Anna Karenina (2012)

[Rage Colored Glasses]

The fast pace in the first half was one of the things I liked more, actually. I also liked that in the first half it felt like more things were going on (more Levin stuff, it felt like there was more with him at least, more Matthew MacFayden), which helped alleviate the weakness of the central pairing. Once that pairing took center stage as the movie went on, the pace slowed to a crawl for me. The one saving quality of the second half was that that was when Law, the clear best in show, had his great material.

[veritas]

I'm listening to the score on Spotify right now and wow is it amazing. I feel like I was so wrapped up in other facets of the film, that I--I don't even know--"missed it" or something? Which seems impossible? But yeah: divine work by Marianelli.

[camille]

the first half of the film was defo > the second half (despite some great actressing by Keira)

The first half is a mini-masterpiece.

[Moviefreak]

I don't know if I should be afraid of being called a post-recylcer, but I have to echo at lot of what was already said here. I loved both of the previous Wright/Knightley collaborations and I really wanted to like this, but ultimately I just didn't. Now that's not to say that this was bad by any means. There was a lot to respect here. The ambition of the project, the work of the entire tech team and even the acting in parts was very commendable. My issue with this was two fold. First, this was over directed and was too stylized for its own good. I like Joe Wright as a director, but here he needed to edit himself and rein some of his showy tendencies in because he just didn't let the material breathe, which made for a final product that was too artificial and too claustrophobic. The entire thing felt devoid of any emotion and as a viewer, yes you marveled at the beauty of the screen, but you never felt moved or emotionally invested in any of these characters. They just felt like another prop, a beautiful one, but still a prop. My second biggest problem with this was that the film banked so much on the love story between Anna and Vronsky, but Keira and Aaron Johnson had absolutely no chemistry whatsoever. Overall, I liked Keira here. She was luminous and beautiful and plays Anna knowing that she's not always a very sympathetic character. The problem was that the style of this film just doesn't allow her or the audience to fully engage on an emotional level with this character. As I said earlier, the techs are all brilliant, but the real standout was the sumptuous score. Dario Marianelli is one of my favorite composers currently working and he does not disappoint here.

[Silaron]

Just came back from watching this and it was everything I expected it to be: great.

However, it did have pacing issues like everyone has said. It felt longer than it was. I loved the staging Wright implemented especially with the dance scenes. Those dance scenes were beautifully choreographed and accompanied by Marianelli's score was magnificent. First half is a masterpiece. Second half isn't as strong. Knightley is in a career best in this movie and should rightfully be nominated and Jude Law was brilliant.

I give it a 9/10

[Scarmi]

I thought this was a terrible idea from when it was first announced, so it's not shocking that I didn't like it (I really was trying to give it a chance!), but I seriously loathed it. The whole concept of turning Anna Karenina into a deranged circus puppet show or a very, very poor man's Lola Montès or whatever the fuck this was supposed to be reminds me of, like, a gimmick a high school drama teacher would come up with to boil a complex work down to an Important Theme and convey that Theme in an overly literal, "artistic" way regardless of whether or not it makes any fucking sense; and of course because it doesn't make sense, it can't even be consistent about it.

Even taking as a given that Joe Wright fundamentally doesn't understand the text and was going to do this stupid thing with it, it could have turned out like Pride and Prejudice: as wrong as it is, it's kind of competent for what it is even though I don't like it. But the problems everyone else has identified totally doom it: there's no chemistry between the leads and no context or emotional investment in the story whatsoever. And I didn't even like the technical elements most people have liked and I expected to like--there's really nothing good about this movie. I thought the costumes were totally cheap and tacky (especially the jewelry! My friend commented to me that it looked like it came from Canal Street, which I think is about right), I found the choreography in the stupid endless dance sequences completely amateurish and ridiculous, the editing is out of control, the script is completely banal (what is Tom Stoppard doing?), and the actors behave so that all the characters are completely hateful and give us no insight into their inner lives--except Jude Law, who's much too sympathetic! Ugh.

Every time today that I've remembered that I actually saw this movie I've gotten angry about it all over again.

[CINNAMON]

Oh, boy! A poor man's Lola Montes! Uh-oh! Brits doing Russia! Scared!

[Scarmi]

Oh, boy! A poor man's Lola Montes! Uh-oh! Brits doing Russia! Scared!

Yeah, that's another thing: there is nothing about this adaptation except the fact that Anna carries around a shitty-looking icon and that Emily Watson sometimes talks about Russia that has anything to do with Russia, either explicitly or in terms of the design or the emotional content. There's not really even anything about Russian religion, culture, or politics at all. Why bother calling it Anna Karenina?

[camille]

Even taking as a given that Joe Wright fundamentally doesn't understand the text and was going to do this stupid thing with it, it could have turned out like Pride and Prejudice: as wrong as it is, it's kind of competent for what it is even though I don't like it. But the problems everyone else has identified totally doom it: there's no chemistry between the leads and no context or emotional investment in the story whatsoever. And I didn't even like the technical elements most people have liked and I expected to like--there's really nothing good about this movie. I thought the costumes were totally cheap and tacky (especially the jewelry! My friend commented to me that it looked like it came from Canal Street, which I think is about right), I found the choreography in the stupid endless dance sequences completely amateurish and ridiculous, the editing is out of control, the script is completely banal (what is Tom Stoppard doing?), and the actors behave so that all the characters are completely hateful and give us no insight into their inner lives--except Jude Law, who's much too sympathetic! Ugh.

Every time today that I've remembered that I actually saw this movie I've gotten angry about it all over again.

FAIL. The jewellery was in fact multi-million pound original Chanel jewellery...

[russen18]

Ok so yeah, this was everything I had hoped it would be. Loved it. But yes it is flawed.

Having read the reviews, I knew this wasnt going to be everyone's cup of tea, which was long predicted when the concept of setting it in a theater, and having a more impressionistic approach, and duh when the trailer premiered brought some to reservations and some to maybe it will work. Well I am in the camp that says it does work. Setting it in the theater was utter brilliance. Sure some maybe turned off by it, but I always say when Sofia Coppola's opening credits of Marie Antoinette open with Naturals Not In It, you either go with it, or you dont. The opening minutes of the film are utter brilliance, and while it is irritating at first, just go with it, IT DOES GET BETTER. (Of course just my opinon.) Here is my review on the performances, the techs, and the script/directing.

Keira was superb. You truly do see another level of acting here, and I am glad she is now playing more adult roles. Her Anna while not sympathetic compared to other versions portrayed before her, does indeed entrap you if whether you should love her or hate her. That to me is the Anna Karenina in the book. THe beginning of the film you adore her, just like the Russian society adores her, by the middle you start to question her sanity, and by the end you kind of do root for her to throw herself under the train. She was the cause of her happiness and unhappiness. A brilliant performance which should not be forgotten, but probably will. Shame.

The rest of the cast is equally impressive, but most importantly Jude Law. Another great turn from an underrated actor who like Knightley, gives a brilliant performance as the scorned husband who like Anna is the cause of both his happiness and unhappiness. Law put it best in an interview that Karenin does love Anna, but is unable to show it to her in the way she wants to. Out of all the characters in the film, he is the most sympathetic, and Law makes him human. His chemistry with Knightley is utter bliss, and you can believe they are husband and wife.

I have said it numerous times and I am still shocked that some critics actually liked him the role, but Aaron Taylor Johnson is severly miscast! Sorry. The guy cannot act. I think his perf in Nowhere Boy was somewhat of a fluke, but the reasony why so many people say he has no chemistry with Keira is because well, hes not really a great actor. But one has to think if Wright did this on purpose, casting a guy who would have no chemistry with the lead, because we as the audience need to see that maybe Anna and Vronsky while have lust for each other, there is no chemistry between them like Anna and her husband Karenin. However, its just a theory, and one of the films flaws lies heavily with him. One could only wonder if they had cast Henry Cavill, Tom Hardy, or newcomer Mark Ryder (Canal's/ Netflix series Borgia) as Vronsky if the the lead, Knightley would have faired better with the chemistry. But other than that, Johnson left a huge void which needed to be filled.

I can go on and on about Dohmnall Gleeson and Alicia Vikander, the true MVP's of the film, but to keep it short I will just say that this pairing like Law and Knightley are just fantastic. I dont think Mcavoy or Ronan would have done these characters justice. The letter block scene killed me, and the entire audience, people were sniffiling, and yes we clapped for them! Vikander is on the rise, especially with her stirring performance in A Royal Affair, and she is definitley one to look out for. Glad she got great reviews for her performance as Kitty.

The other supporting characters are all great, especially Macfadyen and Macdonald as Oblonsky and Dolly. They were the comedy duo who got the most laughs in the theater I was at, even though you shouldnt really be laughing at their storyline. I can see why people felt rather WTF with Ruth Wilson, Emily Watson, Olivia Williams, Bill Skarsgaard, Emerald Fennell, Shirley Henderson, and Michelle Dockery in small roles, but in reality their characters are really not the focus in the novel. They represent society who love and adore Anna, and then turn on her with the exception of Michelle Dockery's character Princess Mygakya. One can interpret that some of the aristocrats probably wanted Anna's downfall, especially Princess Merkolva played by the brilliant but underrated Emerald Fennell.

The techs are just wow! The production design can easily win, if Les Miserables turns out to be too ugly, or too fake looking. The sets used for each scene were just awe inspiring and in reality characters in the film as well. The decor, the beautiful sets used for the ball sequence to emphasize the aristocrats are in a russian palace, to Bety's soiree garden fireworks display were just jaw dropping that I defy you not to be amazed. There were alot of OOOHs and Awws in the theater I was at, especially the scene where Levin envisions Kitty sitting amongs the angels in the heaven. Costumes and jewlery were another plus, and it just goes to show that Jaqueline Durran is on top of her game. She used her artistic license to showcase that Russian aristocrats much prefered the french style of dress, and thus Durran to make sure she got the point across turned to 50's couture of Dior, Balenciaga, and Chanel to emphasize how decadent these people were. I dont understand how some people thought these costumes were cheap. Especially Anna's costumes. Cinematography and music are also spot on. Marienelli never ceases to disappoint me. His score here while not as memorable as Atonement's or Pride and Prejudice, does still does semi struck a chord with its lush orchestra and screeching, passionate violins. Give Seemus the oscar for cinematography! Just superb, and other-worldly. Sweeping, epic, and romantic his use of color and contrast is brilliace. Kind of reminds me of Marie Antoinette where in the beginning everything is light and happy, and then towards the end, it becomes dark and looming revolution ahead for the aristocrats. The outdoor scenes just like the theater scenes are a marvel as well. The flaw here with the techs is the editing. There was too many quick shots, and alot of unecessary shots. Wright got it right in Pride and Prejudice, but kind of faltered in Atonement, then picked up again with Hannah, and here kind of back to Atonement. He seemed to have wanted the editing to be quick and fast like the dancers dancing, but in the end, it kind of made a big mess.

The script is fine and all, but there are some problems with it also. Most especially the lines by Vronsky. I rolled my eyes at some of his dialogue especailly the meadow scene with Anna, but then I kept thinking well maybe its just A-T-Johnson who is fucking this up, but no, Stoppard did add some uncessary romantic lines there which to me were borderline TWILIGHT. Also there didnt seem to be a flow of words like he did with Shakespeare in Love. Alot of it was just some quick snippets of dialogue and then on to the next scene. Its not as bad as people especially some critics are making it out to be, and while it does capture the many roles of love, I think Stoppard got a bit lazy on this one.

Wright has to be on the best british directors working. He has a lot of ideas and while some dont work, others sometimes do. His idea to set the film on a stage was at first daunting and almost ehh scary for me, but again just go with his vision and you will enjoy the movie. If you dont, its ok, your only human. I am glad he didnt do another period piece in a period looking house and period looking locations because we have seen it all before. Sure some can complain that THIS FILM ISNT ANNA KARENINA, but to me thats the beauty of film and of art. You can make period film anyway you want too just as long as you get the point of across. Coppola did it with Marie Antoinette, she showcased in her version that both Marie, her husband, and her inner circle were kids ruling an empire. They partied cause they could, they drank cause the could, the spent millions of money cause they could, and at the end finally realize that they are adults and need to take things seriously, which of course happens a little too late.
With Anna Karenina, Wright showcases in his verison that the Russian aristocrats were always putting on a show. To how they dressed, how the talked, how the danced, how they dinned, everything was on for show to others. Hence why I think Wright's version works so brilliantly. You believe these people to be hypocrits, and are having a bit of a identity crisis, and kind of get why the revolution happened.

Overall I thought the film was great. It wont be alot of people's cup of tea, but it doesnt hurt to just try. I do agree this does need a second viewing to appreciate it more. Especially for the performances of Knightley, Law, Gleeson and Vikander. The techs are just sensational and I am calling it right now this is winnings costumes, with maybe an outside shot for productions design and score. The WOM after the showing seemed pretty good to me. People were discussing it, and there didnt seem to be any qualms with the way it was set. One lady did tell her husband though that it ran too long, which I kind of agree. The editing really needed to make a clean crisp film, and it didnt. The flaws obviously are in the editing, some screenwriting, and a major but major FLAW was casting Aaron Taylor Johnson.

****/***** stars

[veritas]

On second viewing, I can safely call this my favorite movie of the year. Now that I knew what to expect, execution-wise, I could just sit back and marvel at...well...everything.

So sad that I seem to be one of the only ones who feels this way!

[erikdean]

On second viewing, I can safely call this my favorite movie of the year. Now that I knew what to expect, execution-wise, I could just sit back and marvel at...well...everything.

So sad that I seem to be one of the only ones who feels this way!

Yes, sad indeed.

[Thomas]

Go Kenan!

[DirkDiggler]

On second viewing, I can safely call this my favorite movie of the year. Now that I knew what to expect, execution-wise, I could just sit back and marvel at...well...everything.

So sad that I seem to be one of the only ones who feels this way!

Not my favorite film of the year, but I do love it.

[camille]

On second viewing, I can safely call this my favorite movie of the year. Now that I knew what to expect, execution-wise, I could just sit back and marvel at...well...everything.

So sad that I seem to be one of the only ones who feels this way!

I couldn't agree more about the second viewing of this film. After the first time, there were so many things that stayed with me, that I really wanted to see it again badly. As I suspected, the whole thing made much more sense, artistically, second time round, including the powerhouse that is Keira Knightley's performance...

[haqyunus]

Empty, cold, half-hearted and affected. These are the words that come into mind and the way I felt afterwards. The whole radical approach ended up merely being a gimmick. There was surprising lack of passion and depth through-out, a serious issue given the source material. Definitely a lot of effort has been put into the technicals but given the uninspiring direction, even the stylistic transitions were not that original or clever (letter pieces turning into snow flakes, toy train into real train etc. Really?) or lazy (the convenient standard switch to country-side scenes). The dialog and script was superficial, heavy-handed and even hokey in some places (no matter whether it was tackling guilt, morality, social critique or politics). Given how passionate and dramatic and profound the novel is (maybe I am feeling this way that I have read the book), the film is disappointment, as I said again, because absence of any real emotion (the first meeting in the train, the end, the dance interaction etc.) Acting was mediocre to hammy to uninterested by most of the cast with the horrendous Aaron Johnson leading the charge and who has a charisma and dashing-ness of a used teabag. Oh! how I pine for Age of Innocence and Scorcese.

[Habsburg]

I enjoyed this a great deal.

[veritas]

[nadine]

First viewing for me and I enjoyed it. Have to wait until January to see it a second time on the big screen. The proposal scene

[steve4922]

I found the enormously stylized presentation to be off-putting for about the first half of the film. But eventually the story drew me in, and in the end I was glad I saw it. I thought Knightley did a fine job in a difficult role, but for me the best performance in the film was Jude Law's restrained and nuanced turn as Anna's long suffering husband. The costumes and sets were almost too lavish to be believed, but I assume that's what Wright intended.

What Tolstoy would have made of this one can only imagine. As Scarmi said, although Tolstoy's novels are first, last and always about 19th century Russia, there's very little that is specific to Russia in the film.