Anna Karenina
Anna Karenina
PG-13 | 04 April 1997 (USA)
Anna Karenina Trailers

Anna Karenina, the wife of a Russian imperial minister, creates a high-society scandal by an affair with Count Vronsky, a dashing cavalry officer in 19th-century St. Petersburg.

Reviews
Unlimitedia

Sick Product of a Sick System

... View More
Erica Derrick

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

... View More
Fatma Suarez

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

... View More
Curt

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

... View More
romanilover

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I SAW WHO SEAN BEAN WAS. I WAS TOTALLY IN LOVE WITH HIM IN THIS FILM AND THE DANCE SCENE IN BALLROOM. I WANTED THEM TO GO ON FOREVER. I JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY PICKED AN ACTRESS WITH THOSE SILLY BANGS. ALTHOUGH I THOUGHT SHE PLAYED THE PART WELL. AS FOR SEAN..................BE STILL MY HEART.

... View More
sp_rose2005

I do not agree with the earlier reviews that Vivian Leigh played Anna better than Sophy Marceau. It is just that the 1948 version was by itself a better film. The weakness of the 1997 version is that it the scenes are too short and scattered together, and this makes it difficult to express the emotions of the characters and the overall idea behind Tolstoy's novel. But this is the weakness of the movie makers, not the actors. In the 1948 version, the scenes are very detailed and the conversations are long enough to express the idea of each scene. 1948 version is good, but not the best. I don't know if anyone has seen the British miniseries of 2000-2001, but if you want to understand the idea of the book, you should watch it. The cast is not the best, Anna looks old and not suited for this role although she acts perfectly, Vronsky cannot even be compared with Sean Bean, but it's very detailed and just gets deep down to the main core of the novel. It also covers Levin perfectly. The 1997 version pays significant attention to Levin's character as well, but again, because the scenes are too confusing, it will be difficult for those who haven't read the book to understand the true meaning of it. So if the makers of the 1997 version spent a little more time on each scene and included the small details (they make a huge difference), this movie would be absolutely perfect. Other than that, this version is just beautiful with its costumes, music, settings, and cast. It pictures 19th century Russia perfectly unlike any other version before or after it (including the 2000 version).

... View More
Nessa

This was surprisingly good. I'm not that much a fan of the Romance genre, if truth be told, but I'll make an exception for this one. The film is carefully crafted. Every emotion, every dialogue enhanced the overall tone of the film, slowly but surely escalating in its momentum up to its tragic climax.Sophie Marceau was brilliant. As was Sean Bean. I wasn't quite sure if they would be able to possess the kind of chemistry needed to pull this off, if truth be told, considering how they (in my opinion) seem to be of different temperament artistically (Sophie being more sensitive as seen in Braveheart and Marquis, while Bean is more explosive). Nevertheless, it worked out fine although, ironically, their relationship seem to be more believable whenever they fell out of odds with each other. :)

... View More
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 :-)

... View More