Better/Worse Than the Original Movie?

I've seen both versions and I must say, I liked the mini-series more. It seemed to explain things a little bit better, though I think the time in which the original movie was made it wasn't socially appropriate to have heavy sexual content in movies, so yea.
But all in all, the recent did explain more, and had a lot more characterization. Not to say I didn't like the original...just liked the recent better

I have watched both versions of Dr. Zhivago. The 1965 version is more historically and scenically authentic whereas the 2002 version is more romantically involving. The 1965 version of Dr. Zhivago was a huge epic dramatization whereas the 2002 version developed the characters better. As for the main characters, the following is my opinion:

Dr. Zhivago:

Omar Sharif was superb as Dr. Zhivago. In the 2002 version, Hans Matheson was brilliant. Han's horse riding skills blew me away. He looked more like a poet than Omar Sharif. However, Omar Sharif better conveyed Zhivago's longing and guilt-ridden love for Lara. Omar's walk with Julie to her apartment was heavenly romantic whereas Han's snow-play with Keira and her daughter as they reached Varykino was, to me, a complete manifestation of his love for Lara. Both actors accomplished their respective interpretations of Dr. Zhivago convingcinly. Forget the love scenes in the 2002 version. They bordered on the obscene simply because Keira was a minor when she did those love scenes.
Bear in mind that this is my opinion; one may feel differently.

Lara:

Julie Christie was more believable as Lara. She was a true victim of Victor Komarovsky. You could feel her pain especially when she was raped by Victor. Just watching her explain to Pasha in the candle light about what occurred between her and Victor, ganers nothing but sympathy for her.

Keira was a willing victim, it appears. She wanted Victor to "teach" her everything about sex. Keira played a better mother than Julie. Keira also delivered a line that every parent ought to listen to. Protect your children from the Komarovskys of the world!

Pasha:

By far, the 1965 Pasha was better. One could understand his passion for a revolution. His mother died "needlesly" when he was eight and his father died in prison. He raised himself. He detested the fact that children and the poor were starving while the rich were feasting, drinking and dancing. The brutal police permanently scared his face. To make matters worse, Victor Komarovsky, a rich, prominent and powerful lawyer deflowered his Lara. Watch how David Lean symbolized the demise of the bourgeois by having this Pasha enter the Sventiskys'Christmas gala and walk through the rich and famous to rescue his Lara.

The 2002 version of Pasha was missing in action. He did, however, replicate the mischievous and funny side of Pasha (as described in the book) when he played with the bells and got Lara and her class mates laughing in class.

Tonya:

The performance of both Tonyas were adequate. The 1965 Tonya symbolized the high society of that era. She was pampered, boarding-schooled, and fashionable. She was highly cultured and played a perfect stepford wife. No wonder, Dr. Zhivago preferred the suffering Lara.

The 2002 Tonya's performance was really more skillful. Her mama got Yuri to marry her. She was more feisty and daring. How many women would visit their husbands' lovers and confront these lovers as they are slicing vegetables with their kitchen knives? This Tonya did. She had more chemistry with her Yuri than Geraldin Chaplin had with her Yuri.


Victor Komarovsky:

The 1965 Victor looked more like the despicable chararcter described by Pasternak. Rod Steiger gave a great performance when he was pushed down the stairs by Sharif. Every time His Ugliness touched beautiful Lara, we cringed and felt her pain. He was brilliantly ugly! In the 1965 version, David Lean showed us that Yuri could indeed "kill" Victor if he insulted or laid a finger on Lara. The 1965 Yuri pushed Vicor down the icy steps. It was the only time Victor got his just deserts.

Sam Neil was a lovable villain in the the 2002 version. He was a smooth operator and one could almost feel for him. Like a dope dealer who got hooked on his drugs, this Victor set out to victimize Lara and ended up getting hooked on Lara. He was also impecably dressed and comical. As such he was not a convincing Kamarovsky as Rod Steiger was. Steiger was a beast!


Overall, both versions of Zhivago accomplihed their objectives. My teenagers love the 2002 version. My daughter fell in love with Hans and my son, an ultra conservative, loves the part where Hans, the 2002 Yuri, was captured by the partisans and humiliated about his mistress, Lara. As for me, I love the classic 1965 Zhivago and its musical score, but I cannot forget Hans Matheson as Dr. Zhivago.

BETTER!!!!

The mini-series is much better in my opinion because the story is not only clearer, but it captures Pasternak's original point with astonishing clarity. The style is very Russian as well and this one is popular with the Russian audience because the characters are all portrayed as real people (not stereotypical glamourous hollywood heart-throbs) and above all, captures the raw and extremely dark world that the Russian Revolution really was. The overall look is very realistic too. In the original, everything was pretty, but not at all authentic and they focused too much on the lovestory and little on what happened to everything else. That was Pasternak's opposite point! So both films have the same plots, but are completely different interpretations. This film is NOT a remake; it's an adaption! That's where everyone gets it wrong and they think it should be just like the original. So, this film is much more real and is closer to Pasternak's vision.