Anna Karenina (1997)

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

You won't be disappointed!

I wanted to but couldn't!

Brilliant and touching

The story itself is fairly good, but I just don't understand that so- called 'actors' are incapable of doing accents. This is supposed to be about Russia, not England. The English accents make this absolutely comical and lowers the standard of the production. Sometimes you wonder how they got their acting jobs in the first place if they are incapable....of acting. And acting includes doing accents. I think it also reflects the level of acting coming out from England when they only seem capable of doing English accents. Was the whole world English at one time? I couldn't bare to finish watching this film and had to leave it about a third of the way into it, mostly due to the accents.I kept thinking it was set in England. Best going for the book.

I would love to say that I liked this movie but unfortunately, I cannot. I have not read the novel and it was only after a class discussion on the film that I understood what was happening. After the discussion, it became clear how the film illustrates the central themes of Anna Karennina, particularly the changing role of women in society as well as an analysis of family and relationships. The double standards between men and women are clearly shown in the film, most evidently with Anna and her brother, who experience totally different circumstances as a result of almost identical behavior involving adultery and the pursuit of divorce. Anna is relegated to a life of shame in which she cannot leave the house, let alone care for her son, while her brother and Vronsky are still respected in society and able to do what they please. In fact, Vronsky's involvement in the affair works to his advantage if he chose to leave Anna, though she is completely dependent on him.Furthermore, the juxtaposition of Anna's story and that of Levin serves to emphasize Tolstoy's deconstruction of family life and relationships. It is clear that their stories are polar opposites at all times. While Levin was alone and unhappy in the beginning, Anna was just beginning her passionate affair with Vronsky. In the end, Levin has a son with a loving wife while Anna loses her child, her husband, and eventually her life.Another critical aspect of the story that can be seen in the movie is the modernization of Russia and whether Russia would embrace or reject it. There are multiple demonstrations of modernization in the film, including the important role of trains in the storyline. This is also clear in the scene where Levin and his peasants work the land using traditional tools instead of more advanced plowing technology that was available at the time. Levin's appreciation of the traditional method and how peacefully they completed the task could show the rejection of modernization in that moment.Levin's character in general is a representation of Tolstoy himself, as demonstrated at the end when he signed the letter as Tolstoy. It was interesting how the film took it one step further by having Levin sign his name as such. Apparently Tolstoy also preferred the countryside and was close to his peasants. The representation of Tolstoy within Levin is also made abundantly clear in the two scenes where Levin attempts to identifies and attempts to answer philosophical questions. These include the accursed questions that were an integral part of Tolstoy's philosophy.Overall, the story and characters as envisioned by Tolstoy are great, but this film adaption did not do a good job of communicating the above ideas. The film itself provides no context or explanation for the plot or characters, and does a terrible job in portraying the characters in a way where one can empathize with and understand them. This is definitely a film that requires prior knowledge of the story and characters to be appreciated.

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

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 :-)