NOTE IMDb
6,3/10
6,3 k
MA NOTE
Anna (Marceau) est une épouse et une mère qui a une liaison avec le beau comte Vronsky. D'après le roman de Tolstoï.Anna (Marceau) est une épouse et une mère qui a une liaison avec le beau comte Vronsky. D'après le roman de Tolstoï.Anna (Marceau) est une épouse et une mère qui a une liaison avec le beau comte Vronsky. D'après le roman de Tolstoï.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Petr Shelokhonov
- Kapitonich, Chief Butler
- (as Pyotr Sholokhov)
Avis à la une
This was surprisingly good. I'm not that much a fan of the Romance genre, if truth be told, but I'll make an exception for this one. The film is carefully crafted. Every emotion, every dialogue enhanced the overall tone of the film, slowly but surely escalating in its momentum up to its tragic climax.
Sophie Marceau was brilliant. As was Sean Bean. I wasn't quite sure if they would be able to possess the kind of chemistry needed to pull this off, if truth be told, considering how they (in my opinion) seem to be of different temperament artistically (Sophie being more sensitive as seen in Braveheart and Marquis, while Bean is more explosive). Nevertheless, it worked out fine although, ironically, their relationship seem to be more believable whenever they fell out of odds with each other. :)
Sophie Marceau was brilliant. As was Sean Bean. I wasn't quite sure if they would be able to possess the kind of chemistry needed to pull this off, if truth be told, considering how they (in my opinion) seem to be of different temperament artistically (Sophie being more sensitive as seen in Braveheart and Marquis, while Bean is more explosive). Nevertheless, it worked out fine although, ironically, their relationship seem to be more believable whenever they fell out of odds with each other. :)
Which is entirely to be expected with a novel the size and complexity, I'm told, of Leo Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina", which I have not read.
I will blushingly admit that I first viewed this film mostly because of Sean Bean's presence. I found him a superb actor in the Lord of the Rings, and hoped to find more in his other works.
Truthfully, his portrayal of Vronsky feels somewhat light in this film; I attribute this to three factors: the severe compression of the novel (as happens with all film adaptations), the actual nature of the character itself, and the slightly boring task of playing mostly passion. Unlike other viewers, I found it very difficult to sympathize with Vronsky, and his repentance hollow. My heart melted somewhat, though, during his flashback to Karenina's corpse at the railway, and his brimming eyes as the train pulled away. Redeemed slightly at the very last moment.
Sophie Marceau is stunning as Anna Karenina; I found her enchanting from the start. Marceau plays the title lady with dignity, elegance, and grace; in her more intimate and emotional moments, she portrays Karenina's motherly and passionate sides with skill.
The inevitable flaws of adaptation show through in this film; there are numerous location changes, and multiple "quick" passages of time. Every event feels strung together by a thread, which they likely are, chosen for their narrative value. Yet it doesn't work, as the overall result lacks a palatable sense of cohesion. The love story of Karenina and Vronsky feels chopped and rushed, as does the tale of Levin and his Kitty -- which is too bad, since they are both the anchor narratives. The contrast of the two, however, plays well, and reminds me of the romances in Michael Ondaatje's "English Patient" (I'm well aware Tolstory precedes Ondaatje).
The greatest features of "Anna Karenina" lie in the atmosphere. Despite the out-of-place original accents of the actors, Russian is spoken skilfully, and the chosen music is beautiful and appropriately evocative of an older, grander time. and the lovely landscapes of Russia play a beautiful role in the background. The costumes and sets are breathtaking; the highlight is surely the ballroom scene, when all are attired for an evening "out" and Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake Waltz is playing.
While an excellent effort, "Anna Karenina" eventually feels like what it is: a cinematic adaptation of a novel.
I'd give it a 8 out of 10.
I will blushingly admit that I first viewed this film mostly because of Sean Bean's presence. I found him a superb actor in the Lord of the Rings, and hoped to find more in his other works.
Truthfully, his portrayal of Vronsky feels somewhat light in this film; I attribute this to three factors: the severe compression of the novel (as happens with all film adaptations), the actual nature of the character itself, and the slightly boring task of playing mostly passion. Unlike other viewers, I found it very difficult to sympathize with Vronsky, and his repentance hollow. My heart melted somewhat, though, during his flashback to Karenina's corpse at the railway, and his brimming eyes as the train pulled away. Redeemed slightly at the very last moment.
Sophie Marceau is stunning as Anna Karenina; I found her enchanting from the start. Marceau plays the title lady with dignity, elegance, and grace; in her more intimate and emotional moments, she portrays Karenina's motherly and passionate sides with skill.
The inevitable flaws of adaptation show through in this film; there are numerous location changes, and multiple "quick" passages of time. Every event feels strung together by a thread, which they likely are, chosen for their narrative value. Yet it doesn't work, as the overall result lacks a palatable sense of cohesion. The love story of Karenina and Vronsky feels chopped and rushed, as does the tale of Levin and his Kitty -- which is too bad, since they are both the anchor narratives. The contrast of the two, however, plays well, and reminds me of the romances in Michael Ondaatje's "English Patient" (I'm well aware Tolstory precedes Ondaatje).
The greatest features of "Anna Karenina" lie in the atmosphere. Despite the out-of-place original accents of the actors, Russian is spoken skilfully, and the chosen music is beautiful and appropriately evocative of an older, grander time. and the lovely landscapes of Russia play a beautiful role in the background. The costumes and sets are breathtaking; the highlight is surely the ballroom scene, when all are attired for an evening "out" and Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake Waltz is playing.
While an excellent effort, "Anna Karenina" eventually feels like what it is: a cinematic adaptation of a novel.
I'd give it a 8 out of 10.
According to an earlier review, this movie is supposed to be "just plan awful." The writer probably meant "plain" instead of "plan," and that misspelling may be an indication of the quality of the review.
There is much to be said for the viewpoint that this film version of Tolstoy's novel, starring Sophie Marceau, must certainly be one of the greatest versions ever produced.
Tolstoy himself lived to see just the beginning of the era of the motion picture and was said to have been fascinated by the possibilities the new medium presented. If so, he would no doubt have been quite astonished at the beauty and the extraordinary quality of this rendition of his story about Anna Karenina. The production values are among the highest there could possibly be. The costumes, the cinematography, and the sets unlike earlier versions, the film was shot on location in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in Russia are at such a remarkable level that the action almost does appear to be really taking place in the Czarist period at the end of the nineteenth century.
As for Sophie Marceau's mild French accent which the above-mentioned reviewer found so irritating it is quite likely that many upper-classes Russians of the period actually did speak with a French accent. It was not Russian but French that was the dominant language among the Russian nobility and aristocracy of the time for some, French was in fact their native language, since many of them never learned to speak Russian at all, except perhaps a few words and phrases they could use to communicate with the servants.
What is perhaps most remarkable of all in this film is the utterly believable way that the behavior of the of characters is presented. Their motives are suggested with great subtlety, not in the somewhat simplistic tones of the (nevertheless still magnificent) MGM version of the film that starred Greta Garbo seventy years ago. Anna's husband is not a monster, for example, in this new version, but a rather pathetic, right-wing government bureaucrat with obsessively strict moral values. Moreover, the portrayal of Anna's behavior throughout the film, and especially in the final scenes, is a masterpiece of sympathetic psychological insight and understanding.
This film is a for the time being, anyway neglected classic.
There is much to be said for the viewpoint that this film version of Tolstoy's novel, starring Sophie Marceau, must certainly be one of the greatest versions ever produced.
Tolstoy himself lived to see just the beginning of the era of the motion picture and was said to have been fascinated by the possibilities the new medium presented. If so, he would no doubt have been quite astonished at the beauty and the extraordinary quality of this rendition of his story about Anna Karenina. The production values are among the highest there could possibly be. The costumes, the cinematography, and the sets unlike earlier versions, the film was shot on location in St. Petersburg and elsewhere in Russia are at such a remarkable level that the action almost does appear to be really taking place in the Czarist period at the end of the nineteenth century.
As for Sophie Marceau's mild French accent which the above-mentioned reviewer found so irritating it is quite likely that many upper-classes Russians of the period actually did speak with a French accent. It was not Russian but French that was the dominant language among the Russian nobility and aristocracy of the time for some, French was in fact their native language, since many of them never learned to speak Russian at all, except perhaps a few words and phrases they could use to communicate with the servants.
What is perhaps most remarkable of all in this film is the utterly believable way that the behavior of the of characters is presented. Their motives are suggested with great subtlety, not in the somewhat simplistic tones of the (nevertheless still magnificent) MGM version of the film that starred Greta Garbo seventy years ago. Anna's husband is not a monster, for example, in this new version, but a rather pathetic, right-wing government bureaucrat with obsessively strict moral values. Moreover, the portrayal of Anna's behavior throughout the film, and especially in the final scenes, is a masterpiece of sympathetic psychological insight and understanding.
This film is a for the time being, anyway neglected classic.
To be honest, I have not read this book. I have heard that it was a classic and all those other things that people say about his book, but really had no idea what the story is about. Actually, the main reason that I watched this movie, was that Sean Bean was in it(I had previously seen him in Lord of the Rings, and really enjoyed him). I was surprised to find this story so engaging. I thought that he was amazing in this movie, very charming. He just has this intangible quality that always has me rooting for him.
This is the first movie that I have ever seen Sophie Marceau in(playing Anna Karenina) and I found that she portrays Anna with a delicate grace, that makes you understand Vronsky's(Bean) dogged pursuit of her.
True, I have to say that I found the end a little disappointing, and heart-wrenching. Sean Bean shines at the end of the movie, I think he really shows well just how much Vronsky finally realizes he has lost.
This is the first movie that I have ever seen Sophie Marceau in(playing Anna Karenina) and I found that she portrays Anna with a delicate grace, that makes you understand Vronsky's(Bean) dogged pursuit of her.
True, I have to say that I found the end a little disappointing, and heart-wrenching. Sean Bean shines at the end of the movie, I think he really shows well just how much Vronsky finally realizes he has lost.
Of all the versions of the Tolstoy novel which I have seen (two with Greta Garbo, the deplorable one with Vivien Leigh, another with Jacqueline Bisset), this is the one that really reflects the scope and social observation of the book. The careful direction and art direction, the St.Petersburg backgrounds, as well as the exquisite cinematography, make this movie a real feast for the eyes, with magnificent plastic compositions and lighting in every shot. The abused Tchaikovsky music was used discreetly. Sophie Marceau plays a very young Anna, and makes her credible all the time. Sean Bean and James Fox, as Vronsky and Karenin, are admirable. And even if the screen play by director Bernard Rose is a little too literary, the complete story was told, and the result was the best Anna Karenina the screen has offered.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThis was the first western production of "Anna Karenina" to be filmed in Russia (St. Petersburg).
- GaffesDuring the movie, title cards inform the viewer that the story arch unfolds in the years 1880 to 1882 - yet at the end of the movie Vronsky leaves to fight in the Russo-Turkish war of 1877- 1878.
- Citations
Anna Karenina: What are you doing here?
Vronsky: You know that I have come to be where you are. I cannot help myself.
- ConnexionsReferenced in 13 posterunek: Kalambury filmowe (1998)
- Bandes originalesSymphony No. 6 in B Minor, op. 74 (Pathetique)
Written by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (as Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky)
Performed by The St. Petersburg Philharmonic Orchestra
Conducted by Georg Solti (as Sir Georg Solti)
Courtesy of Icon Records and London Records
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Anna Karenina?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Anna Karenina
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 35 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 858 553 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 75 268 $US
- 6 avr. 1997
- Montant brut mondial
- 858 553 $US
- Durée1 heure 48 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Anna Karénine (1997) officially released in India in English?
Répondre