MovieChat Forums > Anna Karenina (1997) Discussion > disappointed

disappointed

posted 18 years ago by blumenwiesen
19 replies | jump to latest

Watching this movie I was just thoroughly disappointed. I love the music, love the scenery and I appreciate the fact that they tried to make the pov similar to the book, the problem being that they didn't carry it through. The narrator is not present for more than half of the film. What was worst was that the film had such great potential. That makes it an ok movie in the end - you can watch it and even like it. But it could have been great. And it is not because the relationship between Anna Karenina and Count Wronski doesn't work. There is no subtlety between them, no development in their relationship. This does not mean that their relationship does not change - but the changes don't happen gradually. And, sorry to say, Sophie Marceau has to be one of the worst actresses alive. I watched the interview on the DVD and it became very apparent that she did not have a clue about the character she was portraying. All she could talk about was "the great honour" it had been to play Anna. Well, it was a wasted honour, it seems. She is a very beautiful woman, but her performance in this film had me seriously doubting her acting talents.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rturley 18 years ago

I agree with you. I think Marceau was miscast. Her french accent was very distracting. The biggest problem with this movie, however, is that it's too short! What is it 108 minutes? for a story this complex? A regular feature film is usually closer to 120 minutes, let alone something this epic. The problem wasn't that there wasn't any chemistry between Bean and Marceau. I thought there was plenty. The problem was the plot was so rushed! we go from a conversation at a dinner party to having sex in the very next scene! There should have been more of the events leading up to the consummation, so that you have a chance to be invested in the fates of the lovers. The director and screen writer were the biggest faults in this movie!

[–] jsb23 18 years ago

"The director and screen writer were the biggest faults in this movie!" says rturley

please don't blame bernard rose the director, poor person, he had the intention of making a very good movie, and did it probably, but the studio warner brothers and icon productions started cutting it whilst he was away in London because they thought that it was too horrible or some other nonsense like that. When he came back to hollywood, the movie was so cut that he considered removing his name from it. It was a disaster for him because his reputation was destroyed, and never made any major films after that.
The original version of the film he made is unfindable, though he has been trying to search for it these last nine years.

and though I don't like sophie marceau because she is a very bad actress, I have to say that her french accent is the best thing for the movie, for if you read the book, french was very important at the time in Russia, it was a fashionable language for the leading classes. I am of the opinion that Mia Kirshner's american/canadian accent was heavily distracting because it made the movie appear modern, though I have to say her acting was perfectly adequate. they should have considered dubbing.

[–] Tyler_Durden_pt 17 years ago

"the studio warner brothers and icon productions started cutting it whilst he was away in London because they thought that it was too horrible or some other nonsense like that. When he came back to hollywood, the movie was so cut that he considered removing his name from it."

That would explain the terrible editing and the awkward pace of the film. It's a shame how such a great story, good actors, great and apropriate Tchaikovski soundtrack and a beautiful cinematography resulted in this film, which is little more than average. Studios and their small minds and short sights... While I don't think it as terrible as some people do (I gave it a 6 out of 10), I think it could have been a good epic and romantic film, but it tails off towards the end. The editing turned it into a soap opera, at least after the first hour or so has gone. The last 20 minutes are a lame excuse for an ending.

A film based on one of the most important novels ever deserved better. 108 minutes for a Tolstoy adaptation is a joke.

Whoever edited and decided upon the final cut for this was probably using the same opium as Anna Karenina.

The void is a mirror.

[–] weeKnightingale 18 years ago

I would like to see this! Does anyone know of an English version for DVD region 1

~thoughts through my looking glass~

[–] weeKnightingale 18 years ago

I read the comment by Robert John Bennett ([email protected]) and threfore I am looking forward to enjoying this film when it hopefully arrives from HK. It seems to be very hard to find in English!

~thoughts through my looking glass~

[–] jsb23 18 years ago

You can get it on vhs on amazon, but since it was such a flop i think it might be impossible to get on DVD.

[–] weeKnightingale 18 years ago

I did find a region 1 DVD on ebay from a Hong Kong dealer. I have watched several times now! I agree with some of the above comments :but, I like this film. I reread the book and even enjoyed that more with the images of the film in the back of my mind! The different accents did not really bother me!!
Karolyn Greengaze
thoughts through the looking glass
find peace my brother

[–] weeKnightingale 18 years ago

Just saw a trailer of Anna Karenina on YouTube! It seemed to have scenes that are not in the movie that I have! So, are there 2 versions? Did WB cut it? I read the above comment that it was cut without the directors input! What a shame!

Karolyn Greengaze
thoughts through the looking glass

[–] tijerasmac 17 years ago

I wasn't as disappointed as you and others seem to have been although I agree that Sophie Marceau was miscast. However, the score was stunning, as was the cinematography, and Sean Bean made a very hot Vronsky, in my opinion. They finally cast him in something where he could show his leading man potential, somewhat a la his Sharpe series character, instead of the usual evil spy, serial killer, or general no-goodnik. The sub-plot with Levin I found pretty boring--I don't think it helped the movie and certainly slowed it down. Overall, however, I liked the all-out romantic excess of the story and the settings.

[–] filmfan86 17 years ago

I just saw this film the other day - I haven't read the book, or seen any other versions on film. Just from that lone viewing - i one thing that I noticed - it seemed the romance was quite rushed and not really that believeable.
Does that sound about right?

It was an ok film - but not what i was expecting. The running time also seemed shorter than a book that size.

"Everything in this room is eatable. Even I'm eatable. But that’s called cannibalism."

[–] autumnpari 17 years ago

Levin isn't a side plot. He's half the story, and if this movie made him into a sub-plot then they missed the point of the novel. Both Levin and Anna are protagonists, and Levin should have had great prominence since his character is Tolstoy's medium for the moral of the story.

[–] jsb23 17 years ago

when i read the book i found Anna Karenina's story boring at times, Levin's was far more exciting. perhaps i should have had more patience with anna, cos i skipped over some of her parts.

earlier on i said "the studio warner brothers and icon productions started cutting it whilst he was away in London because they thought that it was too horrible or some other nonsense like that. When he came back to hollywood, the movie was so cut that he considered removing his name from it."

there's lots of stuff on the internet about this, from what I've read it seems it was more mel gibson's icon productions which was to blame for this, warner brothers only distributed the film, and had nothing to do with cutting it.

there use to be threads about this on this message board if i remember rightly, but they expired and got erased

[–] sueannstepanek 16 years ago

I pretty much agree with much that has been said about the film here. I was so excited to see a film version, and this looked promising. I thought Alfred Molina was a great choice for Levin.

Jsb23- I had the opposite problem you had. I found Levin's story a bit slow at times and skipped some of his, particularly the abundance of pages concerning his work in the country, although he has to be my favorite character. Anna's story was a little more interesting for me, although her character did get a little hard to take toward the end.

(Spoilers)
When I was in the video store renting it, I had a bad feeling when I saw how long it was. It was very rushed, and I don't like the fact that Levin narrated Anna's story, nor do I like that they chose to have Levin on the train explaining his life views to Vronsky. I don't understand why they chose to kill Anna's daughter either. Does anyone have any suggestions for a better film version?

[–] greenegg 12 years ago

Skip the film versions altogether. AK is far too complex a story to be confined to film length. It takes a mini-series to fully develop the characters, themes and plots. For an excellent version, rent the BBC one from the late 70s, with Nicola Pagett, Eric Porter and Stuart Wilson; the producers stay truer to the novel. Anna's daughter survives her in the novel; any version that kills the child seems unacceptable. I have a vague recollection of the 2000 version, which had some strengths, but just as many weaknesses, especially in casting. I like Helen McCrory, but she just doesn't have that striking beauty and passion Anna must possess.

Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!

[–] singingcanoe 16 years ago

Thank you. I was just thinking that. I love Levin's section of the story. I haven't seen this movie, but I would like to see it because I think Alfred Molina is a good choice for Levin. How much is his plot line cut down?

[–] artisticengineer 16 years ago

Just enough to seriously harm the film.

[–] jo_alex1981 16 years ago

i think Sophie Marceau tried too hard to make a respectable Anna Karenina... but unfortunately she didn't make it happen.
sometimes i got the feeling that she was trying too much...
i really don't believe she's a bad actress, or she don't have any talent.
i enjoy and respect her work, but as Anna wasn't good at all.

Alfred Molina and Sean Bean were brilliant and Mia Kirshner weren't that bad either.

-------------------------------------------
...too weird to live, too rare to die...
-------------------------------------------

[–] yelzohy 11 years ago

I thought this was a great movie.
Thought Sophie Marceau was near perfect for the role.
Was filmed entirely in Russia. Thought gave great atmosphere to the story. The cinematography did Tolstoy great justice unlike the vast majority of other films. Fiddler on the Roof, Reds, and Dr. Zhivago had a limited scope on how Russia was displayed during this time period. Russian culture during this time period may have never been brighter and more representative than in this movie. The love story maybe could have been better done but the impact of all the events on Anna in her pursuit of love had a great traumatic impact on her and myself as a viewer.
Was another movie saw years ago which was also good Russian representation of the time period, Russian Ark. Entire film is a single shot, no edits.