Very Cool!!!

Perfect cast and a good story

Absolutely amazing

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

War and Peace (1967/Russian version) is the most accurately represented film of Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace novel. Since I read the novel in order to make a report on it, I was able to get the "provenance" of the entire setting in the 1967 movie. The 2007 version actually seemed to be a generic "period play" being passed off to unsuspecting viewers of the real import of the movie and it comes across only as a lighthearted attempt to portray two lovers trying to "get it together". It was sort of like watching Gone with the Wind in Russia. The "acting out" of the two main characters in their attempt to give it a "modern interpretive twist" to each of the major characters' behaviour failed to reflect the mindset of the individuals they portrayed as well as accurately reveal the worldview of a culture in the throes of a historic drama. While the 2007 cast members were enjoyable to watch (they were excellent actors), I found it somewhat ridiculous to see Natasha and Andre pulling out each other's tongue in the kissing scene, even though it was titillating to watch. An intelligent understanding of the complexity of the royal class mindset of that time prohibited such a reaction between two people who barely knew each other (especially when the male was twice the female's age and they each belonged to a different class structure) and who were about to be "betrothed" in the anachronistic sense of the word that was a characteristic of that society and one with which we are unable to relate to.I would suggest that anyone wanting to see a well-developed thematic presentation of Tolstoy's War and Peace would do themselves a favor by watching the film version that was made in 1967. While you would find some of it confusing-i.e., their conversation, their dialogue with themselves, their viewpoints within that society, which were distinctively Russian, you would come to the conclusion that the director of the Russian version with the Russian actors did indeed depict accurately how the Russian aristocracy behaved in their attempts to mimic the French within their own parameters, making them appear somewhat boorish as well as comical as they tried to live their lives in that era of Russian society. You would see their frustration in their everyday lives as well as their consternation over the dilemma of keeping Napoleon out of their country and their eventual failure to do so. However, you are elated when you see how their Tsar-appointed General commands the respect and loyalty of the Russian troops, leading them to an ultimate victory and watching the French flee Russia in disgrace. Which is really what the book is all about.

But it was pretty ridiculous and melodramatic. And the acting was terrible, especially in the main roles. I think Natasha's character was the worst, just a silly girl, and I could not figure out why she was considered so special and the actress was feeble in this role. And Pierre-he went from a drunken dolt to a noble Count or whatever, just by his father dying? All of a sudden he was wise and great, etc.The scenery and costumes were good anyway.And it was a way to pass some hours. But the script was sometimes ridiculous. The characters not believable; Andre's sister such a martyr to that lunatic father of hers. Andre and Natasha of course getting together again and the references to her constant suffering when she was fool enough to fall for that treacherous prince. Just a mess of a script and performances. And then Pierre's cruel selfish wife dying to make it convenient for Natasha after Andre dies...I just did not see Natasha as such a prize that she should fell man after man.

lusto777, you don't understand anything about War and Peace. if you even try try to read you'll see mistakes in the film. For example, Natasha Rostova in book is silly and not beautiful girl. Bondarchuk was genius. You can agree or not with his interpretation, but you can't deny that his film War and Peace is the world's masterpiece. In my opinion, his film is better than this one) Also it's incorrect to say such words about directors, actors and actresses. talent doesn't depend on declared politics. i don't want to lesson, but your words drive me out of wits. and your naive opinion about commies and emperor is very funny, it makes me smile. Excuse me lady and guys for this off-top, nice watching and pardon my English.

I just saw the first part and I agree with the other commentator, it is very disappointing. He mentions the Audrey Hepburn version. I would like to mention that as French was the language of the Russian aristocracy, 2/3 of the book was written in French with Russian translation added in the footnotes, funny I think... Therefore, I would like to praise again the Bondartchouk version, I would say it is the ultimate version and nothing can come even close to it: for me, who read the book in the original Russian, this is the true interpretation of what Tolstoy would have wanted. And you ask why ? Because Sergey Bondartchouk followed the book line after line, and included all the most minute details. It was thoroughly researched and everything was absolutely perfect, the dresses, the carriages, the furniture, the sets, etc. If you have not seen, do try to get it, it is a great work of art.In this mini series, most of the details are wrong, but the worst mistake is in the cast : here, Sonia is brunette and Natasha is blonde, in the book it is the reverse, this point is essential. A blonde Natasha is unheard of. I would like to refer your readers to the good old book : Ivanhoe. At one point, Sir Walter Scott, through De Bois Guilbert, makes a comparison between blonde women and brunettes, and he says that women with dark hair have more zest, are more lively, have some inner fire, it is not a sic quotation but I remembered this remark because I thought it was quite to the point. So Natasha, who is the pinnacle of life, if not life itself, cannot be a bland pale blonde, not that I would hurt blonds, but this Natasha lacks some sparks, some shine in her eyes. The rest of course is not important anymore.Sorry, it is not up to par.N.B.: I feel I must add a few lines to explain that the point I have made at Natasha being a blonde instead of a brunette as expressly required by Tolstoy, is not a futile headstrong idea of mine but is quite well based : In Tolstoy's masterpiece, the young Countess Natasha is the epitome of absolute purity and youth, kindness, truthfulness,loyalty to friends, she is like a breath of fresh spring air, so he makes her a blue-eyed brunette. Her blond cousin Sonia is about her age, but she is more of a blur, and though she has many good qualities,she lacks this sparkle spring-like personality which is exemplified by Natasha.At the end of the spectrum, the utmost evil woman is, as required by the author, the EXTREMELY BEAUTIFUL BLOND Helene Kuragin, whose family is ruined and poor as a mice, and who manages to grasp the Count Bezukhov, not for love, or so she plays it, but of course for his immense fortune, which should help save hers. She is a real bi---, she is nasty, even before the marriage she gets a lover and gets her naive husband "des cornes" so big that the horns of a full grown-up male deer should seem small compared to what she makes her husband wear. But as there is Justice, she dies of her own infidelities....In any case, if you have this evil Helen as a blond, how can you visualize a blond Natasha as being in a completely different category ? If the Director etc would have given to their Natasha blue lens and a brown or black wig, they might have done the trick, but they did not ask me, did they !!!!! So now I hope IDMB readers will fully understand my point of view.