celtic_chief
The story itself is fairly good, but I just don't understand that so- called 'actors' are incapable of doing accents. This is supposed to be about Russia, not England. The English accents make this absolutely comical and lowers the standard of the production. Sometimes you wonder how they got their acting jobs in the first place if they are incapable....of acting. And acting includes doing accents. I think it also reflects the level of acting coming out from England when they only seem capable of doing English accents. Was the whole world English at one time? I couldn't bare to finish watching this film and had to leave it about a third of the way into it, mostly due to the accents.I kept thinking it was set in England. Best going for the book.
phd_travel
This is one of the better versions of Anna Karenina. It's not too old or too new. It's hard to watch the slightly cheap BBC versions or the old black and white Hollywood versions. It is modern enough to have a fresh feel and great on location filming. It's also not too long. The score is wonderful - Tchaikovsky.Sophie Marceau looks beautiful and tragic. Her acting is good too although her accent isn't Russian. Supporting cast are all good including Alfred Molina.The main problem is Sean Bean was a strange choice. He doesn't look Russian and he isn't dashing enough. He's more the villain with his cruel look.It is interesting to compare this with the Jacqueline Bisset and Christopher Reeve version. I think this one is better overall.
nemo_cinema
It's time directors should refrain from distorting the language of literature (not just some best selling silly fiction). With expensive sets, historic backdrop, all kinds of grandeur and glamorous actresses they simply forget what the main story is all about. And things go absolutely disastrous when do the same kind of treatment to Tolstoy (one of the greatest authors the world of literature has ever seen).This is absolute audacity. Anna Karenina is not just a story of a naive infidel wife. And when there is an attempt to fit in just a few snapshots within those few hours all you get is a bogus piece of movie like this. It's meaningless to talk about how the movie did not match up to the novel. Watching this movie is just another (silly) experience of costumes and glamorous sets; like watching a fashion show and nothing else.
sammy
I will hereby join the legions of ladies (and perhaps some gents too?) that sat down to watch this version of Anna Karenina simply because of the presence of Sean Bean.I have to say, I was not disappointed, though in this version Vronsky's screen-time is drastically reduced. I was very impressed with Alfred Molina and James Fox, both played their parts with conviction and in my opinion stayed true to the characters from the book. I wish I could say the same for Sophie Marceau, but unfortunately I found her rather shallow and annoying. Perhaps it was just because her accent was so out of place, but whatever the reason, I found her portrayal of Anna unrealistic and unsympathetic.The best Anna Karenina that I have come across so far, is easily Vivian Leigh in the 1948 version, which to date I believe to be the best one yet. If you are looking for only one version of this movie to watch, I recommend that one, although it is of course sadly lacking the dashing Mr. Bean :-)
AD
