Redwarmin
This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place
Exoticalot
People are voting emotionally.
ShangLuda
Admirable film.
Crwthod
A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.
Kirpianuscus
for a part of its public, the best adaptation of the novel of Tolstoy. for me, one of good adaptation for the performance of Nikolai Gritsenko, who does a memorable Karenin and for Maya Plisetskaya. for few admirable scenes. for music. Tatyana Samoilova does a decent job. but she seems be prisoner of Veronika. and that fact becomes obvious scene by scene. she gives fragments from the image of Karenina. but the identification with the character seems be more than difficult. something missing. something impose to entire film to be out of psychology of her character. only her silhouette. sure, it is a beautiful film. but it is not the film of Samoilova. because she took , in real sense , the role in few scenes - first meeting with Vronsky, the dance with him, the dialogues with Karenin, the last meeting with Serioja. same situation for the too far by his character for Vasili Lanovoy. short, a beautiful adaptation. but its beauty is the only great virtue.
dunsuls-1
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.
Aulic Exclusiva
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.
Diana Chavdarova
I must agree with 'iliawarlock' on Samoylova's performance - but even though this is undoubtedly the weakest link, the film doesn't hold on many stronger points. Samoylova, who is best suited to play Soviet peasant or worker, is only the emanation of the overall psychological flatness, ignorance and self-content, characteristic of many destroyer-of-classic-texts communist era films. Plisetskaya is brilliant, and Lanovoy is also delightful. An interesting fact is that, before a screening which took place in Sofia, Bulgaria, the still magnificent Vasiliy Lanovoy commented that his character Vronsky was incapable of the great love which Karenina had the gift for. From his performance, I got quite the opposite impression of a highly sensitive and devoted Vronsky - but thats the greatness of a complex text. Too bad we cannot witness a complex (if any) psychological interaction with Karenina in this dramatization.
