rick-f 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.

HotToastyRag I'm not sure if anyone was more excited than I was to see the newest remake of Anna Karenina, besides the families of the cast and crew. Sure, the story isn't that great, but Keira Knightley is my favorite actress, and the preview made it look like a moving art gallery rather than a film. Even though I didn't end up adding this one to my permanent collection, it was very entertaining.The reason the film didn't work was because of the casting. In the story, the title character is unhappily married to an older, pious man, and she has an affair with a handsome, virile, young man. Jude Law was cast as the husband, and Aaron Taylor-Johnson was cast as the lover, and this is why the film makes no sense. They tried to ugly Jude up and made sure he wore a perpetual scowl, but the audience is still very much aware he's still Jude Law! Why would she stray? And if she must, why wouldn't she choose someone so incredibly handsome, charming, and full of appeal that the audience understands and excuses her betraying "Alfie"? There wasn't a single moment of the film that I was rooting for Aaron, and the fact that Keira sacrificed everything for him made me not respect or like her character.That crucial criticism aside, the rest of the film is incredibly beautiful to watch. It truly is an experience, not just a film. Joe Wright, director of Pride and Prejudice and Atonement, knows how to capture Keira Knightley perfectly on camera. She's so incredibly gorgeous, it's almost stunning to believe she's real.The costumes, sets, and production values are some of the richest, most beautiful I've ever seen. The colors both blend and stand out among one another, and if you press pause during any given moment, you could easily imagine the frozen frame pained and mounted upon your wall. While the film took home a well-deserved Academy Award for Jacqueline Durran's costume design, it was grossly under-appreciated in its other technical aspects, and Keira was once again ignored for her incredible performance.Seamus McGarvey's cinematography, combined I'm sure with Joe Wright's direction and the way Tom Stoppard's script was crafted, is what separates Anna Karenina from ordinary historical films. The entire film is sewn together seamlessly, with scenes folding into one another in different creative ways. One scene may show the characters walking off a literal stage, and the camera follows them as they walk to a different setting. Another may show an indoor curtain parting, showing the audience the snow outside, and the film continues outdoors. If you're not expecting it, the style might feel jarring at first, but once you're aware of the fluid structure, it's glorious.Watch the preview to get a feel for the style and see if you think you might like it. Even if you're rooting against Keira because of her serious lack of judgement, it really is an engrossing film with many elements to appreciate, including a supporting cast with Kelly Macdonald, Matthew Macfadyen, Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander, Holliday Grainger, Ruth Wilson, Michelle Dockery, and Emily Watson.DLM warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. There are a couple of scenes where the camera spins in a circle, and it might make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

Alicja Furier 'Anna Karenina' (2012) makes sure no one goes back to Leo Tolstoy's classic. The novel, 'Anna Karenina' is an extensive study of love, betrayal, pride and prejudice, to name a few. It's largely made up of interior monologues and smoothly switches between points of view of multiple characters. It touches on the ego and explores timeless dilemmas that stay as relatable today as they once were. Unfortunately, while the book preserves the Russian flair for the romantic without seeming fake, Joe Wright's film does the exact opposite. The flair for the fake burns out any traces of romanticism. Firstly, the film simply does not do justice to the themes it works with. With enough material in the book, the director chose to omit crucial chapters which serve to clarify the characters' decisions and build tension for important narrative twists. Without them, it seems as if Karenina, Vronsky, and Levin were mentally ill as they base their most important life-choices on whims. The screenplay focuses on telling the story of a woman torn between two men. I think I might have seen that before... Without knowing Anna's motives and her nuanced fight with herself and society, the film gets reduced to a love story between a moody, rich diva and a narcissistic soldier - hardly the premise for an epic. The setting hinders that simplistic meaning too. Wright applies a theatrical, over-the-top convention, which drowns the meaning, for the sake of cheap dances and background gimmicks. With everyone dancing, entering different settings, which are being constructed as we watch, the classic turns into a cheap play which relies on distractions to keep the audience's attention. With that, the film seems to be apologizing for its own existence. The over-saturation permeates the acting as well. Every gesture, every sigh, every word of Anna's is exaggerated and ends up insincere. Same goes for Kitty and Dolly. The décor oozes with gold and silver. The costumes, beautiful as they are, look like carefully selected props and not clothes that people lived in. Always creaseless, and starched to the point of standing up on their own, the gowns occupy more space than the actors. The fabrics rustle competing with the soundtrack. All in all, a cringe-worthy spectacle you pray to be over.

Nikita Wannenburgh 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.