War and Peace

2007
7.2| 8h0m| en| More Info
Released: 19 October 2007 Released
Producted By:
Country: Russia
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

War and Peace delineates in graphic detail events leading up to the French invasion of Russia, and the impact of the Napoleonic era on Tsarist society, as seen through the eyes of five Russian aristocratic families. Portions of an earlier version of the novel, then known as The Year 1805,were serialized in the magazine The Russian Messenger between 1865 and 1867.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

SunnyHello Nice effects though.
Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.
Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.
Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.
john-jan War and Peace (1967/Russian version) is the most accurately represented film of Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace novel. Since I read the novel in order to make a report on it, I was able to get the "provenance" of the entire setting in the 1967 movie. The 2007 version actually seemed to be a generic "period play" being passed off to unsuspecting viewers of the real import of the movie and it comes across only as a lighthearted attempt to portray two lovers trying to "get it together". It was sort of like watching Gone with the Wind in Russia. The "acting out" of the two main characters in their attempt to give it a "modern interpretive twist" to each of the major characters' behaviour failed to reflect the mindset of the individuals they portrayed as well as accurately reveal the worldview of a culture in the throes of a historic drama. While the 2007 cast members were enjoyable to watch (they were excellent actors), I found it somewhat ridiculous to see Natasha and Andre pulling out each other's tongue in the kissing scene, even though it was titillating to watch. An intelligent understanding of the complexity of the royal class mindset of that time prohibited such a reaction between two people who barely knew each other (especially when the male was twice the female's age and they each belonged to a different class structure) and who were about to be "betrothed" in the anachronistic sense of the word that was a characteristic of that society and one with which we are unable to relate to.I would suggest that anyone wanting to see a well-developed thematic presentation of Tolstoy's War and Peace would do themselves a favor by watching the film version that was made in 1967. While you would find some of it confusing-i.e., their conversation, their dialogue with themselves, their viewpoints within that society, which were distinctively Russian, you would come to the conclusion that the director of the Russian version with the Russian actors did indeed depict accurately how the Russian aristocracy behaved in their attempts to mimic the French within their own parameters, making them appear somewhat boorish as well as comical as they tried to live their lives in that era of Russian society. You would see their frustration in their everyday lives as well as their consternation over the dilemma of keeping Napoleon out of their country and their eventual failure to do so. However, you are elated when you see how their Tsar-appointed General commands the respect and loyalty of the Russian troops, leading them to an ultimate victory and watching the French flee Russia in disgrace. Which is really what the book is all about.
cluciano63 But it was pretty ridiculous and melodramatic. And the acting was terrible, especially in the main roles. I think Natasha's character was the worst, just a silly girl, and I could not figure out why she was considered so special and the actress was feeble in this role. And Pierre-he went from a drunken dolt to a noble Count or whatever, just by his father dying? All of a sudden he was wise and great, etc.The scenery and costumes were good anyway.And it was a way to pass some hours. But the script was sometimes ridiculous. The characters not believable; Andre's sister such a martyr to that lunatic father of hers. Andre and Natasha of course getting together again and the references to her constant suffering when she was fool enough to fall for that treacherous prince. Just a mess of a script and performances. And then Pierre's cruel selfish wife dying to make it convenient for Natasha after Andre dies...I just did not see Natasha as such a prize that she should fell man after man.
krevedkopekpek lusto777, you don't understand anything about War and Peace. if you even try try to read you'll see mistakes in the film. For example, Natasha Rostova in book is silly and not beautiful girl. Bondarchuk was genius. You can agree or not with his interpretation, but you can't deny that his film War and Peace is the world's masterpiece. In my opinion, his film is better than this one) Also it's incorrect to say such words about directors, actors and actresses. talent doesn't depend on declared politics. i don't want to lesson, but your words drive me out of wits. and your naive opinion about commies and emperor is very funny, it makes me smile. Excuse me lady and guys for this off-top, nice watching and pardon my English.
laurelmcf I am a bit surprised at how hard everyone is on this little mini-series. I have viewed a number of the previous efforts of putting War and Peace on the screen, and actually think that these folks did not do a bad job! While Russians may be justifiably distressed at the international, non-Russian cast, as an American viewer who has seen some of these actors in British, Italian, and American films, I found the cast completely engaging in this production. The cast may not have the right hair color, as previous posts have noted, but in many ways they are true to the spirit of Tolstoy's work, and even manage to breathe their own life into the roles as well. I actually think Clemence Poesy is stunning and believable as Natasha, for example. This very young, granted inexperienced actress, caught some of the freshness, innocence, joie de vivre etc., required for the role, and then summoned the passion and emotion later on to make her "transgression" believable. And what about the location shooting?-- and the beautiful lighting and camera work at those locations? I thought it was head and shoulders above the cinematography of the Hepburn/Fonda version, etc. I was astonished at some of the previous comments about the bad dancing, too: the Natasha/Andrei dance at the ball was one of the loveliest and most atmospheric period dance scenes I've seen on film in recent years. (All the recent Jane Austen films should take note!) My only complaint is that as an American it was very hard to track down a copy that would play on my Region 1 DVD.