Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Rexanne It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

museumofdave There are many good reasons to watch this version of Anna; close fidelity to Tolstoy's masterpiece is not one of them, as in it's day, long adaptations were not the norm, and one cannot expect most of Anna Karenini in 95 minutes. There are numerous other versions out there in Movieland much more complete and detailed--but they lack the main ingredient.I would have paid full price to see this version for two main reasons: One, for the first ten minutes, a spectacular studio-recreation of a never-was military banquet with a dazzling tracking shot that seems to go on forever, studio forces marshaled to produce an extravagant opulence only from MGM! And then there's Garbo! One of the people watching this film with me was hushed and amazed later commenting that she had heard Garbo was beautiful but had no idea she was so incredibly ravishing--and she is, a perfect Anna in so many ways, with her largely blank, gorgeous features allowing other characters and the viewer to project their own fantasies onto her character. No one comes close.Beware the deadly tot actor Bartholomew, who was effective under Cukor's direction in David Copperfield, but here with Clarence Brown is unctuously sticky, a sweet kid Rathbone would have fried for breakfast; the latter is dryly caustic as Anna's inflexible mate, and Fredric March is serviceable as Vronsky. This version is all about Garbo.

kgnycnonsport I recorded a broadcast of this movie off of TCM and finally got around to watching it last night. The cast has many of the big names you associate with films from this era of Hollywood and while a technically proficient movie it left a lot to be desired. Garbo doesn't do much for me and casting her in the role of Anna is a bit of a stretch as I find it hard to believe she could win the attention of a dashing member of the Royal Guards. March isn't much better as her lover, as he looks very bloated. He's a lot more dashing in Anthony Adverse. Basil Rathbone gives a very strong performance as Anna's husband and comes across as both a good father, but a distant and unsympathetic husband. While I understand this movie is based on a famous novel, it surprises me that MGM would make such a depressing movie considering what was going on in the world at this time, Hollywood was definitely more upbeat during the 1930's. At the end of this movie, I couldn't help but think I was watching one of the many anti-hero movies which came out in the late 60's and 70's. I also found it disturbing that Fredric March's character got off so easy. At the very least he could have been a broken man, but instead he's lounging around with his buddy and having a few drinks.

TheLittleSongbird Tolstoy's novel Anna Karenina is a truly great one, with an interesting story and memorable characters. True, the title character can be selfish and unlikeable(though I have heard and still hear similar criticisms directed towards Scarlett O'Hara from Gone with the Wind), but she is also a moving and interesting one.I have yet to see the Vivien Leigh and the Jaqueline Bisset versions, but while it is very condensed compared to the book, I liked this film. Why do I say it is condensed? Well the film has been described as pretty much paring the plot down to the bone, something which I have to agree with. And there are subplots that are completely eliminated here. Despite me saying this, that is not really one of the reasons why I didn't give Anna Karenina a perfect score.One reason is that I feel the film is too short and a tad rushed as well. If they had slowed the pace down and made it longer, the more interesting parts of the story that were left out could have been incorporated without that much of a problem. My other problem is to do with one casting choice. Sadly that choice is Fredric March as Vronsky. Now I am not dismissing March as a bad actor, on the contrary, I thought he was outstanding in the title role of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. However, his Vronsky left me cold, while he was dashing in terms of looks I found him rather stiff and ill-suited to the role, not to mention Vronsky is very Americanised here.However, Anna Karenina is gorgeous to watch. The cinematography, stunning. The scenery, breathtaking. The costumes, colourful and ravishing. Anna Karenina also has the benefit of being richly scored and the music is very pleasant and memorable and does give some dramatic weight. The direction is solid, and the script is intelligent and sophisticated. Aside from March, everyone else in the cast is very good. Greta Garbo has been considered by many as the definitive Anna Karenina, although I have to see other interpretations before I agree with or dispute this opinion, I cannot deny she is wonderful in the role. Very passionate and moving. Freddie Bartholomew is also surprisingly effective as Sergei, but the acting honours actually go to Basil Rathbone who is just superb and truly magnetic as Karenin- this role could have been clichéd but Rathbone adeptly gives it some depth and multi-layers. And I have to give a nod to the final station scene thanks to Garbo and the camera work that scene had a real dynamic sheen to it and is incredibly poignant.All in all, definitely worth watching and very solid. 8/10 Bethany Cox

writers_reign While Garbo was inspired casting as the doomed Romantic that of Frederic March as Vronsky was idiotic. What was needed was a William Powell, a Melvyn Douglas (who played opposite Garbo in Ninotchka), even a Tyrone Power, Douglas Fairbanks, David Niven, anyone, in fact, with an ounce of VITALITY, a scintilla of CHARM, a hint of PASSION, rather than the inanimate Giant Redwood that is March. Apart from this Clarence Brown gives us some nice visuals and interesting Camera angles beginning, of course, with our first magical glimpse of Garbo, emerging, fully-formed, out of the steam like Venus out of the sea. Basil Rathbone brings his usual reliability to the thankless role of dull husband but Maureen O'Sullivan is woefully short of gravitas as Kitty. It remains a great vehicle for a great actress and that's what we take away from it, a face in the misty light, a Laura ahead of her time.