timbasa77 The limitations of a late 70's BBC budget are everywhere apparent in this nonetheless absolutely captivating production. One only wishes a proper film could have been made with this same cast and script, but of course that would have probably drained the production of what makes it so spectacular - its sheer expansiveness. In its nearly 10-hour runtime, it covers practically all of the novel's myriad episodes, and the dizzying complexities of its timeless characters - Anna's at once near schizophrenia and almost magical charm and poise, Vronsky's extreme selfishness and rakish abandon, yet unquestionable honor and devotion, and Karenin's cruel, detached vindictiveness tempered by his capacity for forgiveness and tenderness. The script is so heavily in the spirit of Tolstoy's writings that quotations from the original novel do not stick out like a sore thumb, as they do in Tom Stoppard's shockingly amateurish script for the Keira Knightley adaptation, but are rather an organic fabric of this labyrinthine and captivating piece. Perhaps hindsight drives this perception given Ms. Pagett's unfortunate mental breakdown subsequent to this production, but she is so effortlessly a living, breathing, enchanting creature suffering from truly intractable emotional and existential distress that it makes the knowledge of her end, which rather intentionally pervades the novel even without its cultural resonance, lend an intense poignance to the film. She is also every bit as beautiful as Anna should be. Supporting characters, from Oblonsky to Betsy (in particular the flippant Countess, whose true, though tested, devotion to Anna is richly filled in here) are handled spectacularly well. But the production in many ways belongs to Stuart Wilson's Vronsky, who manages to convey precisely what makes Vronsky uniquely appealing to a woman of depth - he is a melancholic, inspired, fiery, Byronic hero, and not just a preening pretty face with all of his hair (Aaron Taylor-Johnson, I sadly look at you). Those who were impatient with the Levin twin-plot in the novel will be distressed to see it nearly intact in this version, but Levin is refreshingly well-played and spirited, so that his scenes have a life to them typically denied the almost perfunctory inclusion of the character in most adaptations that do him the service of not cutting him. Kitty is also incredibly beautiful, age appropriate, and charming, so her scenes, while never quite living up to Anna's, prove a welcome distraction.

didi-5 This version of 'Anna Karenina' by Tolstoy presents the story in ten parts of around 50 minutes each. Starring Nicola Pagett, best known as Elizabeth Bellamy in 'Upstairs, Downstairs', as Anna; with Stuart Wilson as Vronsky and Eric Porter as Karenin.This is a leisurely version, with time to develop the minor characters and subplots, while keeping true to the book in the story of Anna's affair with Count Vronsky, and its tragic conclusion. It starts with the infidelity of her brother and in doing so, shows the difference between men and women where divorce and adultery are concerned.As Anna, Pagett is excellent, veering from thoughtless frivolity to total despair; while Eric Porter is perfect as Karenin, strong, tormented, and complicated. Stuart Wilson is charming as Vronsky, looks the part and is an appealing character. In support the rest of the cast are excellent too, especially Sheila Gish as Betsy and Mary Morris as Countess Vronsky.This mini series is well worth your time and doesn't have a dated feel at all - the space given to the story means this version has more weight than those with Garbo or Vivien Leigh.

konky2000 After recently reading and falling in love with the book, I started doing research into the filmed adaptations of the novel. I first watched the BBC adaptation from 2000, which impressed me, but I was somewhat disappointed by the amount of editing done to the story.I, therefore, picked up this version with great anticipation, because it is much longer (10 hours) and I was hoping would therefore be a more fully realized version of the story.Unfortunately, I barely made it through the first hour before turning it off and giving up on it.The whole production felt too staged and unnatural for my taste. The actors looked like English 'thespians' dressed up in stock period costumes rather than Russian aristocrats. And they all more or less spoke in the same loud and clear stage voice making the conversations feel less intimate than I would have liked.Camera-work and directing was mostly just like that of a noontime soap opera.I'm sure that in 1977 this was perfectly acceptable, but nowadays, it is just not good enough to spend time watching. It certainly does no justice to what is often considered one of the greatest novels ever written.If you are looking for a filmed adaptation of this story, stick with the more recent version from 2000. While it is a somewhat edited down version of the story, it is a much superior product that does a far better job of fully capturing the richness of Tolstoy's novel.

Gregory Maldonado I remember seeing this version of "Anna Karenina" on PBS when it was re- broadcast in the late 1980s. I actually taped the entire series on Beta video tape, but haven't checked at all recently to see if the tapes are still viable. I was deeply impressed with the production values of "Anna,' including the choice of filming locations, acting, costumes, and use of music. (I particularly remember the use of a lot of Tchaikovsky.)I've always wondered why this magnificent production hasn't been re-issued on video or DVD. I for one would buy it in a heartbeat. Short of that, I should get my Betamax repaired and transfer the tapes to VHS, DVD, or VCD for my own use.10/10