Lovesusti
The Worst Film Ever
Humbersi
The first must-see film of the year.
Billy Ollie
Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable
passingview
Sorry, but if you have seen the 1977 version with Nicola Pagett and Stuart Wilson, you have seen the best. It does take a serial installment versus a movie rendering to give this vast story justice. This updated version attempts that, but lacks the authenticity of the superior qualities of casting, direction, acting and storyline found in the 1977 offering. This 2000 version is quite crude by comparison, only surpassing in the more up-to-date production techniques available. Who care about those when dealing with a classic work, and who misses them for the vast difference in foundational qualities. This is the cruder offering in every sense of the word. The leads are weak, ineffectual and even far less attractive. The age factor is disregarded as Anna appears older than either her husband (who is 20 years her senior in the book) and her lover. This project is much weakened by the gratuitous and tasteless animal sexual element ascribed to the principals to the expense of heart connections. Untrue and violating of the classical source material. Disgusting contribution. Even the earlier shallower movie contributions avoided the offenses of this shoddy offering.
dawn-sloan-716-992731
This was the first version of Anna Karenina that I saw and apart from the 'shaky camera' direction which seems to be in fashion these days it is a really good version.Kevin McKidd and Helen McCrory are excellent and give it their all in this tale of passion and love. It made me become a fan of both actors and seek out films with them in.All in all a good version, with the themes of the story, lust, love and passion coming through very strongly. I seem to remember this was shown in 3 or 4 parts over as many weeks and I could not wait to see the next part every week, a sign of good drama!Watch it and see if you agree.
lisarull
For years I put off ploughing through AK - for the same reason I have always avoided so many Russian novels. You know the syndrome; you get so far and then all the 'ovsky's begin to blur, you lose track of which character is which and you give up by Chapter Two or Three at best in defeat at keeping up with all the names. Or, like the Woody Allen joke, you speed read it. "War and Peace? It's about Russia"Well, inspired by the performances by so many cracking actors I plunged into the full novel. And what a delight. The drama is so good that it makes even the more melancholic passages come to life. With Stephen Dillane AND Douglas Henshall to delight in here, the show was on my watch list anyway. Some wonderful performances can be found in this version which is certainly one of the best transferences to screen of a complex novel (for one thing it doesn't shirk from giving equal weight to the story of Levin and Kitty - which in the novel are just as central, if not more so in the case of Levin, musing on the issue of religion).
michel.anctil
Anna Karenina is one of the great novels of the nineteenth century that has inspired a great many adaptations for cinema or television. This most recent TV version (aired now in North America) is one too many. It is appallingly rudderless, maybe because it is increasingly more difficult to see a point in adding to the already high stack of versions. The acting lacks zest for the most part, the length or the treatment of this version does not do justice to the richness of the novel, and the sex scenes are so disingenuously artsy as to be laughable. More critically, the key characters of Anna and Vronsky are played by actors lacking both presence and chemistry. In my opinion, this version fares very poorly compared with the other TV miniseries, that of 1977 starring Nicola Pagett (Anna), Eric Porter (Karenin) and Stuart Wilson (Vronsky).
