Anna Karenina (1967)

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Leave it to Tolstoy's people to get it right !!! Of the three versions I have now seen,and will not see any others till I read the novel,this is by far the best.It plays like a Shakespearian tragedy,but in this case its Imperial Russia instead of England.Ah,all unknown Russians to me but they all fit so very well and truly make the triangle believable.Old rich and powerful husband,middle aged beautiful wife,we would today call a MILF, and dashing young military officer.Bad news for love but great for us.Released in 1967 and running 145 minutes,it may be hard to find this film,in fact,since it was made during our cold war,I don't even remember it from back in the day. Unlike the other versions,1935 and 2012,this one does more then lip service to the other characters.Anna's cheating brother,his wife and younger sister,of which Anna stole the dashing young officer from,and later she fears is trying to steal her now husband. All wounded love affairs that perhaps are metaphors for the brutal future ahead,Set in 1876 they are but under 40 years from the end of Imperial Russia. Anyhow,I now see the selfishness of Anna,but also the child in her.Married to a much older man at 18,she never lived and now is experiencing what men call a midlife crises.The real victim here is her honorable husband that she now hates because he's so perfect.But he did "steal from the cradle"and with all the religious references,for me,he reaped what he sowed.The dashing young officer ?? Hot headed at both ends due to his flaming youth. The only sound couple was the young sister in law,but she suffered her own loss lover and "settled"on a man that she later learned to love,and he??Well he suffered doubt and the pain of rejection but his perseverance finally paid off.Anna's brother and his wife,sadly making the best of a bad situation as most do.Sad,but also sadly true to most of us.I can see the attraction to this story despite it being so aristocratic.Look for it if doomed love is your thing.

This film re-creates the historical setting of the 1860s brilliantly, then spoils it all with an Eisensteinian-expressionistic style of acting and photography that gives one the giggles with its melodramatic jerkiness. Worst of all is Rodion Shchedrin's shrill, strident score. It would be too loud and insistent for an axe murder in an insane asylum; in a drawing room from the reign of Alexander II it sounds simply ludicrous and irritating.Vasili Lanovoy is handsome and romantic-looking as Count Aleksey Vronsky—his stiff bearing probably correct stylistically, his costumes wonderful. He does love to stare and lurch in that "I-am-Ivan-the-Terrible's-kid-brother" manner of Soviet film. His hair piece is not very good, either.Lanovoy does at least very much look his part, which is more than can be said of the woman playing Anna Karenina. She looks a lot more like Anna Magnani, complete with black moustache. Mme Karenin is supposed to be an extraordinary aristocratic beauty, a being from the highest society. Here she looks like she has strayed from a film by Pietro Germi. The actress likes bombastic reactions right out of Mexican television drama, which the camera captures with Shchedrinesque careenings.That great acting was possible, even in this school of film, is witnessed to by the master player of the role of Aleksey Karenin, Nikolai Gritsenko (1912–1979). He is quite unforgettable and detailed; he helps one understand Tolstoy better.Most of the film is the other way around: one would hardly understand anything if one had not previously read the novel. The abrupt and disconcerting editing doesn't help.No film could ever hope to do justice to such a literary masterpiece, but Clarence Brown's 1935 version is incomparably more satisfactory. Too bad. This could have been wonderful.

Visually this movie is a black sheep among the other Soviet movies: it's shot absolutely astoundingly for a Soviet movie! Lighting and scenery are astonishingly crafted, wide-angle objectives, cranes and dollies are artfully used throughout the film making it look, despite of the poorly emulsified film (though not that bad for those times), like a highest-budget Hollywood movie. Photography direction and editing are also up to the highest notch! Direction and acting are great, no reason to praise anyone higher than the others (though my favourite is Nikolai Gritsenko as Alexander Alexandrovich Karenin). Truly a piece of a pure cinema art, absolutely creative, original and rich. Watch with pleasure.

This movie was done well. The filming was beautiful and Tolstoy's novel (in so far as it is possible) was presented in a good light. The only spot that marred an otherwise-good film was the performance of the leading actress, Samoilova, playing Anna Karenina herself. So inept, clumsy,, irritatingly false and unconvincing was her performance that my single greatest sentiment throughout the film was: "Come on! Throw yourself on the train-tracks and get it over with!" Sadly, for over two hours my prayers went unanswered. A positive note, however, was struck by the stunning performance of the former legendary ballerina, Maya Plisetskaya in her role as the social lioness, Princess Betsy Tverskaya. Vasilij Lanovoj (memorable as Shervinsky, in 'Dni Turbinykh) was also a pleasure to watch as he made the most out of the relatively small role of Vronsky. In short: This would be a higher-than-average film, but for the tragically poor performance of the single actress that was under particular obligation to play well.