Anna Karenina (2012)

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

.Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

The extremely unattractive style and poor acting abilities of Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Vronsky made this movie unbearable to watch. The movie seemed interesting at first, but at least twice in the first sixty minutes I had to stop and ask what the hell is going on here. One minute I am watching Keira with a dude who seems like her husband, then she is checking out Aaron who appears married to a woman old enough to be his mother and then next thing you know he is in bed with Keira in what seemed to be a dream fantasy, but it was real. How does she go from being alone to ending up in bed with this dude? The directing for this film is garbage. This is two hours of my life I want back. Movies like this is why when someone says if your product is bad you should feel bad applies to these low-budget hack directors ripping off movie-goers.The only positive of this film is Jude Law and the camera visuals.

This is a bold artsy unorthodox version of the novel. If you are not a fan of indie, stage, and symbolism to the point of absurdity, this isn't your film. The theme of the novel is "no one may build their happiness on another's pain." This takes on a duo meaning as it not only shows us this in personal life but in the class differences in Russia. The stage is the first major metaphor/symbol you will notice. The aristocracy live their live on the stage. It is a world of drama, make believe and one that will soon draw its final curtain. The workers are off stage and live in the rafters and audience supporting the rich. Who is really happy?The locomotion movement and sound represented the emotions of Anna, thrusting when she feels raw passion and falling silent at the end. In addition to the symbolism, the film has the irony of Anna attempting to patch up an infidelity relationship only to fall into one. Perhaps inadvertently, the novel portrays how women are trapped inside a man's world.Konstantin seems to represent "us" in this film as he is a man who freely travels between two worlds as he seeks his happiness. While prudish, he is constant as his name suggests.The themes and symbolism are very heavy. Like reading a Russian novel, you feel your head explode as you try to take it all in. Not for everyone and you should know after 10 minutes of viewing.Parental Guidance: No f-bombs. Near male nudity. Artsy sex scenes.

I remember first hearing a magazine say the original "Anna Karenina" book was voted the greatest novel of all time! I didn't even think it was the best one made by Leo Tolstoy! I was very eager to see this movie version if only because I wanted to know the story of what was considered to be the greatest novel of all time. I guess I should have read the book first. I feel bad for not being familiar with such a beloved story. The story is pretty basic with a woman named Anna Karenina having an affair and even an illegitimate son. Yeah, that's pretty much the whole plot.I felt the length of this movie was quite nice. I was afraid it would go on forever seeing as how it was made by the same guy who wrote "War And Peace". I do wish that I could compare the original novel because I don't know how faithfully it adapted the story. For an unbiased opinion, I found this to be a good movie. The best thing about it is probably how great the sets are. Everything is just so wonderfully bright and colorful here. This really does give you the feeling of Russia in the 1800's. It's great as a period piece, albeit an unintentional one. ***

Overall, I was very disappointed. The script was painfully slow- moving, the story was foggy and vague, and the brilliant talents of Emily Watson, Olivia Williams, and Matthew MacFadyen were solely underused in a tragic romance where the miscasts took centre stage. Visually, however, the film was stunning. The costumes were gorgeous and the cinematography was beautiful. It was clear that the creators favoured appearance over substance. The secondary cast was very good, especially Domhnall Gleeson and Matthew MacFadyen. I'm a big fan of Alicia Vikander, but it's only towards the end that her character actually became watchable. Matthew MacFadyen was refreshing comic-relief, and I only wish we'd seen more of him. Out of the three leads, Jude Law was the only one to fit his role perfectly; he played his part subtly and brilliantly. His performance was flawless. Aaron Taylor Johnson was watchable, but the blonde hair just didn't work for me. Most of the time he looked out of place; with a watery performance that matched only Knightley's. I have never liked Kiera Knightley as an actress, but I was ready to put aside my bias and look for the positives in her performance. Unfortunately, I only found her acting more infuriating and shallow. Her smiles are forced, her emotions never reach her eyes, and she might as well still be acting for Pirates of the Caribbean. Her performance was very hard to watch, and – part the writer's fault, I'm sure – she never allows Anna's grief to come full circle. As a result, I struggled to feel sorry for the character, and Anna's emotional journey – as well as her external one concerning her society life – was never strong enough or powerful enough to deliver depth and evoke sympathy. Overall, the film was visually stunning, but it lacks heart and substance to carry the enormous weight of Tolstoy's profound story.