Krieg und Frieden

What i like about this adaptation is that it gives the younger audience the chance to know why war and peace is one of the most important stories written so far. It is already known that most of the young population doesn't like to read books especially when its a long ones.I like TV series and films for the fact they can deliver a story similar to a book and some times even better.No place to argue that the screen is taking over now so why don't use it to tell famous and good story .So far i've seen 5 episodes and they are all made very well , directors and actors job is just awesome , i strongly recommend this adaptation to everyone!

I can't tell you how curious I was to see this. Being both a Russian and a crazy fan of Andrew Davies adaptations. And, in a nutshell, I found W&P series heart-warming and absolutely satisfying. Truth be told - even finally opening up the greatness of this famous book to me. Never mind that it was written by my compatriot : )

A lot of students in Russia find the Leo Tolstoy masterpiece too big and too daunting. But it's a literature landmark, and you have to read it at school, at least skim through it : ) And because of that whopping size, it's hard to perceive the story as a whole - you just get too exhausted waiting for this or another thread to pick up again. However, Mr Davies shone his genius on us one more time - he took the essence of the story and presented it to a modern viewer in a digestible and tasty way. A big applause.

So, the choice of scenes for the script I find marvellous. Our own movie filmed by Sergey Bondarchuk is loved by many, especially by the older generation. But I've always thought it had too much emphasis on the war side of the novel. And what do we, women, watch period dramas for? : ) Of course more for the relationship side, to watch multilayered characters unfold. And Andrew masters this to perfection. It flows easily, one could watch all 6 episodes in a row - except that it's not a light and romantic Pride & Prejudice. This is deeper and more dramatic food for thought, which requires a break somewhere along the way.

The cast is generally very-very-very good. Pierre is portrayed brilliantly. I can't think of a better or a more sincere one. I also loved the choice of actress for Mariya Bolkonskaya, watching her I could forget this is a foreign actress. Can't say the same about Natasha Rostova, though. To me this was the worst casting fiasco. I'm sure Lily James tried her best. But I, personally, found her annoying in this part. I would prefer to enjoy her performance in Downton Abbey.

On the negative side are the erotic scenes. They are soooo off here. Can you imagine Mr Wickham and Lidiya having fun on the dining room table? I doubt the British audiences would approve of it in the adaptation of their beloved classic. So I couldn't understand why it was included here. The production isn't Tudors, so that's something which is expected least of all.

The other day I read a review by a Russian film critic, which said, "This wouldn't be a truly British adaptation if it didn't end with a scene of domestic bliss" : ) Ironic as it may sound, I find it a good thing and something to thank the production team for. Why not? I enjoyed the final scenes, even though in the original book some less satisfying points were highlighted by the author.

All in all, I felt the series was filmed with attention to detail (as best one can), respect for the original material (for the most part), as well as the nation's culture and traditions. After the disastrous "Anna Karenina" and "Onegin", which ruined 2 other all-time classics of the Russian literature, "War and Peace" by Andrew Davies was a pleasant treat. I just wish this outstanding man 200 years of a happy and productive life, so the world could enjoy more of his projects.

I have read some of the reviews, and seen previous versions so looked forward to this with both hope and trepidation. I loved Anthony Hopkins in the 70s as Pierre, Sergay Bondachuk in the Russian version and Henry Fonda earlier than that. The character is one of my all time favourites, so it took me a while to take to Paul Dano, but once I had, I found it to be a sensitive performance that had its own merits, and deserves praise. Jim Broadbent, Ade Edmondson and the rest of the cast also make it worthy of your time.

All I can say is enjoy the show, lap up the scenery, wallow in the wonderful characters and costumes, charge in your minds eye to battle and dance at the balls. Visit Old St Petersburg without leaving your armchair and be entertained. The book has too much to ever do justice to, (unless perhaps Peter Jackson took it under his wing).

The negative comments here, which I read after watching the miniseries, led me to two things: First, re-read the book, which I hadn't done in ages. Second, I re-watched the Bondarchuk version, which I'd seen way back then when it was first theatrically released. I have to say that all I remembered was simply its length and the scope of the war scenes as it had been widely impressed on viewers at the time that the Soviet army had actually re-enacted them with the blessing of the Soviet state, a propaganda coup in those Cold War times. Yet I seem to remember it as a bit of a bore.

Frankly, people, those who are so negative about this miniseries seem to have watched something else altogether different or need go back and reread the book (if they ever did) and rewatch the Bondarchuk version (ditto). Unlike their claims, it's so happens that the miniseries is actually quite close to the book and a very honorable rendition of Tolstoy's work. Certainly, it doesn't portray Tolstoy's lengthy disquisitions on history and so on, obviously because they are not cinematographic. As to casting, people seem to forget that Bondarchuk, then in his forties, cast himself in the role of Pierre-and he didn't happen to be a very good actor, to boot! Fonda was clearly badly cast, but so was Bondarchuk with the aggravating circumstances that in his case it comes across as a vanity thing. This round goes to Dano, who is an excellent actor and way closer in age to the character.

The other role that seems to have particularly grated on people is Natasha. But in Bondarchuk's film, the role went to a ballet dancer, with no acting experience except for the artificial miming required in the 19th century classic ballets. And this shows bigly, as she plays Natasha as though she were dancing the role! As a former dancer who has also been trained in acting, I can vouch for the differences between the two performance genres and how an unpondered transfer of techniques used in one don't necessarily transfer well to the other. Watching her enact Natasha is excruciating as her gesturing, posturing, and body movement, very obviously coming from ballet miming conventions, are quite artificial and stilted. She simply looks like she strayed into the series from a performance of Swan Lake. Lily James is a perfectly good actress and this round goes to her as well.

All in all, while I can't speak of all the versions out there since I've only seen Hepburn's, Bondarchuk's, and this miniseries, I think this the best of what I know. And I appreciate it greatly for its cohesiveness, faithfulness to the original, excellent production values, acting, and overall quality.

This seemed more like a an adaptation of Tolstoy's epic by the script writers that transferred her books to the little screen. maybe the BBC should have called it War & Prejudice or Gorky Park. It seemed to focus a bit too much on the tittering girls worrying about marriage. The miniseries just felt another of the many same types of staple shows to poke at British aristocracy and little to do about Russians, except it was filmed in Russia.