Anna Karenina

I have not (yet) read Tolstoy's novel and maybe that is why I could love this movie so much compared to so many who simply hated it. I *never* purchase movies but purchased this one from Amazon. I've now watched the film 3 times and am on the 4th as I write. Each successive time I catch new bits of mastery and genius by director Joe Wright and screenwriter Tom Stoppard. The movie has so many layers it is hard to adequately describe. I can only say watch, and watch again. After the third or fourth time you will start to see how the pieces of this movie fit together like the pieces of any exceptional puzzle -- the blend of flavors by a great chef, the interplay of notes and themes of a great composition, the design of a beautiful garden. What is it that grabs you and just doesn't let go?: *DANCE & CHOREOGRAPHY are THE star of this show. You don't quite know if this is realism, camp, vogue, ballet, broadway, or what. For me it worked beautifully and I typically don't like musicals. There is no singing, but the combination of realistic dialog and story with the fantastical dance and choreographed movement of the actors worked stunningly. My favorite scene of the movie -- the waltz scene -- is just mesmerizing...all of the dancers became frozen in time until Anna and Vronsky waltz past and pull them whirling into their vortex. In particular Aaron Taylor-Johnson's dancing left me slackjawed. All I can say is watch for yourself and see if you've ever seen a man dance like that. *SCREENPLAY. Brilliant. Each time I watch I see how the screenplay brings certainly not all of Tolstoy's plot, but surely a great deal of the meaning and larger themes he brought to the novel (I've since read several novel summaries). The screenplay is layered -- each time you watch again you see and understand more. These little bits step out front when you have watched several times and are no longer so distracted by the gorgeous and fantastical spectacle that is going on. *SETTING. As others have noted; all the world's a stage in this movie. For the first 10 minutes you don't know if you are watching the characters watch a play, but then you realize they *are* the play. I remember feeling very off guard my first time watching...is Stiva going to be murdered by the barber? Is the giant pear a bomb? Why is the barber like a toreador? Why is a couple dancing on the theater floor and another woman wandering playing a concertina? What the HECK is going on??? After about 5 or 10 minutes you get it, settle in and it no longer seems strange... you truly feel that life *IS* art. You never stop marveling at the beauty and ingenuity of it this bold directorial choice. The juxtaposition of reality and theater setting, the model trains segueing to real trains and back -- these things seem like they could not possibly work in theory. But they work. The choreography and dialogue of the actors at cousin Betsy's society party and her firework surprise were visually stunning and just magical. * COSTUMES. Lavish, gorgeous, over the top. Wright uses color like no other. Vronsky is all blond youthful curls, bright blue-eyed, and wore white and light blue, while Anna has deep dark burden of an older woman who has never loved -- she is dark haired, eyed and skinned, and wears only black or dark colors. Wright made the unusual choice of using a lot of redhead and very fair-skinned men throughout and film, which was quite beautiful with the film's coloring, and yet cast olive skinned women as their love interests. Very rich, visually interesting film. * ACTING: Jude Law as Karenin, Matthew McFayden as Anna's brother Stiva, Domnhall Gleeson as country landowner Levin all had scene-stealing performances. Olivia Williams shined as Vronsky's mother. Ruth Wilson's delightful turn as Vronsky's bad-tinkerbell cousin Princess Betsy made a new fan of me. Keira Knightly -- I'd give a maybe little pat on the back but nothing special. She looked exquisite and handled her part quite well and maybe that was enough. While everyone says Aaron Taylor-Johnson was miscast as Vronsky, I suppose that is only if you expect the character to be true to the novel. I thought Aaron brought a rakish vulnerability to the character that I've never quite seen on screen -- now that I think of it perhaps only Richard Gere in his youth -- rather like a desperate child on the one hand; on the other an arrogant cad, stopping at nothing to embroil a married woman in his torrid lust (or is it love?) affair. I think he will turn out to be one of this generations most gifted actors. You know the saying "so handsome it hurts". Well he's that too. Just as exquisite as Keira...so in that sense they are well matched, though I thought his depth as an actor was far greater. Their almost impossible beauty adds to the pain of the relationship. Any more and this review would be too long. See it for yourself, stick it out, and if nothing else, see something like you've never seen before.

Count me in the Joe Wright fan club. I've been a pretty diehard fan of his since seeing `Pride and Prejudice' and his knack for elaborate showmanship continues to elate me. He's like a more refined Baz Luhrmann and I love him for that. After failing to ignite audiences with `The Soloist' (the only Wright film I haven't seen) and then trying his hand at the popular `teen kills adults' genre, Wright came back home to his roots with `Anna Karenina'. This also reteamed him with his muse, Keira Knightley, giving them both something intriguing to sink their claws into. `Anna Karenina' was a project met with immediate skepticism. Tolstoy is not an easy author to adapt, and when taking on such a big and beloved literary piece the critics are already sharpening their knives to dig in and destroy. For those who love the original text, I can see where the complaints carry merit. I have not read Tolstoy's gargantuan novel, but I hear that the romantic subplot and Karenina's eventual demise is not the supreme focus of the book and so the constant focus on her romantic plight is a sore spot for those devoted to Tolstoy's classic. For those of us who have not read the book and are basing their opinions on the craftsmanship of the film itself; this is VERY rewarding. Yes, `Anna Karenina' is a sweeping epic that has so much character and style one cannot simply dismiss it. In the hands of visionary Wright, we are taking on a very visceral journey that stays with the viewer long after the credits have finished rolling. The story takes place in 19th century Russia where aristocrat Anna, married to the older Karenin, suffers greatly after entering into an affair with the dashing Count Vronsky. Vronsky is the eye of young Kitty's heart, but he is smitten with the illusive Anna and makes it a point to seek out her affections. In the meantime, Anna is trying to help mend the marriage of her adulterous brother and his wife, Dolly. When word of their affair gets out, shame is placed all over Anna and Karenin, and decisions must be made with regard to the repercussions circulating Anna's poor choices. The story is beautifully woven, with all ends brought into light at the right moments. The uniform performances by the entire cast are essential to this story feeling lush, and Knightley, Law, Macdonald, Vikander and especially Macfayden were up to the task at hand. This was really Wright's movie though, and the way he layers each visual is astonishing to witness. The idea of transporting every moment to the stage was one met with skepticism and yet one that was so elaborately detailed and so visually compelling. He captured so much romance and so much desperation through his visual tricks. The way the dances were staged was just stunning. Wright is a marvelous technician. He understands how to choreograph each moment to make it something memorable, something special. `Anna Karenina' is something special.

Brilliant

俳優陣も素晴らしく心トキメキながら観ました。とても綺麗な映像で名作が更に美しい作品に仕上がってました。毎回、泣ける映画です。

My review: When I entered the movie theatre, I knew a lot about Tolstoy's book, but nothing about this specific movie release. I knew who were starring the movie and that was it. Usually, when going to see movies, I always check out trailers and features and interviews before actually seeing them on the big screen, but this time the title of the movie was plainly enough. I have been a big fan of classical Russian literature from very young age, so I thought I knew what to expect. I was wrong in many levels. When the opening scenes were over, I knew that this movie was very different from any other movie version of Anna Karenina. Well, it was different from any movie based on classical literary fiction! It was mesmerizing and I was hooked from the first minutes and I did not want to leave the dark room of the theatre even when the credentials were running and most of the people were leaving the room. I wanted to stay in the world that the movie makers had created! Screenplay: Let me start with saying, that screenwriter Tom Stoppard kept the story very close to its original and I was very happy about it! It seemed that there was a clear understanding between the late Lev Tolstoy and the screenwriter Tom Stoppard. There were only very few places in the story when I realized, that it is slightly different from the original and even that was falling nicely to its place in the movie. The story was dramatic, heart-wrenching and beautifully executed! It's an epic forbidden love story which takes place in the Russian aristocracy. Anna Karenina is unhappily married, but she has no greater expectations to love, at least until she meets Count Vronsky. The moment they meet, there is attraction and as much as they try to deny it, it is inevitable. It's forbidden love in the society, because Anna decides to leave her husband and asks for divorce. As the isolation from friends, family and everybody else for Anna grows, the more consumed she is by darkness. Karenin does not give her divorce and it does not matter how big the love is between Vronsky and Anna, it gets dramatic consequences. Directing, sets, visuals, choreography, design and music: What made this movie exceptionally unique was the fact, that director Joe Wright staged it on a theatre. Watching the movie was like watching a theatre stage where the scenes were elegantly changed as the story folded out in front of the audience. Scene after scene the settings were changed even though the room was the same. It was original and I loved it. I also realized the the only sets which were used outside of theatre were about Levin and his life on the countryside. This change was nicely balanced where you had the hectic life of Sct. Petersburg and Moscow in one side and the picturesque and slow scenes from Russian nature. There was a lot of attention on choreography and physical contact in Anna Karenina. It was a movie where choreography was a main storyteller. It was often where choreography was substituting words and you can say that in Anna Karenina a picture told more than 1000 words. The ballroom dancing and even a simple touch was sometimes telling more than words. It was tense and filled with passion. Another thing which was special in Anna Karenina, were the close-ups. The facial impressions were as important as the huge scenes with many people. One of the interesting visuals were the usage of lightning and colors. For example there was a clear contrasts when Anna was together with Vronsky compared to when she was with Karenin. The scenes where Anna and Vronsky spend time together are brighter and softer, and the scenes at home with Karenin, the lightning is murkier and darker. It gave some nice effects to the plot and to the mood. I would also like to mention the design of the costumes and the music in the movie. The costumes were breathtakingly beautiful, especially the ones designed for Anna and Kitty and the music was coherent with the development of the story: the intensity of which grew in the rhythm with the drama surrounding it. Casting and ensemble: I liked the characters picked for the roles. Keira Knightly as Anna Karenina was a good choice. She was capable of mirroring Anna Karenina's essence showing both love, passion, courage, pain and last but not least jealousy. When Anna is consumed by isolation and jealousy and realization that the society will never forgive her, Keira Knightly gave her best to show these different reflections of woman in love and pain. I liked that a lot! Jude Law as Karenin was faceted. I liked that he did not show Karenin as a simple man. He loved Anna on his own way and I liked that Jude Law showed his soft side combined with the religious and hurtful side. I really enjoyed the way he played Karenin. I was surprised by Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Vronsky. I have seen him in Nowhere Boy and realized that fact actually after the movie. He has matured as actor and he as Vronsky was a very good choice. He showed passion, tenderness, love and passion of a man in love. Another surprise was Alicia Vikander as Kitty. This Swedish actress was perfect to the role. I was amazed by her grace when she played in A Royal Affair where I was stunned by her presence in acting. I loved her as Kitty, she had spark and sassyness and humbleness when she met Levin after denying him as a husband. I also enjoyed performances of Domhnall Gleeson as Levin and Matthew Macfadyen as Oblonski. Dislikes: The only minor thing that I was disturbed by and it was how the Russian names were pronounced. It sounded awkward to my ears, but this is probably because I grew up in the environment where Russian was used as a second language. I have the similar experiences with many other English spoken movies and I do understand that Russian words and names are difficult to pronounce, but in a classical drama based on Russian literature I think this could have been improved. Generally: I think Anna Karenina was brilliantly made bold version of Tolstoy's novel. I loved the experience and I know that I will watch it again! I highly recommend it!

"Anna Karenina": A good film. The leading role is played by the beautiful Keira Knightley, and the Script was done by famous British playwright Tom Stoppard, so the transition of Tolstoi's greatest novel can't be too bad. - Seriously, folks? Who could ever reach the literary standard of Tolstoi in a script for the Silver Screen. I know a couple of Anna Karenina films - one with Sophie Marceau, one in 1967 with beautiful 33-year old Russian actress Tatiana Yevgenyevna Samoilova (1934-2014), one with Vivien Leigh in 1948, and one with the great Greta Garbo - but none can hold a candle to Leo Tolstoi's "Anna Karenina", it's just to damn GREAT as novel. One must say this for Greta Garbo: She doesn't even try to reach Tolstoi, she creates her own Anna Karenina. Let's see, what 27-year old Keira Knightley does in the 2012 film of Anna Karenina. Mm.

I have seen many performances of "Anna Karenina" on the stage and movies; this film is the best. It has everything that should be in the movie: fantasy, entertainment, teaching, and of course the classic love story. For me, personally, it is not always important "WHAT ABOUT" , it is also important to me "HOW IT'S DONE." From my point of view, movie is entertainment. Of course those critics who find fault with hairstyles or jewelry, they know better what they want from the movies. They always want to hear a Russian accent and see plausible buttons on the dress. But this is not a police report, this is feature film, it is entertainment not a reality show (which really isn't always real or true either) Visual aspects are amazingly talented. Acting work- to the point of perfection. First time in my life I saw real Karenin, not half-dead old man, but a loving decent husband. Keira Knightley is impeccable as Anna. Сrowd scenes are tasteful. Music is touching and talented. Tolstoy's novel is very hard to adapt for a screen; its even difficult to read and the director was able to convey the main message in this beautiful and romantic movie. I agree with Berthold Brecht who said: "When you entertain -teach, and when you teach- entertain"." There is no doubt that this film is not for everyone, and those who like "Scream 2" or " Spiderman", they do not have to watch this movie. All critical reviews are long and tedious, but the film is short, with exciting feelings and has a good taste. There is only one measure of art: talented or not talented. The rest is a matter of taste. But there is no accounting for tastes.This film is talented in every way.

C'est quand même incroyable d'être happée non par l'histoire - de vous à moi je déteste le roman Anna Karénine! - mais pas la façon dont elle est filmée! Joe Wright est virtuose, en emboitant des plans qui s'ouvrent sur d'autres plans, et ce, dans tous les sens, mais sans confusion, sans débordement; tout commence au théâtre - un vieux théâtre délabré - a chaque fois qu'il est question de la vie des Karénine et de la société qu'ils côtoeint, on est au théâtre mais dès que la " vraie" vie loin des commérages citadins commence, l'espace s'ouvre sur la campagne, la nature, la forêt... c'est une idée absolument superbe; comme ce dernier plan où l'on voit Karénine et les deux enfants d'Anna jouer dans un grand pré vert, loin de ce qui a causé la mort de leur mère. Ce parti pris du théâtre dans le théâtre peut agacer, déplaire, lasser, mais c'est précisément ce qui m'a fasciné à un point tel que j'ai regardé le blu-ray, de très belle qualité- trois soirs de suite; les acteurs sont parfaits et ne sombrent pas dans caricature; Jude Law incarne un mari poignant, et Keira Kngihtley parvient à nous émouvoir lorsque ses obsessions commencent à lui faire perdre la tête. Les couleurs ont une chaleur qui contredit le côté " glacé" des décors ou des costumes. On est vraiment comme au théâtre baroque, avec une machinerie qui ne cache pas l'envers du décors, car c'est précisément le sujet du film : comment une femme chute parce que la société à les yeux sur chacun et décide de qui doit tomber. Un film que chaque relecture approfondit et qui entre tout droit dans le coeur pour ne plus le quitter.