Anna Karenina [Blu-ray]

I have not (yet) read Tolstoy's novel and maybe that is why I could love this movie so much compared to so many who simply hated it. I *never* purchase movies but purchased this one from Amazon. I've now watched the film 3 times and am on the 4th as I write. Each successive time I catch new bits of mastery and genius by director Joe Wright and screenwriter Tom Stoppard. The movie has so many layers it is hard to adequately describe. I can only say watch, and watch again. After the third or fourth time you will start to see how the pieces of this movie fit together like the pieces of any exceptional puzzle -- the blend of flavors by a great chef, the interplay of notes and themes of a great composition, the design of a beautiful garden. What is it that grabs you and just doesn't let go?: *DANCE & CHOREOGRAPHY are THE star of this show. You don't quite know if this is realism, camp, vogue, ballet, broadway, or what. For me it worked beautifully and I typically don't like musicals. There is no singing, but the combination of realistic dialog and story with the fantastical dance and choreographed movement of the actors worked stunningly. My favorite scene of the movie -- the waltz scene -- is just mesmerizing...all of the dancers became frozen in time until Anna and Vronsky waltz past and pull them whirling into their vortex. In particular Aaron Taylor-Johnson's dancing left me slackjawed. All I can say is watch for yourself and see if you've ever seen a man dance like that. *SCREENPLAY. Brilliant. Each time I watch I see how the screenplay brings certainly not all of Tolstoy's plot, but surely a great deal of the meaning and larger themes he brought to the novel (I've since read several novel summaries). The screenplay is layered -- each time you watch again you see and understand more. These little bits step out front when you have watched several times and are no longer so distracted by the gorgeous and fantastical spectacle that is going on. *SETTING. As others have noted; all the world's a stage in this movie. For the first 10 minutes you don't know if you are watching the characters watch a play, but then you realize they *are* the play. I remember feeling very off guard my first time watching...is Stiva going to be murdered by the barber? Is the giant pear a bomb? Why is the barber like a toreador? Why is a couple dancing on the theater floor and another woman wandering playing a concertina? What the HECK is going on??? After about 5 or 10 minutes you get it, settle in and it no longer seems strange... you truly feel that life *IS* art. You never stop marveling at the beauty and ingenuity of it this bold directorial choice. The juxtaposition of reality and theater setting, the model trains segueing to real trains and back -- these things seem like they could not possibly work in theory. But they work. The choreography and dialogue of the actors at cousin Betsy's society party and her firework surprise were visually stunning and just magical. * COSTUMES. Lavish, gorgeous, over the top. Wright uses color like no other. Vronsky is all blond youthful curls, bright blue-eyed, and wore white and light blue, while Anna has deep dark burden of an older woman who has never loved -- she is dark haired, eyed and skinned, and wears only black or dark colors. Wright made the unusual choice of using a lot of redhead and very fair-skinned men throughout and film, which was quite beautiful with the film's coloring, and yet cast olive skinned women as their love interests. Very rich, visually interesting film. * ACTING: Jude Law as Karenin, Matthew McFayden as Anna's brother Stiva, Domnhall Gleeson as country landowner Levin all had scene-stealing performances. Olivia Williams shined as Vronsky's mother. Ruth Wilson's delightful turn as Vronsky's bad-tinkerbell cousin Princess Betsy made a new fan of me. Keira Knightly -- I'd give a maybe little pat on the back but nothing special. She looked exquisite and handled her part quite well and maybe that was enough. While everyone says Aaron Taylor-Johnson was miscast as Vronsky, I suppose that is only if you expect the character to be true to the novel. I thought Aaron brought a rakish vulnerability to the character that I've never quite seen on screen -- now that I think of it perhaps only Richard Gere in his youth -- rather like a desperate child on the one hand; on the other an arrogant cad, stopping at nothing to embroil a married woman in his torrid lust (or is it love?) affair. I think he will turn out to be one of this generations most gifted actors. You know the saying "so handsome it hurts". Well he's that too. Just as exquisite as Keira...so in that sense they are well matched, though I thought his depth as an actor was far greater. Their almost impossible beauty adds to the pain of the relationship. Any more and this review would be too long. See it for yourself, stick it out, and if nothing else, see something like you've never seen before.

Good movie even today.

There have been many adaptations of Anna Karenina and I am sure this not the last time we will see Leo Tolstoy's novel be adapted for television or the cinema. Joe Wright's film in my opinion is the most interesting adaptation of the novel and also one of the best in my opinion. Set in a theater this adaptation reminded me of Moulin Rouge. The film is visually interesting. The sets are beautiful and the costumes are lovely. Keira Knightley is not exactly as Tolstoy described her but she is none the less very good. Knightley is one of my favorite actresses working today and as Anna she is heart breaking and she luminous. She is not a afraid to make Anna a flawed woman, which she is very much so. Anna can be very unlikeable she is not a saint and we sometimes don't take her side but I think Keira realized that Anna was a complex character she is not a hero but not a villain. Jude law as Anna's Husband is great. His character is not a monster at all. He is a man who is very moral and fights for what he thinks is morally correct. He loves Anna and it's obvious he values his role as a husband and father. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is not as bad as many people say as he is in his role. He is not great but he is not so bad. The supporting cast is wonderful especially Kelly Macdonald as Anna's sister in law. Anna Karenina is not your standard costume drama. It is bold and unconventional and at times over the top and very theatrical. This is not your standard adaptation of a classic novel it is bold and fresh.

I haven't read Anna Karenina, though I plan to. I cannot say how accurately this film depicts the novel because of this. What I do know is that the director wanted to do something different, and therefore it is possible that he put a different spin on things than what the original author had intended. For this reason, I don't think literary purists will like this movie...but then, literary purists probably prefer books anyway. The whole movie is set on a stage, which is interesting. I think it helps take the "edge" off the movie. Russian literature can be very heavy and depressing, and this format lightens the mood and makes it less painful. However, because it is done on a stage, it also has the characteristics of a play that may cause some objections. One thing I find about plays is that they tend to simplify things. There are not deep conflicts about the characters that are delved into. A person is cast as either a hero(ine), extra, or villain. You are supposed to root for the good guys and hiss at the bad ones. I definitely got the feeling that either the screenwriter or the director probably had some experience with a cheating lover. I feel that this movie is very unsympathetic to Anna. For this reason, though, it is probably a great movie to watch if you get dumped. I can picture sitting on the couch, eating ice cream, crying, and cheering when that selfish broad gets hit by a train...picturing whoever has hurt you being in her place. I don't know about you guys, but I regretted Vronsky didn't also get it. Kiera Knightley played this well, though she didn't really make Anna sympathetic. Knightley has a certain crudity that makes her wonderful as the girlfriend of a pirate, but not as acceptable as the wife of a respected Russian minister. However, the age difference between Anna and her husband is more definite in this movie compared to some of the others. Anna seems very young and rather immature, and though she is not sympathetic exactly, the audience may understand her motivations better. I got this movie mainly because of Jude Law. I'm not usually a big fan of his, and I'm not a big fan of Anna Karenina...but I really liked him in this film. I don't know if his part isn't larger compared to some of the other movies. The director did seem to want to focus more on Alexei Karenin--and how his emotional turmoil makes him unfold as the story goes on. Though Karenin is generally a character you feel sorry for, there are some things about him that makes you understand why his wife may cheat on him. The age difference, the fact that he seems too busy for his family, his general uptightness, and his sometimes rather creepy stalking behavior...yes, you can perhaps understand. [SPOILER COMING UP HERE: And if you are wondering, yes, that is a condom in that little glass case. I watched the movie two times trying to figure that out. I thought it was an eyeglass holder, but it looked rather strange. I finally had to google it. I didn't even know they had condoms then. Then I got a little grossed out.] Vronsky creeped me out. I didn't really like the actor that played him. The only problem is, I don't know what Vronsky is supposed to be. The character struck me as being rather predatory, an untalented man who always wants what he can't have...particularly if it belongs to a man more successful than himself. He also struck me as someone who has mommy issues and inwardly hates women, and he takes pleasure in humiliating and destroying women because of it. The characters you will root for without any problem are Konstantin and Kitty--the two truly pure people. My favorite scene is where they use a block game to discuss their feelings for each other. Though the film summarizes everything, I think it does essentially highlight what seems to be Tolstoy's point--the many faces of love. There is the dutiful love represented by Karenin, who is interested not exactly in passion but what endures...what you build a family on. There is the worshiping love of Countess Lydia that seems slightly mixed with religious feelings. There is the obsessive love of Count Vronsky and Anna, which leads to at least her self-destruction. There is the devotion of a broken creature like the one that cares for Konstantin's brother. There are many examples.

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

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.