Movies: 19854 | TV Series: 3309 | Added today: 8 | Storage: 74837 GB
|Starring:||Malcolm McDowell, Brenda Blethyn, Hary Prinz, Toni Bertorelli, Alexander Beyer, Clemence Poesy, Alessio Boni|
|Director(s):||Brendan Donnison, Robert Dornhelm|
|Country:||Germany, Italy, France|
The story of five aristocratic families in Russia during the the Napoleonic Era.
|War and Peace (iPod)||Resolution: 480x272 px||Total Size: 421 Mb||
|War and Peace (iPod)||Resolution: 480x272 px||Total Size: 390 Mb||
|War and Peace (iPod)||Resolution: 480x272 px||Total Size: 395 Mb||
|War and Peace (iPod)||Resolution: 480x272 px||Total Size: 419 Mb||
|War and Peace (DivX)||Resolution: 640x368 px||Total Size: 1215 Mb|
|War and Peace (DivX)||Resolution: 640x368 px||Total Size: 1215 Mb|
|War and Peace (DivX)||Resolution: 640x368 px||Total Size: 1215 Mb|
|War and Peace (DivX)||Resolution: 640x368 px||Total Size: 1215 Mb|
24 May 2013
I am a Tolstoy aficionado, have read War and Peace more than once. I say this in order to qualify my review. I have also seen all 4 of the major movie productions.The first production with Audrey Hepburn was a US made piece and is sadly dated, also it is so short that everything is abbreviated.The second production, by Bondarchuk, is a magnificent production, but I felt somewhat disappointed with it as to me Tolstoy balances the human and world events in such a profound way, and this production seems to focus mainly on the world events. However, some of the battle scenes are like great symphonies and bring deep emotions and tears to the eyes. There is little depth or development of the stories of the characters, however. Platon Karatayev, for example, is barely mentioned and is a pivotal part of the story of Pierre.My favorite production to this day is the one produced by the BBC with Anthony Hopkins as Pierre. In this 12 hour series a number of very strong characters create an interwoven story which I have watched a number of times. The characters of Pierre, Natasha, Andrei, Princess Maria, The old Prince Bolkonsky, Helene and all the others are so memorable that I would recommend this production as the greatest thus far produced. Although they did not have the resources to produce the battle scenes, costumes and authentic sets, this is after all fiction. And some of the greatest plays are done with virtually nothing but a few props.It was with great anticipation that I purchased this most recent production directed by Dornhelm, touted at costing 30,000,000.00 and supposedly involved with the personalities of the book. I was appalled to see that the actual story has been raped and pillaged to abbreviate events leading to the engagement with Andre. I get the feeling that, typical of so many productions of the late 20th and early 21st century, that there was this big budget to be spent and huge resources to be managed, at the cost of a single artist putting together a cogent and cohesive work of art. Although I felt some disappointment at the rather shallow depictions of the characters in the Bondarchuk production, I feel utter anger and contempt that the characters in this present one are so uninteresting and lacking in any depth.To have a Natasha running around with a schoolgirl crush on Andre, when in the story she only vaguely sees him, not to show the very difficult relationship between the Countess Rostov and her ward Sonia from the beginning, and the reason Sonia is unwanted as a daughter in law, due to the profligacy of the Rostovs financial decisions, good hearted as they are, all make me angry that so much could be wasted on such an insipid production.This production has been compared to the one of Napoleon, which I have also watched several times, and I can't see any comparison as in that the characters are all riveting, strong actors. Even though it is involved with a lot of historical events and not even a novel, the characters themselves carry this magnificent production.To me this latest production of War and Peace is like so much of what is wrong with the present era. Everything is superficial, there is no time to get to deep emotion or profundity, it is all frippery, clothes hung on totally forgettable actors and actresses, and visions of a past whose real glory lives only through great works of literature and great art.I do not recommend wasting any money on this movie. Just read the book and check out the BBC production from your local library!
MGMboy 23 May 2013
Condensed classic of epic proportions and sensual sensory splendors!This Italian T.V. mini series is studded with an international cast ofbrilliant players and enough extras to fill the Cinecitta Rome set fivetimes over. One of the fascinating things about this marvelouslyaccessible version of the story is that it is in English. Don't let theRussian Box fool you. An extra added bonus it that the film was shot inRussia so you get the added pleasure of seeing some incrediblearchitecture of the period and the stunning Russian countryside (And alittle of Lithuania.) There is in the huge cast some real stand outperformances. Brenda Blethyn is wonderful as always, and as PrinceAndre's father Malcolm McDowell is chilling and arresting in hisapproach to the part.In the lead female role we have the lovely Cemence Posey, who is nearperfect in a role so associated in the West with Audrey Hepburn. Therehave been complaints that she is a blond in a traditionally dark hairedpart, but that seems trivial to me in comparison to her performance. Inthe romantic lead of Prince Andre is the wonderful Italian star,Alessio Boni. He brings to the role a deliciously tragic gravitas thatis so important to the story. He is a brilliant actor who needs moreexposure on this side of the world. Just check out his work in 'TheBest Of Youth' and 'Don't Tell'.Also the incredibly beautiful Violante Placido plays the wicked Helenewith relish and great style. Not since Polly Walker in 'Rome' has therebeen such a delicious wicked woman on the screen. She was a delight towatch and I found myself missing her when she was not on screen.Benjamin Sadler, who was so brilliant in Augustus is on had to lend hisconsiderable slithery charm and great presence to the role of Dolokov.Why is this actor not a huge star yet? Yes there are many other worthyperformances to see and savor in this lush and enthralling film, toomany to go any further with here. Rather, take the chance and get thisfilm and let the magic of Tolstoy's timeless story take you into aworld that is gone with the wind.Yes it is not as huge and epic as the 1968 Russian classic but it isnone the less even at times more wonderful! The disk is splendid withclear beautiful image and great sound. As I said the film is in Enlishwith an international cast. It is obvious they are all speaking inEnglish and if any are dubbed that is Not obvious. Very well done inthe sound department. And the score by Jan A.P. Kaczmarek is lush andsoaring. Most particularly stunning at the end of act two as Natashadescends the grand staircase with the viper Anitole Kuragin,Ken Dunkenon her heals.
Matvei Karetnik 20 May 2013
Countries of the Europe tried very much to make this movie. Movie isoutstanding, but not without remarks. Firstly, ClÃ©mence PoÃ©sy does notapproach for Natasha Rostova at all. There is no that charm which wasdescribed by the Leo Tolstoi in the novel. Secondly, in the end offirst part of movie was used music by... modern composer AramKhachaturyan for the Lermontov's drama "Masquerade". Italian actorAlessio Boni is ingenious! I think, that his role the best in thisfilm! Hi is one of the best actors, ever played role of AndreyBolkonsky. Alexander Beyer's work (Pierre Bezukhov) is very convincing.Noticeably, that this actor really very well knows "War and peace". Ithas allowed it to represent Pierre Bezukhov very authentically. Theimage of old prince Bolkonsky (M. McDowell) has turned out veryexpressive and truthful. Such old Russian prince - the petty tyrant. Incommon, movie is remarkable!
lusto777 19 May 2013
I think that this movie is a very good.In a movie i love Clemence Poesyshe is a very beautiful and clever and sensitive.She's a best actressin this great film.Her image was genius and lovely.I love thiscinema.And for me it film was excellent and great.I don't understandbad words about this movie.Dornhelm made a great film.I think that filmof Bondarchuk was bad because it has politic and ideology. Communistswere bad directors and actors and actresses.Communists were vile verystrong and they liked deathpeople they killed Russian emperor and i think that they were bad.Communists don't like this movie because they can't fallen in love theydreams are about death and evil.They are bad and not brave.
18 May 2013
lusto777, you don't understand anything about War and Peace. if youeven try try to read you'll see mistakes in the film. For example,Natasha Rostova in book is silly and not beautiful girl. Bondarchuk wasgenius. You can agree or not with his interpretation, but you can'tdeny that his film War and Peace is the world's masterpiece. In myopinion, his film is better than this one) Also it's incorrect to saysuch words about directors, actors and actresses. talent doesn't dependon declared politics. i don't want to lesson, but your words drive meout of wits. and your naive opinion about commies and emperor is veryfunny, it makes me smile. Excuse me lady and guys for this off-top,nice watching and pardon my English.
Gaeliclass 18 May 2013
I have to say that I watched this movie because of my love for Russianhistory and for Tolstoy. I was entertained yet, disappointed as well.This series is based on the classic epic novel by Tolstoy and is amassive undertaking for any film company and this is a pretty goodadaption. It tells the love story of several young aristocrats setagainst Napoleon's invasion of Russia in approximately 1812. There area few war scenes, not many, but enough to know what is going on. Whilefilmed in St Petersburg we don't get to see much of it due to it'slimited budget I imagine. The focus is on the main protagonists andtheir relationships.My main problem was with the casting of some of the leads. This wastruly a multi European cast of actors coming from all over Europe,including Italy, Germany, Russia, Poland, with some Brits thrown in aswell.First of all, Clemence Poesy as Natasha wasn't believable to me. Ayoung lady from an aristocratic family raised in the French style wouldcarry herself much differently. Here she seems childish, bratty, andnot especially beautiful, which she isn't in the book, but still shemust show something that would attract as much passion as we aresuppose to believe she does here. She certainly doesn't come close tothe elegance and beauty of a young Audrey Hepburn in the 50's version.The characters of Andrej and Pierre (Alessio Boni and Alexander Beyer)seem very unemotional and stiff, especially Boni who doesn't seem atall passionate. This may be due to the fact that while they spokeEnglish in it-you could tell from reading their lips-their voices weredubbed by British people more than likely due to their heavy Italianand German accents, Bonni being Italian and Beyer German. I have seenBoni before and he is a fine actor when allowed to speak for himself.The rest of the cast is good, with some fine older character actorsincluded; Malcolm McDowell and Brenda Blethyn are marvelous. All of theactors are well known in their respective countries and some have madeAmerican or British movies before so they are recognizable to me. Iloved the Russian general, Kutuzov, played so well by Dmitri Isayev, afine character actor.The screen play seems written with the thought that the film will bedubbed and subtitles shown in many countries (I watched the Spanishsubtitled version). The sentences are kept short to allow time for theviewers to read the captions; I find this very annoying. Not all theactors are dubbed; some actor's voices were used, accents and all. I love the story of War and Peace, so I watched the entire thing anywayand suggest you do the same if it is a favorite of yours. So far, Ihaven't seen a version I really love so I will have to make do withwhat we have so far. I prefer this version to the badly cast Americanversion of the 1950's. Only Hepburn did a fairly good job in that film,possibly because she was born into a European aristrocaratic family andknew how a young woman would act. It did have a better screen play, inmy opinion.To dub or notto dub? I prefer subtitles, added after the fact.Amricans, in general, do not like dubbing which is probably the reasonit was never released here in the States, but many European countriesuse it a lot, although I hear that is changing.
JakeGuzik 13 May 2013
Sometimes I wonder how it is possible that movies like these (free ofany inspiration) find a producer. Either do it for real or just leaveit. But please stop serving these half baked cookies with far too muchicing. To me the movie looks almost like a persiflage. The directing isa clear disgrace of the book. Obviously the director had no idea how tohandle this fantastic story. The cast acts like they all have swallowedsticks. The living dead upper class in 19th century Russia - awful.Somewhere in between there is some Army stuff but it is neither closeto anything like Austerlitz or Borodino. Tolstoi has deserved somethingelse then a cheap costume soap Opera. And the people who watch it havedeserved better too....an absolute waste of time!
renya4 12 May 2013
I have just seen the second part of the series. I read the book sometime ago so I can compare it to this great story by Lew Tolstoy. Whatcan I say is that the movie lacks the epic size of the story.Historical events were in Tolstoy "War and peace" as important aspersonal stories which seem to be in this movie the only important.This way the story has turned into a kind of melodrama - just anothermarital and love stories, without big depth. Most of the characters arenot very expressive. I was very surprised of the look of Natasha as Iremember her from the book description as very simple, joyful and blackhaired girl. Prince Bolkonsky is not very interesting and lacks anycharisma. I like Pierre Bezuchow and can sympathize with princessMarie. And I can agree: lack of Russian language in any form is verypainful. But what can we expect from television drama? Nothing morelike the soap opera. And that's it. If I am wrong not having seen yet3rd and 4th part - apologize.
SteveRB511 11 May 2013
I've read the book and seen several versions of the movie including the the 1956, 1967, and 6-hour Russian versions. This version gave me the same resonance as the book. I used to do quite a bit of reading on the Napoleonic period and this production with its sets and the actor's portrayals of the characters gave me the best feel and insight into what was happening in their lives and what it might have actually been like to live through one of the most eventful times in Russian history. (I was also less aware of "acting" in this moving than in the others.) I particularly enjoyed Anthony's Hopkin's portrayal of Pierre and the changes he underwent from hero worship of Napoleon to the realization of what "war and glory" were really about. There's a lot that is going on in the world now that reminds me of the book and this movie.
john-jan 11 May 2013
War and Peace (1967/Russian version) is the most accurately representedfilm of Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace novel. Since I read the novel inorder to make a report on it, I was able to get the "provenance" of theentire setting in the 1967 movie. The 2007 version actually seemed tobe a generic "period play" being passed off to unsuspecting viewers ofthe real import of the movie and it comes across only as a lightheartedattempt to portray two lovers trying to "get it together". It was sortof like watching Gone with the Wind in Russia. The "acting out" of thetwo main characters in their attempt to give it a "modern interpretivetwist" to each of the major characters' behaviour failed to reflect themindset of the individuals they portrayed as well as accurately revealthe worldview of a culture in the throes of a historic drama. While the2007 cast members were enjoyable to watch (they were excellent actors),I found it somewhat ridiculous to see Natasha and Andre pulling outeach other's tongue in the kissing scene, even though it wastitillating to watch. An intelligent understanding of the complexity ofthe royal class mindset of that time prohibited such a reaction betweentwo people who barely knew each other (especially when the male wastwice the female's age and they each belonged to a different classstructure) and who were about to be "betrothed" in the anachronisticsense of the word that was a characteristic of that society and onewith which we are unable to relate to.I would suggest that anyone wanting to see a well-developed thematicpresentation of Tolstoy's War and Peace would do themselves a favor bywatching the film version that was made in 1967. While you would findsome of it confusing-i.e., their conversation, their dialogue withthemselves, their viewpoints within that society, which weredistinctively Russian, you would come to the conclusion that thedirector of the Russian version with the Russian actors did indeeddepict accurately how the Russian aristocracy behaved in their attemptsto mimic the French within their own parameters, making them appearsomewhat boorish as well as comical as they tried to live their livesin that era of Russian society. You would see their frustration intheir everyday lives as well as their consternation over the dilemma ofkeeping Napoleon out of their country and their eventual failure to doso. However, you are elated when you see how their Tsar-appointedGeneral commands the respect and loyalty of the Russian troops, leadingthem to an ultimate victory and watching the French flee Russia indisgrace. Which is really what the book is all about.
RuchirS 08 May 2013
This was a horribble book and a horribble movie. It made no sense. Me and my friend Dan went to see it, and we completely wasted our money.
Andrei Pavlov 08 May 2013
For me the only reason for having a look at this remake was to see howbad and funny it could be. There was no doubt about it being funny andbad, because I had seen "Voyna i mir" (1968). Shall we begin? Here wego...Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Pierre Bezukhov - a lean fellowthat lacks the depth of the original; Robert Dornhelm & BrendanDonnison's Natasha Rostova - a scarecrow, her image can cause insomnia;Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Andrej Bolkonsky - an OKincarnation which, like the lean fellow (cf. above), lacks depth of aRussian soul and "struggle within"; Robert Dornhelm & BrendanDonnison's Napoleon - a rather unimpressive leader; Robert Dornhelm &Brendan Donnison's Prince Bolkonsky - a turd with an English face;Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Count Bezukhov - a spinelessfreak-show...The rest of the characters are not much better.The movements of the actors and the way they look and speak are oftenatrocious. They behave like modern EU citizens dressed up for a one-daymasquerade. It all looks cheap and never comes close to the standardsof our Russian men and women of the early 19th century.A good piece of entertainment to scrutinize and make fun of. We hadquite a few giggles in our office when remembering this modern product,which had been shown the previous evening on our TV."User Rating: 8.0/10 (29 votes)" - I guess, many young people havenever watched our film ("Voyna i mir" 1968) or have weird sense of"Tarantino-Spielberg" quality. Remember the scene when our hussar issaving his friend, turns around, shoots, and the bridge goes boom?Looks like a CGI explosion.There is neither sense nor craft to make a better version of the novel,which was screened properly in our country once. But I would be happyto watch a Russian remake of "Gone with the Wind". Hey, directors, wakeup and get busy with that, instead of spoiling our classics.Now back to common sense. Jokes aside. What I mentioned above isnothing new, though deadly exaggerated.To make foreign actors trying to pass for Russians (while participatingin very serious epics and dramas) is a rude mistake and the filmmakersare making this mistake again and again. Of course it results innumerous laughs - especially Clemence Poesy is uncomfortably ridiculousand her dancing and singing makes a Russian viewer think: "This sucksso much that it's funny!").In order to say something new, I'd like to mention the pace of themovie. To my mind, this new version is very patchy. The narration andthe scenes are not naturally flowing - they stagger and pop up like ina modern video. Again I have to remember our "Voyna i mir", where theaction is so natural and the narration is so easy that you simply sitback and enjoy "going with the flow".I thought that maybe the Borodino battle would be great (to somehowrehabilitate numerous drawbacks) but it has turned out to be no matchfor the war scenes filmed in 1968.There should be something good in this movie after all. And there is.The actors seem to be trying hard to make it all work. They did nothave a chance from the start but they still joined "the losers' team".Plus 1 point for that recklessness. It makes a Russian vieweruncomfortable - some scenes are ironically ridiculous though they areintended to be dramatically powerful and the actors are doing theirbest. It all evokes pity, and sometimes - fits of laughter.What I still like about this serial is the last part of it. It showsvery vividly how everybody gets his or her "salary and taxes". Besides,judging by the movie trailers I thought that the film would have anadult sex scene, which would definitely kill the whole project. But,fortunately, it does not have such rubbish. And that's a big plus."Voyna i Mir" is no "Harry Potter" and nowadays even we, here inpresent-day Russia, do not have enough craft to film it properly. Do Ihave to say that the moral quality of our life has deterioratedimmensely? Fortunately, a proper film was screened during our Soviettimes. The American version of the 1950s was justified to some extent -ours did not even exist yet. There were extenuating circumstances then.4 out of 10 (1 point is given from the start, 1 point goes for therecklessness, and 2 points for the last part of the serial. Thanks forattention.
Diogenes81 05 May 2013
It's difficult to adapt successfully one of the greatest books everwritten.Exhibit A: this miniseries. As far as adaptations go, this one at least doesn't desecrate theclassic story it tells - but it doesn't do it justice either.There is a wonderful bit in the novel when Natasha is talking about aperson she doesn't like: trying to describe him, she simply says he is"grey". That's, in a nutshell, the problem with this adaptation: it'snot outrageously awful or utterly despicable, but it's banal,forgettable and very mediocre. In a word, grey.A big problem lies in the casting. Alessio Boni is flat - he is asstiff as a block of marble and doesn't convey the steely, bittercharisma and the stern moral strength of prince Andrej; the characteris "softened" to the point that he loses any edge, so he comes acrossas a wimp . Alexandr Beyer as Pierre is better but still quite dour,without the pleasant naivetÃ©, the simple-minded bonhomie and the innerfire the part would need. Clemence Poesy is pretty, but, to expressNatasha's charm and joy to live she just resorts to a perpetualsmirking. I'm sorry miss, but I knew Audrey Hepburn, and you are noAudrey Hepburn.The secondary players fare a bit better, like Andrea Giordana as thedecent count, Valentina Cervi as the shy princess Mary, Elodie Frenckas the frail Lise, Dmitri Isayev as Natasha's likable brother Nikolaj.Violante Placido is fetching as the shallow Helene, and, although sheisn't particularly good, it's maybe the only character that lacksdepth, so Placido's mediocre thespian skills don't do any damage.Malcolm McDowell plays Andrej's unsympathetic father, and, while he isfine when the prince is required to be bitter and unpleasant, hesomehow doesn't get the character's few "softer" moments.The direction too is poor: the emotional scenes are either overdone orbanalized, and there are clumsy narrative crutches such as abruptvoice-overs.See the 1956 version instead, with the delightful Audrey Hepburn asNathasha, Henry Fonda as Pierre and Mel Ferrer as Andrej. It's notperfect, but at least it has a soul this version lacks.4/10
mahatma-kumar16 04 May 2013
It is difficult for an Indian to write a laudable review for thisgrandiose series after so many ethnic Russians have written brutallycritical ones. Still I will try. I have watched both Bondarchuk'sSoviet production of 1960s and this particular one. Let me put it likethis. The Soviets (who tried hard to reproduce the aristocratic milieuof the Russian Empire of early 19 century) did their best and failed.May be it can be explained that under Lenin and Stalin they managed toexecute all real Russian aristocrats - so there were no nobles left totell them how the high life folks really behaved. I hear the onlyexpert from "old" Russia they could unearth was the widow of theexecuted tsarist admiral Kolchak (even she was condemned to some 18years in various GULAG camps). In this series the motley crew ofEuropean star actors and gifted Russian extras surprisingly create avery sophisticated and warm world of Russian nobility which is quitebelievable for a fan of classic Russian culture like me. Two grades areoff due to poorly staged battle scenes and outlandish Russian hussars'sbraids (unlike the Mongols their elite cavalry never wore braids,especially in the 19 century).
msbsegal 03 May 2013
I just saw the first part and I agree with the other commentator, it isvery disappointing. He mentions the Audrey Hepburn version. I wouldlike to mention that as French was the language of the Russianaristocracy, 2/3 of the book was written in French with Russiantranslation added in the footnotes, funny I think... Therefore, I wouldlike to praise again the Bondartchouk version, I would say it is theultimate version and nothing can come even close to it: for me, whoread the book in the original Russian, this is the true interpretationof what Tolstoy would have wanted. And you ask why ? Because SergeyBondartchouk followed the book line after line, and included all themost minute details. It was thoroughly researched and everything wasabsolutely perfect, the dresses, the carriages, the furniture, thesets, etc. If you have not seen, do try to get it, it is a great workof art.In this mini series, most of the details are wrong, but the worstmistake is in the cast : here, Sonia is brunette and Natasha is blonde,in the book it is the reverse, this point is essential. A blondeNatasha is unheard of. I would like to refer your readers to the goodold book : Ivanhoe. At one point, Sir Walter Scott, through De BoisGuilbert, makes a comparison between blonde women and brunettes, and hesays that women with dark hair have more zest, are more lively, havesome inner fire, it is not a sic quotation but I remembered this remarkbecause I thought it was quite to the point. So Natasha, who is the pinnacle of life, if not life itself, cannot bea bland pale blonde, not that I would hurt blonds, but this Natashalacks some sparks, some shine in her eyes. The rest of course is notimportant anymore.Sorry, it is not up to par.N.B.: I feel I must add a few lines to explain that the point I havemade at Natasha being a blonde instead of a brunette as expresslyrequired by Tolstoy, is not a futile headstrong idea of mine but isquite well based : In Tolstoy's masterpiece, the young Countess Natasha is the epitome ofabsolute purity and youth, kindness, truthfulness,loyalty to friends,she is like a breath of fresh spring air, so he makes her a blue-eyedbrunette. Her blond cousin Sonia is about her age, but she is more of ablur, and though she has many good qualities,she lacks this sparklespring-like personality which is exemplified by Natasha.At the end of the spectrum, the utmost evil woman is, as required bythe author, the EXTREMELY BEAUTIFUL BLOND Helene Kuragin, whose familyis ruined and poor as a mice, and who manages to grasp the CountBezukhov, not for love, or so she plays it, but of course for hisimmense fortune, which should help save hers. She is a real bi---, sheis nasty, even before the marriage she gets a lover and gets her naivehusband "des cornes" so big that the horns of a full grown-up male deershould seem small compared to what she makes her husband wear. But asthere is Justice, she dies of her own infidelities....In any case, if you have this evil Helen as a blond, how can youvisualize a blond Natasha as being in a completely different category ?If the Director etc would have given to their Natasha blue lens and abrown or black wig, they might have done the trick, but they did notask me, did they !!!!! So now I hope IDMB readers will fully understand my point of view.
Alex Un 03 May 2013
Frankly, I have watched only two short extracts of Part 1 as I couldnot bear to watch the whole part. In the 1st extract I was surprised tosee that Natasha Rostova was a blue-eyed blonde, below medium height(according to the book, Natasha was a tall brunette). And PierreBezukhov was a thin man! (a 'massive', overweight man - according tothe book). In the 2nd extract (I guess, it was the end of Part 1), Iwas shocked to see Bolkonsky and Rostova waltzing to the music whichwas composed by A.Khachaturian in 1940's (i.e. about 150 years afterthe events described in the book!!!). I doubt if the movie-makers everread the book. The movie may be alright only for the American audience:-)
01 May 2013
I loved this movie, I watched it twice and I am going to purchase the DVD.I highly recommend to watch this movie.
01 May 2013
You will not regret watching these series, they are everything the previous reviews describe and more - lush, rich, colorful background and gorgeous, talented actors. If you are looking for a complete presentation of Tolstoy novel, just pick up a book and read it, no movie will give you a pure, unsullied experience of Tolstoy's novel. But these series, "inspired" by the book, can give a clear introduction into the spirit of the novel and characters otherwise confusing in their numbers. I thought the film did justice to the gist of the matter - free spirited Natasha, morose and complex Andrey, naive and good hearted Pierre, cold and beautiful Helene etc. - my favorite by far in this film is Vassily Kuragin, it takes a real Italian to portrait a Russian villain so brilliantly! They did get certain crucial points - prince Andrey's crisis during the first battle, Natasha's angst over his absence and seduction by Anatole, Kutuzov's hesitation at engaging in action with French, Pierre's touching declaration to Natasha - all those all too important moments drilled into us in Russian schools. What if few details in their costumes are wrong or they dance waltz? in 1812? to the Masquerade Suite by Khachaturian. Just go with the flow and enjoy it!
28 April 2013
This review is from: Krig and Fred (Blu-ray) I've waited several years for this movie and bought it a few months ago. Sadly it won't play in any Blu-ray player I've tried to use. It just spins in the player or pops up disc menu for 2seconds and then I receive an error stating that the resolution isn't supported by my TV.
27 April 2013
It's a bit odd that, at least of the date of this writing, Amazon doesn't seem to be offering this 4-disk version of War and Peace except as a pricey import. I'm surprised it's not more widely available in the United States.First of all, this is NOT the huge epic by Sergei Bondarchuk from 1968, though visually and in terms of its length, this outing is fully comparable to that well-known one.What you're looking at is an internationally produced TV miniseries bankrolled chiefly by Italian public television, RAI! It has the look and feel, however, of a BBC job: all British actors, for example.But I prefer this one more. Bondarchuk's hand almost oppresses the viewer, and is difficult to follow unless you know the story to begin with. Not this one.It's actually quite nicely done: they spent some real money on it. People praise Bondarchuk's battle scenes, and while those may be impressive when you reflect they were thronged not with CGI-enhanced soldiers, but actual down-on-their luck Muscovites, visually, I suppose, this doesn't make much of a difference in the end.This version, I feel, is much clearer and easier to follow than Bondarchuk's -- and nearly as long. And while Bondarchuk's bold direction takes center stage in his version, the directing is much more assured in this version, much more subtle and less obtrusive, it seems.There are other advantages too: this version has clear, professionally done subtitles, unlike the Bondarchuk epic, which, as of this writing, suffers from poorly rendered and unprofessional versions.However, I cannot wholeheartedly endorse this product.The reason is the hideous and laughable performance by the actress cast as Natasha. In fact, for acting generally, anybody can see the obvious superiority of Bondarchuk's version. In this version, the acting generally -- but Natasha's performance in particular -- is a real black hole to the entire production. At one point, when the Rostov family is learning of Petya's death, she even cracks a smile!(This is only one example of her horrendousness. And there are other laughably bad actors, too: Anatole Kuragin, for example.)If you can forget Natasha, however, I'd prefer this version for clarity and restraint. Certainly if I ever sit down to read War and Peace again, this will be the version I re-watch to help me get back in the groove.