Overrated

not as good as all the hype

I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Anna Karenina is my all-time favorite book, and having watched a number of Russian and English-language adaptations, including the 2012 Joe Wright film with Keira Knightly, I consider this 2000 Masterpiece Theater version the most faithful and watchable of them all. While Helen McRory may not be as conventionally pretty as many other actresses who played Anna, her acting is spot on, and she's closer to the character as envisioned and described by Tolstoy. The other characters are cast very well, and few liberties are taken with the plot. Aside from the now-dated 1977 BBC miniseries, this is the version which spends the most time on the Levin-Kitty storyline, as it should be. The main reason I deduct 2 points is that parts of the series inevitably felt like a breeze-through the book's themes - as no adaptation can truly capture the depth of the original novel.

This was the first version of Anna Karenina that I saw and apart from the 'shaky camera' direction which seems to be in fashion these days it is a really good version.Kevin McKidd and Helen McCrory are excellent and give it their all in this tale of passion and love. It made me become a fan of both actors and seek out films with them in.All in all a good version, with the themes of the story, lust, love and passion coming through very strongly. I seem to remember this was shown in 3 or 4 parts over as many weeks and I could not wait to see the next part every week, a sign of good drama!Watch it and see if you agree.

I've seen almost all the versions of Anna Karenina, and I'm trying to compare them with the book. So far, this version is the most true one to Tolsty's novel. It is very detailed which helps to express the true feelings of the characters the way Tolstoy created them. I didn't like the actors much, especially Anna, she's not attractive enough to play Anna. The perfect actors for Anna Karenina are in the 1997 version. Sophie Marceau made an excellent Anna, with her beautiful young flirtatious look, and the confidence with which she carries herself even when she's in despair.Helen McCrory just looks ill all the time, even in the beginning, she just doesn't have that presence that Tolstoy's Anna does. If the actors and settings of this movie were substituted with the ones from 1997 version, this movie would be absolutely perfect! Although it doesn't give the whole picture of 19th century Russia the way Tolstoy pictured it and the way the 1997 version does, this is still the most accurate version, and expresses the true meaning of the novel. Definitely recommended for people who haven't read the book, as well as those who have!

I agree with the previous reviewer in finding that the main characters (Anna and her lover) though played by very good actors lacked both screen presence and chemistry. As a result the series seemed very tedious to watch and the love between them difficult to believe in - which in turn left me indifferent as to their predicament or its outcome. On the other hand, I found that the "Moscow set" stories and actors brought life to the series. In particular, Mark Strong (Oblonsky), Amanda Roots (Dolly), Paloma Baeza (Kitty) and Douglas Henshall (Levin) all gave lively performances. In the case of Henshall and Paloma Baeza the chemistry between the couple made the romance believable and moving. Henshall impersonated Levin's self-doubt and moral guilt particularly well. He made Kitty's delivery scene very memorable. His Scottish accent (which I normally like very much) seemed a bit distracting in this setting - especially in the scenes with his "brother". It reminded me of Billy Boyd in The Lord of the Rings!