WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

JinRoz For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

a_naismith It feels heretical to say this for I loved the original so very much, but this version is better. Different too which makes it not a remake as it presents the story in a different context altogether. Both equally valid.

hugh-mackinnon I have seen both screen versions of the Russian classic novel. Both are admirable though we are comparing apples and oranges as one was released in 1965 almost 40 years previous to the 2002 version. Different technologies, different social values, and different censor standards produced different films. However, the viewer who has seen both cannot escape comparisons. Like watching your favourite stage musical with a new set of actors it takes time for familiarity and loyalty to old actors from the first version to diminish and the new production seen for its own merits! The new actors have their merits. The new Zhivago has spirit and some charisma but I preferred Shariff's Zhivago. I have never forgotten the pain registered in Shariff's eyes and on his face in the original as he struggles with internal battles of conscience. No words were required to see his pain! The younger Zhivago has his moments but comes up a bit short in this regard. The portrayal of Lara by Julie Christie and Kierra Knightly are two contrasting styles somewhat due to age differences. Knightly has the freshness and innocence of a 17 year old but once in a awhile the attraction seems forced and awkward between her and her lover (Zhivago) Christie, who was in her twenties when the film was made, was riveting throughout and could steal a scene with a facial dagger such as the scene where she is leaving the makeshift hospital after working with Zhivago for several months only to hear a negative comment made by the Bolshevik. Christie's deadly cold glare towards him denouncing the comment has stayed with me for over 35 years. Christie's and Shariff's first encounter at the library where the cinematography with the sunlight spotlighting her eyes only, is a riveting scene and outdoes the newer version similar take on Lara (Knightly) meeting Zhivago again. Rod Steiger's Kamarovsky is vastly superior acting to Sam Neil's effort. Steiger's monologues characterizing his deceit,conceit, venom and condescending views make Neill's version pale in comparison. As well, Tom Courtenay is a superior Pasha and Stralnikov. Ralph Richardson's crusty, anal member of the upper class is also superior to the new actor's version. That aside the new DVD has many merits and more of an edge regarding the horrors of the revolution and its indirect consequences. The ending was unsatisfying in the new version in my opinion. Not because it was an unhappy ending which is more realistic. Rather, the complacency shown by Lara (Knightly) as she was driven away watching her young son being sent by her to run away under the guise of playing a game was hard to accept that she could do so without portraying any regret or emotion! Sometimes the release of topical films coincide with waves of societal change, in this case the sexual revolution in western societies in the late 1960's. I wonder how many adulterous affairs were sparked and justified by men in the '60's and beyond after watching and wanting to identify with Shariff's Zhivago? I wonder how many girls born in the late 60's were named after Lara. I would wager that there were many who fit both aforementioned scenarios. Wonderful films both are. After some reflection I'll admit I still prefer the former over the latter.

Khemaluck Deeprawat I have never read the book or seen the original version of the movie. I bought the DVD because it's on sale and didn't expect much. However, I must say that the film impressed me. It's hard to believe that I can watch something this long and still feel like keep watching it. The movie made me feel as if I am watching someone's life, from the beginning to the end, going through the bitter and the sweet of time. The film is well done. The picture is beautiful. The story is deeply touching. The acting is of quality. Lara and Yuri will stay in my heart forever. This movie made me think. Great love does not happen to everyone, so if you're lucky to find the other half of your soul, even for a short time in your life, then you must make the best of your time together. It also made me think that if a man I marry found someone he loves so much like this, I will let him go, just like the wife of Yuri did. Although it will hurt, I won't be angry.

gelman@attglobal.net One wonders why the BBC dared to challenge David Lean's 1965 version of the Boris Pasternak novel with a script by Robert Bolt and a brilliant cast. But the TV series has its virtues -- greater length, allowing for inclusion of more of the novel, and a cast that generally stands well up to comparison with the actors in the film who engraved themselves in our mind's eye as the definitive Zhivago, Lara, Tonya (Zhivago's wife), Komorovsky, and Pasha (afterwards the iron-willed and ruthless Bolshevik general). Although it drags a bit in the first half, the second half of the TV production is exceptionally moving. Keira Knightley (Julie Christie in the film version) exudes sexual attractiveness, of course, but she also captures Lara's initial innocence, her loyalty first to Pasha and then to Zhivago after Pasha disappears, and her emotional depths. Hans Mattheson (Omar Sharif) grows on you as his troubles mount. Alexandra Maria Lara (!) (Geraldine Chaplin in the movie) is splendid both as Zhivago's loving wife and as jilted and martyred lover. Sam Neill (Rod Stieger) is appropriately slimy as Komarovsky, Lara's corrupter and relentless pursuer. Only Kris Marshall (Tom Courtnay) falls especially short; he is unconvincing as the ruthless general. The Alec Guiness character in the movie, General Zhivago, is strangely missing from the TV series, possibly because they were unable to find anyone who could possibly fill Guiness's shoes. Also missing is Lara's theme, the haunting music which many still remember from the movie. I liked the second half of the TV series and am once again impressed by the fact that Keira Knightley is a good deal more than a pretty face. In fact, she is a worthy next-generation successor to the role of ranking female British star.