Wow! Such a good movie.

One of my all time favorites.

Absolutely brilliant

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

POSSIBLE SPOILERSIt clearly goes without saying that this is in the shadow of the original David Lean film and understandably as it is a hard act to follow. It would be easy to condemn this as being "amateurish" but I have to say that I strongly disagree. This production dealt with the setting and period in a more subtle and understated manner and it's in the format of TV which is completely different to the big screen and less cinematic. Despite this being early on in Keira Knightley's career, she does a good job portraying Lara as being a well rounded character. Kris Marshall was another one who stood out for me as his character of Pasha Antipov as his character development was not only well portrayed but more jarring as he turns from an idealistic and optimistic revolutionary to a brutal and merciless Bolshevik General.This also portrays the Russian Revolution in more of a "Warts and all" kind of way as opposed to the romanticised depiction given originally and is executed in a very compelling way. There is an interesting use of archive footage (remeniscent of the use of archive footage in the 1978 TV series "Secret Army") that adds some extra depth to the portrayal of 1910s/1920s Russia.] I'd say that you should listen to what Anna Rust has said and give it a look.

I have seen both screen versions of the Russian classic novel. Both are admirable though we are comparing apples and oranges as one was released in 1965 almost 40 years previous to the 2002 version. Different technologies, different social values, and different censor standards produced different films. However, the viewer who has seen both cannot escape comparisons. Like watching your favourite stage musical with a new set of actors it takes time for familiarity and loyalty to old actors from the first version to diminish and the new production seen for its own merits! The new actors have their merits. The new Zhivago has spirit and some charisma but I preferred Shariff's Zhivago. I have never forgotten the pain registered in Shariff's eyes and on his face in the original as he struggles with internal battles of conscience. No words were required to see his pain! The younger Zhivago has his moments but comes up a bit short in this regard. The portrayal of Lara by Julie Christie and Kierra Knightly are two contrasting styles somewhat due to age differences. Knightly has the freshness and innocence of a 17 year old but once in a awhile the attraction seems forced and awkward between her and her lover (Zhivago) Christie, who was in her twenties when the film was made, was riveting throughout and could steal a scene with a facial dagger such as the scene where she is leaving the makeshift hospital after working with Zhivago for several months only to hear a negative comment made by the Bolshevik. Christie's deadly cold glare towards him denouncing the comment has stayed with me for over 35 years. Christie's and Shariff's first encounter at the library where the cinematography with the sunlight spotlighting her eyes only, is a riveting scene and outdoes the newer version similar take on Lara (Knightly) meeting Zhivago again. Rod Steiger's Kamarovsky is vastly superior acting to Sam Neil's effort. Steiger's monologues characterizing his deceit,conceit, venom and condescending views make Neill's version pale in comparison. As well, Tom Courtenay is a superior Pasha and Stralnikov. Ralph Richardson's crusty, anal member of the upper class is also superior to the new actor's version. That aside the new DVD has many merits and more of an edge regarding the horrors of the revolution and its indirect consequences. The ending was unsatisfying in the new version in my opinion. Not because it was an unhappy ending which is more realistic. Rather, the complacency shown by Lara (Knightly) as she was driven away watching her young son being sent by her to run away under the guise of playing a game was hard to accept that she could do so without portraying any regret or emotion! Sometimes the release of topical films coincide with waves of societal change, in this case the sexual revolution in western societies in the late 1960's. I wonder how many adulterous affairs were sparked and justified by men in the '60's and beyond after watching and wanting to identify with Shariff's Zhivago? I wonder how many girls born in the late 60's were named after Lara. I would wager that there were many who fit both aforementioned scenarios. Wonderful films both are. After some reflection I'll admit I still prefer the former over the latter.

I have never understood people's fascination and love of tortured love stories? Like this one, "Thornbirds" and others like them? Yury is married to a beautiful and sweet woman. They have great history together. And yet he can't resist the temptation of Lara. I think its a pity that adultery gets glamorized by Hollywood and we all buy it as some great love story. It is just cheap lust that is repackaged as star-crossed lovers meant to be together.I for one don't buy it and see it for the garbage it is, no matter how beautiful the scenery, the landscapes, the soundtrack music etc. Wake up people!

Having seen the older rendition with Shivago played by Omar Sharif I couldn't help but comparing Hans Matheson with his predecessor and gradually they seemed to become more alike. Especially in the final scenes with all the despair about the choices in life that had brought him to the end of it. A deeply moving story. It surprised me at first they had cast Keira Knigthley for this great epic, her being so young at the time, to carry such drama. But her performance is exceptional with a natural refreshing lightness. It's hard for a young woman to moan, so Lara makes the best of it despite her ordeal of having to cope with three men who all afflict her in such different ways and Keira neatly strikes a balance in showing us Lara's mixed emotions. Spoiled by a mogul played by Sam Neill, unhappily married to the revolutionary Pasha a.k.a. fearsome Strelnikov and finally seduced by our romantically inclined but still adulterate Doctor Shivago, Lara is not bound for a happy life and she pays dearly at the end which is so intentionally dreadful still solidly performed. Intertwined with this great love story is the background of the great revolution, which this work was written as a charge against, for many years the book had been banned so the story itself justifies it being told and retold. To sit it out is once again an experience that leaves you with a lasting impression about the relentless force of passion and the ever so harsh nature of man.