Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Filipe Neto Anyone who has read, as I read, the entire book "War and Peace", has a clear idea of ​​the enormous work that must have done to make this film. Its probably one of the most complex war dramas ever written and the largest dramatic book I have ever read. It's not my bedside book, but it's certainly one of my favorites when it comes to Russian literature. Directed by King Vidor (who transformed this film into his greatest masterpiece), he has Audrey Hepburn (in the role of Natasha), Henry Fonda (as Pierre) and Mel Ferrer (as Prince Andrei).The script is very faithful to the book and seeks to make a legitimate adaptation. However, its very slow, giving too much emphasis and spending too much time on certain scenes without need, and it lacks emotions and strength, being unable to thrill or grab our attention. Perhaps the complexity of the original material has caused so many difficulties for the writing team that they have not been able to handle it in the best way. As for the actors, I liked Audrey Hepburn, she knew how to give life and joy to her character, but I expected more from Mel Ferrer, he did not understand his character. I hated Henry Fonda... he had one of the most psychologically rich characters in the novel and simply was unable to deal with it. It was a clear casting error.The film has excellent war scenes and portrays very well the armies but always without emotion or danger, in a very warm manner. The costumes and scenarios fill my expectations and have taken great attention with detail and realism, which is quite pleasant. Cinematography is quite pleasant, although it exaggerates in brightness sometimes. Nino Rota is responsible for the soundtrack and did a good job. Anyway, as this movie has the worst sound effects I've heard in movies, I will not criticize the soundtrack.

museumofdave While no film could probably catch the epic reach and philosophical tone of Tolstoy's great novel, the 1968 Russian version comes close, with almost an hour alone dedicated to the chaotic, mad battlefield at Borodino; there is also a 15 hour version starring Anthony Hopkins that comes very close to matching the complex plotting of the book, but it lacks the spectacle that film can provide.This Hollywood version fails on several levels, starting with central miscasting: Henry Fonda, so brilliant as quintessential Americans Tom Joad and Abraham Lincoln, simply looks confused as the often oafish would-be philosopher Pierre, and while Audrey Hepburn is doubtless stunning in various gowns, the role of Natasha is an elusive one, and old-school director King Vidor doesn't do much to alter her Sabrina-like mannerisms: she is striking to look at and does her best. And the less said about stolid Mel Ferrer, the better. So what's left? The battlefield scenes are massive, neat-and-tidy, and seldom more than predictable--the Russian version directed by Sergei Bondarchuk boggles the mind with it's truly spectacular vistas and warlike chaos, challenges the viewer, and plunging the viewer into the heat of battle. One of the positives of the Vidor version, on the other hand, is the casting of Oskar Homolka as Russian General Kutuzov who offers career-defining performance, and Herbert Lom, who nicely captures the difficult role of a petulant Napoleon.The basic plot of the novel is well-followed in the Hollywood version, but this is no Lawrence of Arabia, not even El Cid; worth watching if you don't want to sit through the hours and hours of the Russian version and don't care much about War and Peace. Simply put--this is not a very exciting film.

preppy-3 Mammoth adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's huge novel. I never read the book so I can't say how it compares but, on its own terms, is a good epic movie. It deals with Napoleon (Herbert Lom) and his troops invading Russia and how it affects two families. Let's get the bad things out of the way--at 3 1/2 hours it's far too long (the last half hour really drags); characters and stories are not handled well at all--people come and go very quickly; there's some funny post-dubbing (notice how Audrey Hepburn's voice echoes--when she's outside!); Henry Fonda gives a rare bad performance and notice how almost all the Russians have British accents! But the good vastly outnumbers the bad.It's never really dull and is beautifully filmed in color with incredible sets and costumes. Save for Henry Fonda all the acting is good. Also this has an incredibly attractive cast--Hepburn, May Britt and Anita Ekberg are gorgeous; Mel Ferrer, Jeremy Brett and Vittorio Gassman are VERY handsome. The story moves rather quickly and has quite a few truly epic sequences--an absolutely gorgeous ballroom dance; battles between Russia and France; the mass exodus from Moscow and the long French march out of Russia. It's also fun to see Herbert Lom chew the scenery and there's a beautiful music score. It's really worth seeing for the production values alone. Recommended despite the length.

DQGladstone OF COURSE, I slept through it. It was long and boring and one needed the drug of sleep to endure the stagey direction and acting.Audrey Hepburn was at her beautiful, charming, irritating, over-acting best in this film. It was only her personal charm and loveliness that kept her from making me sick with fakeness.The scene where Pierre tells her he's getting married, her head turns so fast I'm surprised it didn't break her lovely neck. People in real life don't act that way because they'd risk physical injury if they did.Henry: I'm getting married. What's wrong? Audrey: I hope you're happy with your new wife but I just broke my neck.Obviously she was trying to convey the enthusiasm and energy of youth so that we could see the change to her character resulting from war, experience and time but her enthusiasm was stagey and irritating. She was so damn happy to see everyone in this film I'm surprised they didn't smack her.Henry Fonda was less fake but he had his moments, too. At his father's death scene when he falls to one knee, I'm surprised he didn't injure himself. They must have put padding on the floor.Henry: My father..is dead...and my knee...is broken...Many other examples from Ferrer and minor characters.King Vidor apparently never heard of film minimalism.Henry was supposed to be clumsy, I guess, and he bumped into a few walls and tripped over a log but he certainly could have been funnier. He had some charm early on but he missed a lot of opportunities for humor.I found it funny when he stepped forward to be shot without waiting for orders. They could have had a guard put a hand on his elbow to guide him forward then have the commander stop the guard. Instead, Henry moves forward to the firing post of his own volition to be stopped by destiny. Funny.You hear a lot about conflict between actors and directors on the set but Audrey and Henry are good actors and I'm surprised they let this stuff go without saying "Isn't this going to look a little stupid?" I guess Henry really DID need the money.I've never had the energy or time to read the book and I hoped that this film might enlighten me a bit but...I slept through it.If you're tired and want to see a really GOOD movie that encourages sleep, I recommend "2001: A Space Odyssey". It's a beautiful movie but the scenes and visuals are so slow you'd better bring a large cappuccino.