Animenter There are women in the film, but none has anything you could call a personality.

ThrillMessage There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Hulkeasexo it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

TheLittleSongbird Ranking this 2000 mini-series against the other Anna Karenina adaptations, it's somewhere in the middle, with the 1977 mini-series being the best version, with the 1967, 1935 and 1948 films also being better, and the 2012 film being the weakest and the 1997 and 1985 adaptations also being ranked lower.At just four hours, for such a mammoth and richly detailed story and with the many complex characters, this mini-series did feel too short, a minimum of six hours up to ten would have been more ideal. Adaptation-wise, it was a little better than expected considering the length, because the characters, central plot lines and all the important details and scenes are all here, but as a result of the too short length pacing feels rushed, one doesn't feel as immersed in the atmosphere or Russian history and society as they would like and characterisation is not quite as rich. There are instances where the camera work does get a bit irritating, being more showing-offy instead of being more intimate, and the chemistry between Anna and Vronsky sometimes could have been stronger and more developed, a few of the later scenes are a little cold and the earlier infatuation scenes a little hastily written.However, most of the photography is very nicely done, being beautiful and atmospheric, while the period detail is sumptuously evoked with breath taking scenery and handsome costuming. The mini-series is hauntingly and sensitively scored, thoughtfully written with a good deal of Tolstoy's writing style coming through and classily directed. The story captures the tragic romance aspects with poignancy and the social drama with wit and tension, with a gloriously romantic ballroom sequence and a heart-wrenching suicide scene.The performances are uniformly good, though all the roles have been better performed in previous adaptations. Helen McCrory is a heartfelt Anna, her passionate later scenes played with sensitivity and great emotional intensity. Vronsky has been problematically cast in about half the adaptations, but Kevin McKidd's interpretation ranks among the better ones, ideally portraying the passionate stalker and sympathetic lover aspects of the role without ever being stiff or stereotypical. Karenin, like in the 1977 adaptation, is much closer to the conflicted character in the book than to the opposite that he has been portrayed in, this conflict of doing things that highlight more of his weaknesses than his strengths is portrayed magnificently by Stephen Dillane. Douglas Henshall is a sensitive and layered Levin, though his Glaswegian accent does distract, while Mark Strong and Paloma Baeza also fare very well.Overall, good if not great adaptation of a classic,that would have been better with a longer length primarily. 7/10 Bethany Cox

cluciano63 I loved the casting from the roles of Anna, Vronsky, Karenin (Stephen Dillane who was so good in the Cazalets) Dolly (loved her in the Forsyte Saga) Levin who was charming, Kitty was just right, even Stivo. Anna actually looked like she could be the mother of an eight- year old, unlike Kiera Knightley in the (my opinion) terribly miscast version last year. This version runs very close to the book and is filmed in a very realistic manner, not so glossy and perfect-looking, again like last year's version. I think it is a gem and only came across it by chance, as I was re-reading the book this weekend and browsed Youtube to take a break and came across it. I am just so pleased that I discovered it and watched it all in one sitting. When Masterpiece gets it right, they really do a great job.

sp_rose2005 I've seen almost all the versions of Anna Karenina, and I'm trying to compare them with the book. So far, this version is the most true one to Tolsty's novel. It is very detailed which helps to express the true feelings of the characters the way Tolstoy created them. I didn't like the actors much, especially Anna, she's not attractive enough to play Anna. The perfect actors for Anna Karenina are in the 1997 version. Sophie Marceau made an excellent Anna, with her beautiful young flirtatious look, and the confidence with which she carries herself even when she's in despair.Helen McCrory just looks ill all the time, even in the beginning, she just doesn't have that presence that Tolstoy's Anna does. If the actors and settings of this movie were substituted with the ones from 1997 version, this movie would be absolutely perfect! Although it doesn't give the whole picture of 19th century Russia the way Tolstoy pictured it and the way the 1997 version does, this is still the most accurate version, and expresses the true meaning of the novel. Definitely recommended for people who haven't read the book, as well as those who have!

heather_m1986 This Masterpiece Theatre production gives life to Tolstoy vast and ambitious masterpiece. It's a formidable task considering that Tolstoy was often a deeply psychological writer and spent hours probing the souls of his characters. That being said, the cast in this adaptation do a marvelous job in conveying their character's profound and often misguided humanity.Tolstoy co-protagonists, Anna Karenina and Constantine Levin are both idealists searching for love and meaning. Helen McCrory is not an obvious choice for Anna but the character has suffered from being played by picture perfect actresses who have trouble conveying Anna's passion. Helen McCrory's is believable as a mature woman who is seemingly very comfortable in her skin and has the grace and power to make men fall easily in love with her.Douglas Hensall plays Levin with gentleness as a sensitive, conflicted man plagued by doubt and his own inadequacies.He romance with Kitty is sweet and understated. His Scottish accent, beard, and awkward manners lend to his rusticism. However, as with any adaptation of Anna Karenina, much of Levin struggles with his own conflicted personal morality and faith are left out.The best performance comes from Stephen Dillane as Anna's dour, principled husband. A man who believes in keeping his emotions in check, Dillane's Karenin is a man who's suffering his wife's betrayal and is conflicted between the desire to punish her and his love for her. In the novel Karenin is a homely man in his fifties, but here he is far handsomer and about 10 years younger which is helpful because it prevents viewers from believing that Anna deserts old, ugly husband simply because he is old and ugly.Also of note is Mark Strong as Anna's bon vivant brother, Stiva, who, as in the book, remains likable despite being irresponsible and faithless to his wife, Dolly. Paloma Baeza, Amanda Root and Kevin McKidd also turn in fine performances and Levin's sweetheart, Dolly and Anna's lover, respectively.The film's use hand-held cameras, quick cuts, and odd angles were at times interesting and at times, very distracting. Admittedly,it was nice to see a period film not shot in the very staid and static fashion of most period films. This production is full of movement: train chug by, people run upstairs, skirts billow, couples argue violently.It has been said that readers should take Anna Karenina as a "piece of life" and this adaptation has an accessibility and realism and lacks that daunting glossy "period film" sheen. These people are people who could live in our time or any time