Anna Karenina [Blu-ray]

I have not (yet) read Tolstoy's novel and maybe that is why I could love this movie so much compared to so many who simply hated it. I *never* purchase movies but purchased this one from Amazon. I've now watched the film 3 times and am on the 4th as I write. Each successive time I catch new bits of mastery and genius by director Joe Wright and screenwriter Tom Stoppard.The movie has so many layers it is hard to adequately describe. I can only say watch, and watch again. After the third or fourth time you will start to see how the pieces of this movie fit together like the pieces of any exceptional puzzle -- the blend of flavors by a great chef, the interplay of notes and themes of a great composition, the design of a beautiful garden.What is it that grabs you and just doesn't let go?:*DANCE & CHOREOGRAPHY are THE star of this show. You don't quite know if this is realism, camp, vogue, ballet, broadway, or what. For me it worked beautifully and I typically don't like musicals. There is no singing, but the combination of realistic dialog and story with the fantastical dance and choreographed movement of the actors worked stunningly. My favorite scene of the movie -- the waltz scene -- is just mesmerizing...all of the dancers became frozen in time until Anna and Vronsky waltz past and pull them whirling into their vortex. In particular Aaron Taylor-Johnson's dancing left me slackjawed. All I can say is watch for yourself and see if you've ever seen a man dance like that.*SCREENPLAY. Brilliant. Each time I watch I see how the screenplay brings certainly not all of Tolstoy's plot, but surely a great deal of the meaning and larger themes he brought to the novel (I've since read several novel summaries). The screenplay is layered -- each time you watch again you see and understand more. These little bits step out front when you have watched several times and are no longer so distracted by the gorgeous and fantastical spectacle that is going on.*SETTING. As others have noted; all the world's a stage in this movie. For the first 10 minutes you don't know if you are watching the characters watch a play, but then you realize they *are* the play. I remember feeling very off guard my first time watching...is Stiva going to be murdered by the barber? Is the giant pear a bomb? Why is the barber like a toreador? Why is a couple dancing on the theater floor and another woman wandering playing a concertina? What the HECK is going on??? After about 5 or 10 minutes you get it, settle in and it no longer seems strange... you truly feel that life *IS* art. You never stop marveling at the beauty and ingenuity of it this bold directorial choice. The juxtaposition of reality and theater setting, the model trains segueing to real trains and back -- these things seem like they could not possibly work in theory. But they work. The choreography and dialogue of the actors at cousin Betsy's society party and her firework surprise were visually stunning and just magical.* COSTUMES. Lavish, gorgeous, over the top. Wright uses color like no other. Vronsky is all blond youthful curls, bright blue-eyed, and wore white and light blue, while Anna has deep dark burden of an older woman who has never loved -- she is dark haired, eyed and skinned, and wears only black or dark colors. Wright made the unusual choice of using a lot of redhead and very fair-skinned men throughout and film, which was quite beautiful with the film's coloring, and yet cast olive skinned women as their love interests. Very rich, visually interesting film.* ACTING: Jude Law as Karenin, Matthew McFayden as Anna's brother Stiva, Domnhall Gleeson as country landowner Levin all had scene-stealing performances. Olivia Williams shined as Vronsky's mother. Ruth Wilson's delightful turn as Vronsky's bad-tinkerbell cousin Princess Betsy made a new fan of me. Keira Knightly -- I'd give a maybe little pat on the back but nothing special. She looked exquisite and handled her part quite well and maybe that was enough. While everyone says Aaron Taylor-Johnson was miscast as Vronsky, I suppose that is only if you expect the character to be true to the novel. I thought Aaron brought a rakish vulnerability to the character that I've never quite seen on screen -- now that I think of it perhaps only Richard Gere in his youth -- rather like a desperate child on the one hand; on the other an arrogant cad, stopping at nothing to embroil a married woman in his torrid lust (or is it love?) affair. I think he will turn out to be one of this generations most gifted actors. You know the saying "so handsome it hurts". Well he's that too. Just as exquisite as Keira...so in that sense they are well matched, though I thought his depth as an actor was far greater. Their almost impossible beauty adds to the pain of the relationship.Any more and this review would be too long. See it for yourself, stick it out, and if nothing else, see something like you've never seen before.

Interesting take on the story. Written as a play.

Director Joe Wright’s film adaptation of Anna Karenina is a real audience splitter and one where those who don’t like it really hate it. It’s also not the usual split between the audience and the critics but one in which both audience and critics are split, which is much more rare. Though when you add everything up I think it is more of a misfire than a success it is at least an interesting misfire.Whatever one may think of the result, Wright certainly went out on a limb with this film and you have to admire his sheer audacity in trying something so different when a typical Masterpiece Theater approach (worthy but conventional) would have sufficed. It seems as if he was inspired by Australian director Baz Luhrman who made gaudy spectacles of Romeo + Juliet, Moulin Rouge and The Great Gatsby. This has all the visual spectacle of those films and also their elements of surrealism. Of course this kind of direction is very obvious and rather show-off to the extent where it seems to call more attention to itself than to the plot and actors, but that’s part of the risk you take.The direction is criticized not only for its over-the-top nature but also at times being a device to save on budget. The film’s budget was 41 million, which is not a cheap amount for 2012 even if it falls short of the budgets of comic book films. Using toy trains for real ones could be seen this way. But I think the criticism of placing most of the action on a theater stage (which is sometimes visible and other times not) was chosen to emphasize the artificiality of Russian high society and Anna’s life which was, so to speak, lived on a stage before an audience of her peers. The moments of surrealism accentuate the idea of this artificial world and one may like them or not. I found the strange arm and hand movements during the waltz interesting, if impossible in real life, where others find them ridiculous. Note too that the film leaves the stage for the scenes with Levin, the most down to earth and, in a sense real person among the characters.Other criticisms are the usual misplaced and prosaic quibbles. “It’s not as good or as much as the book.” Unless it’s a very short book, films are never all that was in the original book, least of all one like Anna Karenina. Films of this story have always had to more or less scrap Levin’s story (half the plot). That is where most of Tolstoy’s larger themes of changes in Russia, the conservatism of the recently emancipated serfs and Levin’s struggle with the meaning of life and turning to religion are elaborated. At least he got a bit of a role here. We are as a result, always left with Anna’s story of love and passion, personal fulfillment and duty and the intricacies of aristocratic society. There’s only so much time in a film. Other complaints about details of 19th century life in Russia are out of place unless too outrageous or anachronistic as this is not a documentary. I will say I found the can-can out of place at an aristocratic function.There’s a huge amount of derision for the casting of Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Count Vronsky but I think this is mostly by an older audience who have formed their opinions from older films (Frederick March in 1935) or reading the novel. They say he is too young here and should be a mature man of the world. But Tolstoy never gives any ages in the book so their opinion is a mix of speculation and their own preconceptions. From information in the book we can guess Anna to be around 30 (Married ten years in an era when girls married between 16 and 20). Most people feel Count Vronsky is much younger, 20-22, not older, especially since his military career seems to just be beginning and he’s looking for promotion and glory. This makes more sense overall since he would have been an officer automatically from his social class and not have to spend years working his way up in the ranks as some insist. The attraction as it is shown in this film seems to be very physical as well as emotional and ever since the youth-obsessed 60’s middle aged men are not generally seen as attractive, especially for a young Keira Knightley. In fact, Knightley’s films draw a younger female audience and pairing her with an older man would not have gone over very well. Even worse, since the teenage Kitty ( the ball is her first) is also supposed to be infatuated with Vronsky and hopes to marry him, casting a middle aged man in the role would look really creepy nowadays.As for the rest, Sarah Greenwood’s production design is lavish and wonderful to see in its own right. The cast is mostly good, especially Jude Law as Anna’s cold husband Kerenin, Domhnail Gleason as the landowner Levin and Alicia Vikander as Kitty. Keira Knightley was good as Elizabeth Bennett in Pride and Prejudice but here seems too much a modern young woman. Somehow her performance makes Anna seem like a spoiled, whimsical girl disappointed over a flirtation and later on absurdly demanding of Vronsky. Jude Law’s Karenin may be cold and bureaucratic but he shows an honor and decency that made me really like him by the end, something Basil Rathbone’s performance could never do.That, more than the directorial flourishes is what made the film a miss for me. It doesn’t have the sense of grandeur and tragedy that it should and plays more like a willful young woman who causes all kinds of trouble and evokes little sympathy. Still it has some fine scenes and is totally worth watching for its grand gestures and general opulence alone.

It had a good back story and kept you interested it the plot, it's a movie that I would recommend to others to watch. It's sad but a story that is worth watching.