Anna Karenina (2000)
|
List Price: Our Price: $13.99 You Save: $15.96 (53%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $12.99 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Anna Karenina (2000)
Movie Review: Brilliant with minor defects
Summary: 4 Stars
I had never read Tolstoy's novel on which this is based, nor knew much about the story prior to picking this up from the library one rainy afternoon. Much to my astonishment, I loved it. It is more than just a lavish costume drama (although the exquisite costumes and painstaking attention to detail will make any woman swoon with delight), it is also a passionate glimpse into love and lust, revenge and forgiveness, innocence and carnality.
The first time through I was swept up in the primary story of the lovers. Anna's passionless marriage to Alexei leads her to fall hard and fast for the romantic, sweet-talking Count Vronsky. But on a second viewing (no less than two days later, I just could not stay away from it!) my attention was diverted by Levin's romance with Kitty. It is a film that is almost too much to take in all at once, because it is so deep and complex in its emotions. One thing I appreciated was that none of the characters are one-dimensional. Anna is deeply emotional and following her heart causes her to self-destruct. Alexei Karenin by contrast is restrained to the point of seeming cold, but it is evident from a perfectly nuanced performance that he ISN'T cold, and he DOES care, he just hides most of his emotions beneath the surface.
Admittedly, I do not much care for the casting of the main lovers, but the rest of the extended cast are brilliant, particularly Stephen Dillane as Alexei. In the span of a handful of scenes, I came around to liking him much more than the "passionate lover," Vronsky. One of the finest moments comes at Anna's sickbed, when husband and lover are both in attendance. The beautiful writing and tremendous performances -- calm detachment from Alexei, and passionate grief from Vronsky -- make it mesmerizing.
I also appreciate that in spite of "sexing up" the adulterous aspect, the film refrains from being too explicit. What seems to be important here is motivations and emotions rather than purely physical connections, which makes it unlike many other stories in the genre. Minus a minor flub over the Russian Church performing a marriage ceremony in Latin, it is in all respects "almost perfect."
How do I know? Because when my library copy became due, I went online and purchased a copy, because I cannot live without it. It's that good.
Movie Review: Rapturous Anna
Summary: 4 Stars
Helen McCrory literally embodied the role of the ill-fated Anna Karenina in this production. Her journey from the pinnacle of High Russian society to the depths of despair as an outcast was captured by Ms. McCrory exceptionally well.
Stephen Dillane and Kevin McKidd also expertly deliver, playing Alexei Karenin and Alexei, the Count Vronsky, respectively. Dillane's portrayal of the icy, unfeeling Karenin was superb; even more so was McKidd's steamy, passionate reading of the enamoured Vronsky.
I was also well pleased with the performances of dear old, always-in-period-pieces Amanda Root, and familiar faces with Paul Rhys and Paloma Baeza, all delivering excellent performances.
However, the role of Levin (Kitty's eventual husband), played by Douglas Henshall, worked my last Tolstoy-loving nerve. Actually, I was relatively unimpressed with the fact that the entire cast, while portraying Russian nobility and speaking about journeying to St. Petersburg and Moscow, spoke with upper-crust British accents. I believe well-developed Russian, or at least SOME version of Eastern-European, accents for the cast would have heightened the atmosphere of the Russian background in which the story is set. Mr. Henshall's ridiculously thick Scottish brogue -- dripping moss-covered syllables as he mumbles on about rubles and vodka and the czar (?!?!) -- simply defied both logic and validity.
I think his role could have been much better cast.
Overwhelmingly, however, "Anna" remained very true to the novel, and I think, despite his undoubted confusion over the accents of the actors, Mr. Tolstoy himself would consider this adaptation a credit to the world were he able to view it for himself.
Movie Review: Magnificent Anna!
Summary: 4 Stars
Helen McCrory did an exceptional job in capturing the majesty and the desperation of Anna Karenina. The "vaults" of Tolstoy joined two characters Levin and Anna in their unbridled passion for life with much different end results and paths. I cannot imagine anyone else capturing more the essence of Tolstoy's major female protagonist than Helen McCrory did.
Stephen Dillane did a fabulous job in the role of Alexei Karenin and Kevin McKidd perfected the character of Count Vronsky . I think that Stephen Dillane's interpretation of Alexei was so superb that it surprised me; and I gained such a depth of understanding for this character because of his portrayal; much more than in reading the novel which I loved.
At first, I wavered because I did not feel that Oblonsky was cast properly; but despite the difference in appearance; this role was executed perfectly. I cannot understand how Douglas Henshall was cast as Levin with his thick Scottish brogue but even that was overlooked as you got more and more into the story.
The acting was that good. I would recommend this highly. This gripped me from beginning to end. And after seeing how Anna was treated during the ballroom scene at Betsy's, you understand the double standard that existed then and in some ways is still with us today.
For such a long novel, this rendition was perfectly paced and executed brilliantly. Very enjoyable. You will not regret taking the time to watch this series. Masterpiece Theater did a magnificent job.
Bentley/2007
Movie Review: Disappointing Pop Culture version, not much Tolstoy here (details)
Summary: 3 Stars
I'll say up front that if you want to see a fine production of Anna Karenina, then acquire the following older BBC mini-series version:
Anna Karenina (1977) - The Complete Miniseries
As for the mini-series film under review here, there appears to be a notable dose of modernistic thinking injected into the magnificent original story and it's almost as if the producers said to the director and cast, "Tell the story but no Tolstoy please!" In other words, focus on the sexual innuendos and keep the pacing wholly consistent throughout. As I watched I actually pondered whether the director had actually read the book which is not so much a story of love as it is a saga of life. The historical Russian context and the appurtenant detritus of the various scenes and sets have been largely obliterated.
When one sits through a spot-on film production of Anna Karenina [there are multiple versions], the typical viewer is emotionally inspired to alternate between hugging and strangling Anna -- in this instance only the latter comes to mind. Our traditional paradigms of most of the characters have been un-artfully manipulated. While the screenwriters knew better than to actually tamper with Tolstoy's core story they still rejected the essential spirit of his magnificent novel. Had they somehow *improved* it, one could say okay -- but they didn't fulfill this near-impossible task in any sense.
The central tale involves Anna Karenina [the Russian female extrapolation of the surname *Karenin*], the high-profile wife of a significantly-ranked St. Petersburg government official [Karenin], and their young son. Anna travels by train south to Moscow to pay a casual visit to her brother, Steva, who has (unknown to Anna at the time) just been caught in a lustful affair with the family governess and whose much angered wife is now ready to leave him. Anna manages to quickly smooth it all over subsequent to her arrival in Moscow but it's there that she encounters, and is quite taken with, a dashing young military officer, Vronsky, the latter being practically affianced to Steva's young and naive sister-in-law. The sister-in-law gets dumped (she's devastated) and Anna cannot bring herself to send the handsome and amorous Vronsky on his way -- quite the opposite. Karenin is soon apprised of the disgraceful relationship between his wife and Vronsky and the affair soon blossoms into the most talked-about scandal in St. Petersburg.
There are a couple of sub-plots as well (although not nearly as many as there are in the original novel.) Steva continues to stumble along as the amiable man-about-town and his good friend from country, Levin, falls in love with the (soon to be rejected) sister-in-law but his offer is inopportunely declined when he proposes to her. Of course, once she is rejected by Vronsky and publicly humiliated by Anna's ostentatious behavior with her newfound paramour at a dance-soiree, Levin doesn't look so bad to her in retrospect... but that opportunity appears to be lost for good. Levin also has a tubercular, drunken brother whose political views and failing health become quite a personal burden for him.
I've revealed no spoilers here - all this melodrama simply establishes the lengthy and intricate story which follows. But a central focus of the original story, and a very integral one, has been totally cast aside: the fact that Anna is a morphine addict which is much of what drives her often irrational behavior. I suppose that the film-makers opted, with an eye to appearing somewhat more trendy, to allow viewers to believe that she is simply bi-polar.
The cinematography of this film is pretty much first class -- it's all film and not videotape, which is the singular shortcoming of the other mini-series I previously mentioned. However, the filmscore of original music is, in the context of this yarn, horrific. There's nothing Russian about it and this soundtrack could have been more logically applied to any episode of The Sopranos: The Complete First Season.
The casting was largely very off-center, the character of Steva being the single major exception. This brings me to the strangest facet of the film: I anticipated that, this being a *Masterpiece Theater* entry, all the characters would have British accents instead of Russian ones and I'm wholly okay with that caveat; however, these actors spoke with multiple, mixed accents - British, Irish, and American! I've never encountered that strange nuance before in a period story which is supposed to take place entirely in a specific country. And with the exception of Steva, these folks didn't come off as Russian in any other sense, accents aside.
Kevin McKidd [Vronsky] isn't nearly as smooth or as flamboyant as he should be and he presents the appearance of the stereotyped Irishman. The actor playing Levin comes off as Irish as well but in his case, appropriate make-up could have easily overcome this incongruity. Levin, a man of agriculture, had all exceptionally well-groomed, impeccably sanitary-looking serfs and muzhiks, all beautiful people. As an aside, Levin's agricultural aspect was played down entirely which was an incredibly important aspect of period Russian culture (and of the original story too.)
Stephen Dillane's character [Karenin] was far too amiable, not nearly as Dickensian as he should have been presented -- he was also cast entirely too young as *old* Karenin was supposed to have a young wife [Anna], thereby contrasting their age differences. We're supposed to generally despise Karenin [except at one particular point in the story] but at times he even appears to suggest a warm and sympathetic personality, a fact which substantially diminishes the overall drama. Helen McCrory [Anna] represented the pinnacle of casting missteps. She's simply not as remarkably stunning as Anna has to be in order to drive the story effectively. Attractive yes, but she's nothing exceptional here and this is a genuine shame because a shrewd make-up session could have entirely gratified the essential expectations of Tolstoy fans.
I can hardly blame the cast for the bulk of these bungles as the problems chiefly center upon feeble casting and failed script-writing. The unremarkable sets and locations simply add to the burden of both the actors and the cinematographer(s).
And I suppose that the culmination of these multiple issues is what will separate the various evaluators of this contemporary two-part mini-series. The numerous Tolstoy fans will generally be let down while most others, especially those who have yet to experience the great joy of reading the original work, will likely say it's an okay film -- and it *is* an okay film in a generic, unspectacular sort of way. If you prefer to experience the Hollywood-type commercialized touch in film-making, punctuated with an emphasis on fairly mild carnal interludes, then you might well enjoy this movie quite a lot. I just thought that the producers, screenwriters, and the director failed utterly to make hay with all the more latent opportunities with which Tolstoy had armed them.
Don't get me wrong about this mini-series. I wholly understand and agree with the concept that one cannot make a film straight from a novel -- it simply doesn't work. But if you wish to see a poster example of a sterling screenplay extracted from a renowned classic Russian novel then watch Doctor Zhivago (45th Anniversary Edition) and you'll see how a screenwriter, a composer, a director, and his slate of actors can collaborate effectively to generate a masterpiece. For me, this version of *Anna Karenina* was clearly worth watching on a one-time basis but, even though I now own the DVD, I do not anticipate giving it a second viewing anytime soon.
Movie Review: The Story Really Needed the 10 Hours
Summary: 3 Stars
If you follow my reviews, you know I felt the 10 hour 1977 version with Nicola Pagett (Anna), Eric Porter (Karenin), and Stuart Wilson (Vronsky) was a phenomenal masterpiece. (10 hours, and not one dull moment.)
Even though I did not expect this version to be as good, I did like Stephen Dillane as Horatio in Mel Gibson's "Hamlet." And I thought he would be a good Karenin.
Onto the subject at hand. The basic plot line is this. Anna starts out as an angel like character when she tries to reconcile her brother Steva and his wife Dolly. (Steva was cheating on her.) She reconciles them, but problems arise.
Without meaning to do so, she breaks Kitty's (Dolly's sister's) hopes of a marriage with Vronsky (Kevin McKidd) because Vronsky finds Anna attractive. At first, she resists Vronsky. (She is after all married and has a son.)
However, she later finds she feels the same way towards Vronsky. This leads to her ruining her reputation with a scandal and losing her son. (She can't even go out in public eventually.) And to top it off, she starts going mad which gradually destroys her relationship with Vronsky.
Overall, these people did a decent job of putting this into 4 hours. But if you have seen the 1977 10 hour version, you probably will miss a lot of the subtle unfolding of events as well as characters gradually revealing different layers of themselves.
While Nicola Pagett is Anna to me, Helen McCrory does a fairly decent job in Anna's transition from an angel to a psychotic mess.
Stuart Wilson is Vronsky to me. But I did like Kevin McKidd. Like Stuart Wilson, McKidd convincingly portrays Vronsky's journey from a lustful passionate unlikable stalker, to someone who finds out he really loved the wrong person, to knowing that what he has done was wrong, and then finally a physically and emotionally worn out sympathetic character.
Eric Porter is Karenin to me. But I do like how Stephen Dillane did Karenin. He seems to bring out an interesting angle. Anna says Karenin has no feelings, but Dillane proves her wrong. Karenin DOES have feelings. It's just that while Anna and Vronsky are controlled by their feelings, Karenin tries to control his feelings. (Not exactly a horrible thing. Notice he's the only one of the 3 who never tries to kill himself.) But that he suffers from the events of the story is evident.
One strange thing is that unlike Porter /Pagett, Stephen Dillane is not obviously older than Anna. Dillane is still a really sympathetic Karenin; but I'm sure some viewers wouldn't have found Anna's choice to leave Karenin in this version such an understandable choice.
Overall, it's an alright 2nd best version if you don't have 10 hours to watch the best version.