Well, to my own surprise, I actually did not think that it was bad :-P
What I liked the most is that every scene (with the exception of the shagging) was taken from the book. There were even dialogues quasi word by word from the book. So no literary distortions nor added directors' fantasies in the plot. And I honestly very much do appreciate that!!! Unfortunately the book is 800 pages and therefore many scenes were left out, that's why for someone who has not read the book, the movie seems to be randomly cut together. But it's not, it's just that important scenes and characters are missing in between the scenes from the movie (let's say about 2/3 of the book :-)) which would actually explain the character development and links. Also, there is no time to incorporate the questioning of all the social political aspects and feudalism as well as religion, ethics and the meaning of life, which are constantly reoccurring themes in the book. It was the time boiling up to the uprising. And the question about women's rights and duties, etc.
The movie is a stylised caricature of the book, a sort of humoristic variation on a theme, but in a charming way. The juxtaposing of the narrative in a theatre with the real-life shots, is clearly hinting from the very start that this movie is setting the plot 'on stage' and I thought that it was quite cleverly made. Also, costumes, sets and sound are all 21st century exaggerations of 19th century Russia, nothing authentic, but without falling into tasteless kitsch. The dancing at the ball was pretty hilarious because it did not seem to me pretentious but rather burlesque. The movie-making is obviously influenced by Baz Luhrman and MTV, etc., seems to be in fashion now...
The characters were age-wise rightly cast, and were 'novel-conform' directed. I'm not a fan of Keira Knightly, and I have always seen Anna as someone more settled, soft, dreamy, calm, sophisticated, sensual, voluptuous, smart, witty and a tad cynical with a hint of haughtiness (and KK does not exactly fit). I preferred Sophie Marceau, but unfortunately she played in a movie-version where the entire story got changed.
Reading the book I very much liked Oblonsky despite being a philanderer, but he comes out in the movie rather as a clown, saying that I thought that Matthew Macfadyen did a brilliant job.
I can't stand Levin in the novel, but he turns out to be the 'good' guy in the movie (which is nonsense for he's very conservative, seigniorial, superior, ignorant, against invention and can't stand babies, etc. in short, a very boring man) ...but probably only if you haven't read the book.... I loved the scene when Levin is proposing to Kitty through the letter-game...exactly like in the book!
Jude Law was very good as Karenin, but here again, by having omitted some important dialogues from the book between Karenin and other people, his character does not reveal much in the movie... shame.
To cut it short, there are three different kind of marriages/love depicted in the book to observe and discuss. In the movie we get a glimpse of 2 but are predominantly focusing on Anna & Vronsky. It's not exactly what Tolstoy wanted, that's why the book is 800 pages. In the book, in the end, the question is left unanswered, for the definitions of 'love', 'loving' and the values of marriage are very individual and incomparable. The movie puts the main protagonists in a bad light and sends the message that the 'surviving' couple is the 'real' one, which in my opinion is humbug. It's none's right to judge. So that left a bitter taste in my mouth, but the movie was made for the mass-market and probably with a hidden religious message of morals to the innocent public...
this is not very elaborate... but I thought the movie was enjoyable, a one-time entertainment, but better to read the book first!
What I liked the most is that every scene (with the exception of the shagging) was taken from the book. There were even dialogues quasi word by word from the book. So no literary distortions nor added directors' fantasies in the plot. And I honestly very much do appreciate that!!! Unfortunately the book is 800 pages and therefore many scenes were left out, that's why for someone who has not read the book, the movie seems to be randomly cut together. But it's not, it's just that important scenes and characters are missing in between the scenes from the movie (let's say about 2/3 of the book :-)) which would actually explain the character development and links. Also, there is no time to incorporate the questioning of all the social political aspects and feudalism as well as religion, ethics and the meaning of life, which are constantly reoccurring themes in the book. It was the time boiling up to the uprising. And the question about women's rights and duties, etc.
The movie is a stylised caricature of the book, a sort of humoristic variation on a theme, but in a charming way. The juxtaposing of the narrative in a theatre with the real-life shots, is clearly hinting from the very start that this movie is setting the plot 'on stage' and I thought that it was quite cleverly made. Also, costumes, sets and sound are all 21st century exaggerations of 19th century Russia, nothing authentic, but without falling into tasteless kitsch. The dancing at the ball was pretty hilarious because it did not seem to me pretentious but rather burlesque. The movie-making is obviously influenced by Baz Luhrman and MTV, etc., seems to be in fashion now...
The characters were age-wise rightly cast, and were 'novel-conform' directed. I'm not a fan of Keira Knightly, and I have always seen Anna as someone more settled, soft, dreamy, calm, sophisticated, sensual, voluptuous, smart, witty and a tad cynical with a hint of haughtiness (and KK does not exactly fit). I preferred Sophie Marceau, but unfortunately she played in a movie-version where the entire story got changed.
Reading the book I very much liked Oblonsky despite being a philanderer, but he comes out in the movie rather as a clown, saying that I thought that Matthew Macfadyen did a brilliant job.
I can't stand Levin in the novel, but he turns out to be the 'good' guy in the movie (which is nonsense for he's very conservative, seigniorial, superior, ignorant, against invention and can't stand babies, etc. in short, a very boring man) ...but probably only if you haven't read the book.... I loved the scene when Levin is proposing to Kitty through the letter-game...exactly like in the book!
Jude Law was very good as Karenin, but here again, by having omitted some important dialogues from the book between Karenin and other people, his character does not reveal much in the movie... shame.
To cut it short, there are three different kind of marriages/love depicted in the book to observe and discuss. In the movie we get a glimpse of 2 but are predominantly focusing on Anna & Vronsky. It's not exactly what Tolstoy wanted, that's why the book is 800 pages. In the book, in the end, the question is left unanswered, for the definitions of 'love', 'loving' and the values of marriage are very individual and incomparable. The movie puts the main protagonists in a bad light and sends the message that the 'surviving' couple is the 'real' one, which in my opinion is humbug. It's none's right to judge. So that left a bitter taste in my mouth, but the movie was made for the mass-market and probably with a hidden religious message of morals to the innocent public...
this is not very elaborate... but I thought the movie was enjoyable, a one-time entertainment, but better to read the book first!