La guerra y la paz I

War and Peace Leo Tolstoy' best work-and it's also my favorite tome. After poring over the weighty tome, I couldn't help trying to review it by the way of movie. However, after watching American and BBC' s mode, I suppose this movie should be the best one which lives up to even Tolstoy himself ' expectation (if he could watch it). Admitted America' s War and Peace is pretty grand, but it is less amazing comparing with its Soviet Union's counterpart which took 5 years to finish production and cost over $560 million.... No pain no gain: This movie still won Oscar during the cold War because its amazing production could devastate the political wall mounting between the two super powers. Again, Russian director and actors made use of their best understanding of their domestic classic and created a piece of art work, a masterpiece in front of our audience. There I have to say that it is the power of loyalty to art instead of to business. Only in this way, this movie could be made;only in his way, Shawshank could be classic.... All right, let's back to the point:why do I say this movie must be a masterpiece: First, I have to admit that the cast of the movie is perfect: Admitted the actors performing Andrei, Pierre and Helen are no longer young, but they do have the same or similar bearing comparing with these characters in the tometome:The actor performing Pierre is the director of the movie. He is quite similar to Pierre himself as he is overweight, idealistic, kind, and is sometimes embarrassed simultaneously. Mr. Bondarchuk also acts as a round peg in a square hole in this movie, which is especially Pierre' s trait. Moreover, Tikhonov acts a superficially remote and abstinent while innately patriotic good young man-Andrei. He must be the perfect actor in performing Andre. Anatolia Ktorov is also perfect in performing an impatient and strict old-styled aristocrat. What does a truly Russian old-fashioned aristocrat look like? He shouldn't be the rude Russian farmer in American War and Peace movie. Rather, he should be thin and has an aquiline nose;he should be strict with his kids and be stubborn ;he should be smart and prospective when he observes the current national situation.... All in all, he should be aristocratic. A lot of people tend to compare Hepburn with Lyudmila Saveleva, who performs Natasha in this movie. I have to say that Saveleva is perfect in showing another same Natasha.The reason why I think so is not only her competitive beautiful appearance, but also her enthusiastic and sometimes still a little childish behaviors-she is only a debutante who is not bond with any mundane rules and regulations;she only her intuition and acts as a free bird.... All in all, that's what Lyudmila has shown in front of us, which is rear to be seen from other actresses.... Secondly, this movie well shows the Russian Spirit. What does it mean? Russian Spirit? Something abstract and ethereal? Yes, it's really hard to explain what a nation' spirit means or looks like. However, through the movie, we can see some snippets giving us a hint: When the people from other countries are confined into the house on snowy chill days, Rostov' family instead hang out but sleighs and have a great time. In the war place, Russian soldiers are faced with death in the same way of gambling-even they lose they won't spit their fate;death and hurt is like something happens every day. In this way, we can imagine how bold and unconstrained the Russian are. Third, the episodes delineating wars are really grand. Imagine:the Soviet Union prepared 695 ancient canons and 587 contemporary canons for the wars. They also ran off 16600 grenades and 20900 pairs of clothes. They even established a contemporary fake big Moscow to show the fires Moscow. All in all, it's an epic.... Finally, Tolstoy's conception of history is shown totally in this movie, too: He doubted it is heroes who create the history. Rather, he thought the heroes ideas couldn't penetrate into the lower classes and couldn't change the war. So that's why though Kutuzov is self-knowing while Napoleon is not, they all can't act as they one who stop the history but they have to act. Instead the soldiers fighting hard and exhausted horses are truly heroes through the history.... So that's what I want to say about this movie. I really wanna know guys what you are waiting for? Just sit down and watch this series patiently. Only in this so called ''should be condensed'' way,a classic weighty tome can be showed perfectly. Only these patient and sagacious men can grasp the opportunity to appreciate this artistry, this feast of aesthetics....

In addition to being the most faithful adaptation of the novel, this work is really a marvelous masterpiece of direction. Not only the battle scenes were realistic and fascinating, but the detailed portrayal of Moscow's looting, destruction, vandalism and humiliation at the hands of the invaders was striking and expensively arranged that I played those scenes repeatedly to mark all the details.

Bondrachuk as Besukhov was so fit in the role that one forgets he's in fact the director.

The only thing I could never comprehend is why Slava Tikhonov considered this as his worst performance that he thought to quit acting and was surprised when Bondrachuk offered him another role afterwards ... I believe he made a fine Andrey, definitely better than all other known versions. Of course not his own best role but that's related to both the novel itself as well as to the overwhelming cinematographic visuals which make any individual performance just a tiny drop in the ocean of splendid scenes.

I'm really impressed so far. The amount of characters and story is teetering on overwhelming (especially because I've never read the novel nor seen another adaption of War & Peace), but I'm following well enough. The battle sequences have been as insane as everyone else has described them, the scope in all the non-battle scenes is impressive too, the camerawork is frequently risky and inventive in ways that work, and there are some surprisingly surreal and philosophical sequences that are actually working for me and not feeling boring (I say that as someone who isn't a huge Tarkovsky fan). Here's hoping the remaining parts are just as good.

Part I of Sergei Bondarchuk's relentlessly ambitious 1965-67 War and Peace, "Andrei Bolkonsky", debuted at the Moscow Film Festival in 1965 and won the Grand Prix. It was also torn apart by critics at that time, according to The Criterion Collection, because it was played at that festival in an unfinished state. It later went to regular theatres, finished, in 1966 and became part of a cinematic phenomenon. Part I gives us an appetizer for the battle scenes to come with Austerlitz. These scenes aren't as impressive as the ones in parts III and IV, but they are gripping and terrifying in their own right.

From the word go, War and Peace boasts an elaborate production speaking to a director with an artistic vision. Nothing is "too much": In Part I, we see a bear attend a debauched aristocrats' party, because why not? We could cut the bear to spare the expense, but no, keep the bear. The creativity is also there, and even if we're looking at something ordinary, it still leaves me impressed. A tree almost comes to life, as if by magic, and we also see some ghostly images as viewed by Natasha. Natasha appears fairly young here, and as with Boyhood (2014), War and Peace offers a rare experience of seeing characters age naturally, a result of a years-long production.

Part I also gives us some philosophy to contemplate by means of Andrei and Pierre's discussions. The fact that Pierre refers to Napoleon here as "the greatest man in the world" is, to say the least, interesting considering what he plans to do in Part IV. If you've finished Part I, fasten your seatbelts - there's a lot more to come.

Although one of the commentators above says that few people have read Tolstoi's book, I think his statement may not be exact. If you're someone who loves to read you must have read War and Peace just as people with a minimum of culture and interest in literature have read Proust, Dumas, Victor Hugo or great American novels by Heminghway or other English writers. As far as I'm concerned I read the book after attending 4 times the superb Paris opera house production of Prokofiev masterpiece staged by Francesca Zambello probably one of the most prestigious production ever made in Paris since Strehler's Nozze di Figaro in 1973 and just as a testimony here is the finale worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aGQmluM_bo. It is rare to see the french public giving a standing ovation as that was the case during all the performances I attended. The emotion was at its highest level. I was so enthralled by the performance that I decided to read the book and did it in just one week of course in French not understanding Russian. I had seen when I was a youngster the American film with Mel Ferrer and Audrey Hepburn. And I decided to watch the Sergueï Bondartchouk one recently and bought the whole set of dvds. The main critic I'll make on this Russian version is its length. At many moments the director could have shortened his shots without in the least damaging the atmosphere of the episode concerned. The acting is of course absolutely astounding from the smallest part to the main characters, the photography is amazing especially the battle scenes which at many moments remind you of the epic paintings which have been realized at that time in the late nineteenth century. One can also regret that the french company which has distributed the film did not have it remastered before putting it on the market. Considering the price of those four dvds one could demand for a perfect picture. Nevertheless the movie is a must see and one should also watch the opera taking into account that Prokofiev used for its libretto a very small part of the novel focusing the action on Andrei, Natacha and Peter and the great battle scenes (Moscow and Napoleon debacle in particular). The Paris cast was mainly Russian with a superb Natacha, Peter and Andrei.