is also important to me "HOW IT'S DONE." From my point of view, movie is entertainment. Of course those critics who find fault with hairstyles or jewelry, they know better what they want from the movies. They always want to hear a Russian accent and see plausible buttons on the dress. But this is not a police report, this is feature film, it is entertainment not a reality show (which really isn't always real or true either) Visual aspects are amazingly talented. Acting work- to the point of perfection. First time in my life I saw real Karenin, not half-dead old man, but a loving decent husband. Keira Knightley is impeccable as Anna. Сrowd scenes are tasteful. Music is touching and talented. Tolstoy's novel is very hard to adapt for a screen; its even difficult to read and the director was able to convey the main message in this beautiful and romantic movie. I agree with Berthold Brecht who said: "When you entertain -teach, and when you teach- entertain"." There is no doubt that this film is not for everyone, and those who like "Scream 2" or " Spiderman", they do not have to watch this movie. All critical reviews are long and tedious, but the film is short, with exciting feelings and has a good taste. There is only one measure of art: talented or not talented. The rest is a matter of taste. But there is no accounting for tastes.This film is talented in every way.

C'est quand même incroyable d'être happée non par l'histoire - de vous à moi je déteste le roman Anna Karénine! - mais pas la façon dont elle est filmée! Joe Wright est virtuose, en emboitant des plans qui s'ouvrent sur d'autres plans, et ce, dans tous les sens, mais sans confusion, sans débordement; tout commence au théâtre - un vieux théâtre délabré - a chaque fois qu'il est question de la vie des Karénine et de la société qu'ils côtoeint, on est au théâtre mais dès que la " vraie" vie loin des commérages citadins commence, l'espace s'ouvre sur la campagne, la nature, la forêt... c'est une idée absolument superbe; comme ce dernier plan où l'on voit Karénine et les deux enfants d'Anna jouer dans un grand pré vert, loin de ce qui a causé la mort de leur mère. Ce parti pris du théâtre dans le théâtre peut agacer, déplaire, lasser, mais c'est précisément ce qui m'a fasciné à un point tel que j'ai regardé le blu-ray, de très belle qualité- trois soirs de suite; les acteurs sont parfaits et ne sombrent pas dans caricature; Jude Law incarne un mari poignant, et Keira Kngihtley parvient à nous émouvoir lorsque ses obsessions commencent à lui faire perdre la tête. Les couleurs ont une chaleur qui contredit le côté " glacé" des décors ou des costumes. On est vraiment comme au théâtre baroque, avec une machinerie qui ne cache pas l'envers du décors, car c'est précisément le sujet du film : comment une femme chute parce que la société à les yeux sur chacun et décide de qui doit tomber. Un film que chaque relecture approfondit et qui entre tout droit dans le coeur pour ne plus le quitter.

Questo film l'ho visto per la prima volta su Amazon Video. Mi ha colpito subito lo stile "teatrale" con cui è stata raccontata la storia. E' chiaro che a qualche purista che ha letto prima il libro questa scelta del regista possa non piacere. Invece io credo che sia una scelta perfetta per condensare le 800 pagine circa del libro in un film che dura poco più di due ore. Attenzione: possibili spoiler Così facendo, infatti, il regista ha potuto creare una densità di significato (tramite rappresentazioni simboliche degli spazi e degli ambienti) che altrimenti avrebbero a mio avviso reso impossibile la trasposizione del libro in film. Ovviamente adesso mi leggerò il libro, appena posso, per fare un vero confronto tra le due versioni dell'opera, ma la ritmicità e la velocità del film hanno reso moderna e attuale una storia d'altri tempi, anche se credo che le opere di Tolstoj (che sto appena cominciando a conoscere) possano avere un valore universale atemporale come i grandi classici dell'antichità. In particolare nel film ho notato come a volte gli spostamenti nello spazio di certi personaggi (ad esempio Konstantin quando viene inizialmente rifiutato da Kitty e torna in campagna) vengano condensati in pochi secondi secondo quello che per me è un colpo di genio. Immagino infatti che nel libro (verificherò, per ora si tratta infatti solamente di una mia supposizione) la descrizione di questi fatti e dello stato d''animo del personaggio richiedano pagine e pagine di scrittura (lui che viene rifiutato, vaga per la città contemplando la morte, e infine decide di tornare alla vita semplice di campagna) mentre nel film tutto questo viene condensato in pochi secondi (non li ho contati ma saranno una ventina o una trentina al massimo, credo). Inoltre il regista Joe Wright ha una formazione di tipo teatrale (basta guardare la sua biografia per capirlo) quindi trovo perfettamente normale che abbia creato questa sua personale versione del romanzo di Tolstoj. E' per l'appunto come avviene per le grandi opere del passato (intendo antica Grecia) o per le tragedie o commedie di Shakespeare: nonostante siano passati secoli o millenni vengono ancora riproposte in forma cinematografica o a teatro, e ovviamente, ogni volta, il regista (che sia di cinema o di teatro) ne fornisce una propria versione, anche perché attenersi pedissequamente all'originale o alle prime versioni dell'opera ogni volta che questa viene riproposta e reinterpretata renderebbe la cosa abbastanza inutile no? Dopodiché, concludendo, dico che queste sono le mie personali impressioni e non pretendo di essere un critico cinematografico o letterario. Dico solo che a me il film è piaciuto molto e mi ha incuriosito spingendomi ad approfondire le conoscenza dell'opera e della cultura russa in generale. Ho deciso infatti che leggerò sia Anna Karenina che Guerra e Pace e probabilmente comincerò anche a studiare il russo. Se questo, immagino, poteva essere uno degli obiettivi del regista nel portare in scena una propria versione, chiaramente moderna, del romanzo di Tolstoj beh, che dire: obiettivo centrato. Per quanto riguarda la spedizione e le caratteristiche fisiche del DVD nulla da dire. Tempi ok e dvd consegnato integro nella propria custodia di plastica.

Pelicula con una puesta en escena super original y visualmente muy Espectacular, una maravilla de pelicula

Très beau à regarder avec une originalité de mélange entre scènes théâtrales et prises de vues panoramiques classiques. Il est tout de même préférable de connaître le roman auparavant; car si le roman s’étale sur 2 volumes il est compréhensible que le film ne peut pas tout représenter.