Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Jemima It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

murat-kaya-108-778284 The cinema theater scene moved with this film. The film is definitely a masterpiece. The splendor of the stage transitions, the perfection of the player, the arrangement of the script with the book, the mimics gestures, the clothes, the scene were all great. But I must say here that everyone can not taste the same taste. This movie was a totally different thing. The picture of a painter, the music of your music was wonderful. I love the film, and once again I admire Keira's acting. You have to watch. Good looking.

danishwedding This is the first review I have submitted for any movie, at any time. I am doing so because I was unusually pleased with this film. For the record, I am generally a very harsh critic. As an example, I just saw "Darkest Hour" on Churchill, in the theater, which Rotten Tomatoes gave 4 out of 5 starts (or tomatoes?) whereas I came out of that theater critiquing the music and sound track. Otherwise, good film.The Karenina film, for me, was seen on television and without any plan or knowledge of the film before hand. In short, I had heard the name but had no expectations. As a result, I was open to it.The costumes were fantastic, the angles, lighting and sound, as well. The unusual manner of filming was, as some reviewers called it "artsy fartsy" but accepting that it would be such early on, it did not distract me. Perhaps it even added just enough. Would I have been bored with out it? It is possible. Maybe it filled in some areas that would have left holes otherwise - I won't know.The acting was also good. Each role was well-defined, well-played, and there was no discomfort or obvious "issue" between actors. In other words, it flowed well and was believable. Yes, there was the contrived moment when Karenas lover lifted her in the air while dancing, and the choreography seemed to intentionally reflect what the director might have thought was a woman's orgasm, but that passed quickly and moved on. In general the emotions evoked seemed real, and yes, many issues were raised that left me wondering - not only about the history and how relations were at the time, but also how relations are now. To bring it forward, it was almost as if the old story revealed that co-dependence, as we might call it today; that inexplicable passion that binds people in ways that can be as destructive as they seem positive, can seem attractive, but in the end destroy us. It was passion that lead the main character to set aside her awareness and concern over morality. It was passion that lead her to mis-perceive the effect that her choices would likely have on her down the road, and which caused her to forget how much she loved her son. I am left wanting to see it again, or to read the book. So for me - it gets nine starts and recommendations that others see it.

sol- Leo Tolstoy's story of a Russian woman torn between a passionate extramarital lover and her comfortable life in a loveless marriage is interestingly turned into a filmed stage play here. If an odd artistic decision, it gives a nice, dreamlike quality to the material as the camera glides, floats and creeps about as the actors walk around stage to change set and location. Dario Marianelli's lively music score also often enlivens the film beyond the stage-bound setting and as workmen move up and down in synchrony, the film almost has the choreography of a big budget musical. No amount of audiovisual pizazz can, however, disguise how melodramatic the tale is in director Joe Wright's hands. The casting of Keira Knightley does not help either as she does little to render her character sympathetic and while Jude Law's subdued approach to playing her husband initially seems like a stroke of genius, his eliciting of few emotions after everything Knightley puts him through never quite feels right. In short, Anna feels less a victim of a repressive society and more of a victim of her own instability and an uncaring husband. As mentioned, the film looks and sounds magnificent enough that the potency of the story is not quite so important, but it is hard not to wonder what may have been here with more attention to characters/performance and less attention to audiovisual splendour.

leplatypus When i think to all the time, efforts and sacrifices Tolstoy made to write his monumental drama in a realistic way, i really don't understand why this movie decided to spend all its money to do a sort of opera, musical thing ! When i saw this opening, i thought it was a play on stage and as the movie kept it that way, i felt then so betrayed and sad because i knew that it would be 2 long hours of poop. Sure it can feature a lovely Keira and the cool and talented « kick ass » but those mobile, combined sets and this dreadful vision really destroyed all the story ! It was such an opportunity to depict imperial Russia and pay homage to such a sad life as this poor Anna becomes crazy of pain and decides to die. But in a way, i'm not really surprised : America is really this fool country, full of money that just can't buy and understand artistic genius or creativity ! Even if monkeys ate caviar everyday and moves in Porsche, they are still monkeys when you give them pencils ! That's another example here of this big nonsense that wants to do silly circus acts for the eyes when the author wanted to touch the hearts ! Just horrible !