Avoid like the Plague


Keira Knightley and Jude Law can't even begin to save this film. Somewhere between farce and parody, it leaves Tolstoy's story completely out of the script in favor of pretentious costuming and almost ridiculous train metaphors. As Olympia Dukakis's character said in "Steel Magnolias", "An ounce of pretension is worth a pound of manure". In the case of Karenina, make it a ton.

reply

[deleted]

I was quite disappointed from this version. Yet it seemed to have a lot of the right ingredients:

- a very capable cast
- excellent costumes
- good cinematography

but then it went all pretentious with the set, trying to come across as overly artsy and innovative.

As you mentioned, it also throws out a lot of the actual story.

Yes, the title of the novel is Anna Karenina, but it's just as much (if not even more) the story of Levin and Kitty. Yet most of the subplots involving Kitty and Levin were left out, reducing them to minor characters.

reply

How do you compress the whole story into a two hour movie? There have to be cuts somewhere. Also, I don't mind an artistic version every once in a while. There have been so many film and tv versions of this story, why do them all the same?

reply

that's how i see it too. i liked that they did something totally different with it. it was punished for being artistic, yet i think if this had come out in the late 60's/70s people would have loved it (Ken Russell was a director who used to take really bold, wild artistic and weird approaches to his films)

you don't often see bold styles applied to period pieces, everyone just wants them to be the same thing. and you're right, it's not like this story hasn't been filmed a million times already, so why not?

reply

Knightley and Law SAVE THIS FILM ??? They are both average wooden actors. What do you expect of a film featuring both of them ?

reply

It's a sign of the poor level of acting Americans are used to in general that someone like Knightley can be palmed off on them as a great actress. She's the perfect example of the 'slap a British accent on it and most Americans will swallow it as art' performer. She's not talented, she's as wooden and shallow as the fashion mannequin she ought properly to have pursued a career of being is, and she was wrong in every respect as Anna. Law is somewhat more capable, but he'd have to be in Olivier's league to get past that fey wig and moustache get up he was decked out in.

Tolstoy would have recognized in an instant just what was wrong with this production--slick style over any content whatsoever--and it would have sickened him. And Tom Stoppard is simply getting lazy these days, involving himself in these trash affairs instead of continuing to attempt the field in which he has created some genuinely thought-provoking and worthy plays. He should stay away from involvement in any more swill like this before he ruins his reputation beyond repair.

reply

I dont get why people are so hard on this movie. I thought it was an interesting take on the story. They did leave alot out but its been done so many times. I enjoyed it as being different and on its own without comparing every little detail to the book. It was creative and beautiful to watch. On the extras someone, maybe the director, said that when scouting locations people said things like "6 AKs have been filmed here." Why would they want to do the same thing? Why would anyone want to watch the same thing? People seem to forget that movies should be creative and enjoyable. Im glad i dont feel the need to pick apart every detail and am free to just have a nice time watching!!

reply

Why would they want to do the same thing? Why would anyone want to watch the same thing? People seem to forget that movies should be creative and enjoyable.



Why have artists wanted to paint the same bottle, flowers and fruit over and over again for centuries? Because each artist wants to exercise their own abilities on the familiar subject, making it over anew. Creativity doesn't come from doing something different for the mere sake of being different, it comes from a disciplined exercise of one's talent and vision on even the most familiar and redone material. Unfortunately this version didn't possess any true artistic creativity, but opted for the 'novelty for novelty's sake' brand instead. But then again, where would the careers of directors such as this one or Baz Luhrmann be, were it not for young, unlettered and novelty-seeking audiences who lap up this kind of tripe and think they've just had a 'wow, artistic' experience?

reply

Im sorry, i maybe wasnt clear in what i was trying to say. I didnt mean why would they want to do a movie thats been done. I was saying that its better that they dont do it the same way. Basically what i was getting at was the same thing you said about them doing the same thing with their own abilities. I wouldnt care to watch an exact copy of previous films just with different actors. I honestly couldnt care less about the art of it but i love to watch remakes that are different because its more interesting to see someone elses vision of what something could be. To use your bowl of fruit example, if i loved paintings of a bowl of fruit i would collect different ones. I wouldnt have an exact copy hanging in fifty spots on my wall. I hope that kind of cleared up what i was getting at.

reply

And btw, of course people have different taste in movies. Theres nothing wrong with having an opinion. I think its sad when people like you go from expressing an opinion to acting like a know it all b***h and insulting everyone. So you thought it lacked artistry. You can say that without essentially calling anyone who enjoyed it an uneducated idiot with bad taste. I will never understand why on these boards some people feel the need to belittle anyone who doesnt share their opinion.

reply