Anna Karenina (2000)

Memorable, crazy movie

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Ranking this 2000 mini-series against the other Anna Karenina adaptations, it's somewhere in the middle, with the 1977 mini-series being the best version, with the 1967, 1935 and 1948 films also being better, and the 2012 film being the weakest and the 1997 and 1985 adaptations also being ranked lower.At just four hours, for such a mammoth and richly detailed story and with the many complex characters, this mini-series did feel too short, a minimum of six hours up to ten would have been more ideal. Adaptation-wise, it was a little better than expected considering the length, because the characters, central plot lines and all the important details and scenes are all here, but as a result of the too short length pacing feels rushed, one doesn't feel as immersed in the atmosphere or Russian history and society as they would like and characterisation is not quite as rich. There are instances where the camera work does get a bit irritating, being more showing-offy instead of being more intimate, and the chemistry between Anna and Vronsky sometimes could have been stronger and more developed, a few of the later scenes are a little cold and the earlier infatuation scenes a little hastily written.However, most of the photography is very nicely done, being beautiful and atmospheric, while the period detail is sumptuously evoked with breath taking scenery and handsome costuming. The mini-series is hauntingly and sensitively scored, thoughtfully written with a good deal of Tolstoy's writing style coming through and classily directed. The story captures the tragic romance aspects with poignancy and the social drama with wit and tension, with a gloriously romantic ballroom sequence and a heart-wrenching suicide scene.The performances are uniformly good, though all the roles have been better performed in previous adaptations. Helen McCrory is a heartfelt Anna, her passionate later scenes played with sensitivity and great emotional intensity. Vronsky has been problematically cast in about half the adaptations, but Kevin McKidd's interpretation ranks among the better ones, ideally portraying the passionate stalker and sympathetic lover aspects of the role without ever being stiff or stereotypical. Karenin, like in the 1977 adaptation, is much closer to the conflicted character in the book than to the opposite that he has been portrayed in, this conflict of doing things that highlight more of his weaknesses than his strengths is portrayed magnificently by Stephen Dillane. Douglas Henshall is a sensitive and layered Levin, though his Glaswegian accent does distract, while Mark Strong and Paloma Baeza also fare very well.Overall, good if not great adaptation of a classic,that would have been better with a longer length primarily. 7/10 Bethany Cox

This was the first version of Anna Karenina that I saw and apart from the 'shaky camera' direction which seems to be in fashion these days it is a really good version.Kevin McKidd and Helen McCrory are excellent and give it their all in this tale of passion and love. It made me become a fan of both actors and seek out films with them in.All in all a good version, with the themes of the story, lust, love and passion coming through very strongly. I seem to remember this was shown in 3 or 4 parts over as many weeks and I could not wait to see the next part every week, a sign of good drama!Watch it and see if you agree.

I agree with the previous reviewer in finding that the main characters (Anna and her lover) though played by very good actors lacked both screen presence and chemistry. As a result the series seemed very tedious to watch and the love between them difficult to believe in - which in turn left me indifferent as to their predicament or its outcome. On the other hand, I found that the "Moscow set" stories and actors brought life to the series. In particular, Mark Strong (Oblonsky), Amanda Roots (Dolly), Paloma Baeza (Kitty) and Douglas Henshall (Levin) all gave lively performances. In the case of Henshall and Paloma Baeza the chemistry between the couple made the romance believable and moving. Henshall impersonated Levin's self-doubt and moral guilt particularly well. He made Kitty's delivery scene very memorable. His Scottish accent (which I normally like very much) seemed a bit distracting in this setting - especially in the scenes with his "brother". It reminded me of Billy Boyd in The Lord of the Rings!

This Masterpiece Theatre production gives life to Tolstoy vast and ambitious masterpiece. It's a formidable task considering that Tolstoy was often a deeply psychological writer and spent hours probing the souls of his characters. That being said, the cast in this adaptation do a marvelous job in conveying their character's profound and often misguided humanity.Tolstoy co-protagonists, Anna Karenina and Constantine Levin are both idealists searching for love and meaning. Helen McCrory is not an obvious choice for Anna but the character has suffered from being played by picture perfect actresses who have trouble conveying Anna's passion. Helen McCrory's is believable as a mature woman who is seemingly very comfortable in her skin and has the grace and power to make men fall easily in love with her.Douglas Hensall plays Levin with gentleness as a sensitive, conflicted man plagued by doubt and his own inadequacies.He romance with Kitty is sweet and understated. His Scottish accent, beard, and awkward manners lend to his rusticism. However, as with any adaptation of Anna Karenina, much of Levin struggles with his own conflicted personal morality and faith are left out.The best performance comes from Stephen Dillane as Anna's dour, principled husband. A man who believes in keeping his emotions in check, Dillane's Karenin is a man who's suffering his wife's betrayal and is conflicted between the desire to punish her and his love for her. In the novel Karenin is a homely man in his fifties, but here he is far handsomer and about 10 years younger which is helpful because it prevents viewers from believing that Anna deserts old, ugly husband simply because he is old and ugly.Also of note is Mark Strong as Anna's bon vivant brother, Stiva, who, as in the book, remains likable despite being irresponsible and faithless to his wife, Dolly. Paloma Baeza, Amanda Root and Kevin McKidd also turn in fine performances and Levin's sweetheart, Dolly and Anna's lover, respectively.The film's use hand-held cameras, quick cuts, and odd angles were at times interesting and at times, very distracting. Admittedly,it was nice to see a period film not shot in the very staid and static fashion of most period films. This production is full of movement: train chug by, people run upstairs, skirts billow, couples argue violently.It has been said that readers should take Anna Karenina as a "piece of life" and this adaptation has an accessibility and realism and lacks that daunting glossy "period film" sheen. These people are people who could live in our time or any time