I am a bit surprised at how hard everyone is on this little mini-series. I have viewed a number of the previous efforts of putting War and Peace on the screen, and actually think that these folks did not do a bad job! While Russians may be justifiably distressed at the international, non-Russian cast, as an American viewer who has seen some of these actors in British, Italian, and American films, I found the cast completely engaging in this production. The cast may not have the right hair color, as previous posts have noted, but in many ways they are true to the spirit of Tolstoy's work, and even manage to breathe their own life into the roles as well. I actually think Clemence Poesy is stunning and believable as Natasha, for example. This very young, granted inexperienced actress, caught some of the freshness, innocence, joie de vivre etc., required for the role, and then summoned the passion and emotion later on to make her "transgression" believable. And what about the location shooting?-- and the beautiful lighting and camera work at those locations? I thought it was head and shoulders above the cinematography of the Hepburn/Fonda version, etc. I was astonished at some of the previous comments about the bad dancing, too: the Natasha/Andrei dance at the ball was one of the loveliest and most atmospheric period dance scenes I've seen on film in recent years. (All the recent Jane Austen films should take note!) My only complaint is that as an American it was very hard to track down a copy that would play on my Region 1 DVD.
28 Reviews
Condensed yet superb
jbreneman19 April 2008
For those that have read the well over 1,000-paged book, this mini-series will prove to impress you quite well. While most of the characters are well-cast, and the cinematography is rich enough for a full-featured film, I felt rushed along a little too hurriedly. Yes, while Tolstoy did go incredibly in-depth on his characters, there were still some VERY important elements that were either skipped or assumed in this series that left me wanting.
Maybe I simply felt let down from the commitment put into reading the novel to see everything shortened so much, however if only they could have spared a few more hours to supply that to enrich the characters...
Maybe I simply felt let down from the commitment put into reading the novel to see everything shortened so much, however if only they could have spared a few more hours to supply that to enrich the characters...
Great acting, Tolstoy's world coming alive
mahatma-kumar1617 August 2012
It is difficult for an Indian to write a laudable review for this grandiose series after so many ethnic Russians have written brutally critical ones. Still I will try. I have watched both Bondarchuk's Soviet production of 1960s and this particular one. Let me put it like this. The Soviets (who tried hard to reproduce the aristocratic milieu of the Russian Empire of early 19 century) did their best and failed. May be it can be explained that under Lenin and Stalin they managed to execute all real Russian aristocrats - so there were no nobles left to tell them how the high life folks really behaved. I hear the only expert from "old" Russia they could unearth was the widow of the executed tsarist admiral Kolchak (even she was condemned to some 18 years in various GULAG camps). In this series the motley crew of European star actors and gifted Russian extras surprisingly create a very sophisticated and warm world of Russian nobility which is quite believable for a fan of classic Russian culture like me. Two grades are off due to poorly staged battle scenes and outlandish Russian hussars's braids (unlike the Mongols their elite cavalry never wore braids, especially in the 19 century).
Sensual Sensory Splendor
MGMboy13 July 2009
Condensed classic of epic proportions and sensual sensory splendors! This Italian T.V. mini series is studded with an international cast of brilliant players and enough extras to fill the Cinecitta Rome set five times over. One of the fascinating things about this marvelously accessible version of the story is that it is in English. Don't let the Russian Box fool you. An extra added bonus it that the film was shot in Russia so you get the added pleasure of seeing some incredible architecture of the period and the stunning Russian countryside (And a little of Lithuania.) There is in the huge cast some real stand out performances. Brenda Blethyn is wonderful as always, and as Prince Andre's father Malcolm McDowell is chilling and arresting in his approach to the part.
In the lead female role we have the lovely Cemence Posey, who is near perfect in a role so associated in the West with Audrey Hepburn. There have been complaints that she is a blond in a traditionally dark haired part, but that seems trivial to me in comparison to her performance. In the romantic lead of Prince Andre is the wonderful Italian star, Alessio Boni. He brings to the role a deliciously tragic gravitas that is so important to the story. He is a brilliant actor who needs more exposure on this side of the world. Just check out his work in 'The Best Of Youth' and 'Don't Tell'.
Also the incredibly beautiful Violante Placido plays the wicked Helene with relish and great style. Not since Polly Walker in 'Rome' has there been such a delicious wicked woman on the screen. She was a delight to watch and I found myself missing her when she was not on screen.
Benjamin Sadler, who was so brilliant in Augustus is on had to lend his considerable slithery charm and great presence to the role of Dolokov. Why is this actor not a huge star yet? Yes there are many other worthy performances to see and savor in this lush and enthralling film, too many to go any further with here. Rather, take the chance and get this film and let the magic of Tolstoy's timeless story take you into a world that is gone with the wind.
Yes it is not as huge and epic as the 1968 Russian classic but it is none the less even at times more wonderful! The disk is splendid with clear beautiful image and great sound. As I said the film is in Enlish with an international cast. It is obvious they are all speaking in English and if any are dubbed that is Not obvious. Very well done in the sound department. And the score by Jan A.P. Kaczmarek is lush and soaring. Most particularly stunning at the end of act two as Natasha descends the grand staircase with the viper Anitole Kuragin,Ken Dunken on her heals.
In the lead female role we have the lovely Cemence Posey, who is near perfect in a role so associated in the West with Audrey Hepburn. There have been complaints that she is a blond in a traditionally dark haired part, but that seems trivial to me in comparison to her performance. In the romantic lead of Prince Andre is the wonderful Italian star, Alessio Boni. He brings to the role a deliciously tragic gravitas that is so important to the story. He is a brilliant actor who needs more exposure on this side of the world. Just check out his work in 'The Best Of Youth' and 'Don't Tell'.
Also the incredibly beautiful Violante Placido plays the wicked Helene with relish and great style. Not since Polly Walker in 'Rome' has there been such a delicious wicked woman on the screen. She was a delight to watch and I found myself missing her when she was not on screen.
Benjamin Sadler, who was so brilliant in Augustus is on had to lend his considerable slithery charm and great presence to the role of Dolokov. Why is this actor not a huge star yet? Yes there are many other worthy performances to see and savor in this lush and enthralling film, too many to go any further with here. Rather, take the chance and get this film and let the magic of Tolstoy's timeless story take you into a world that is gone with the wind.
Yes it is not as huge and epic as the 1968 Russian classic but it is none the less even at times more wonderful! The disk is splendid with clear beautiful image and great sound. As I said the film is in Enlish with an international cast. It is obvious they are all speaking in English and if any are dubbed that is Not obvious. Very well done in the sound department. And the score by Jan A.P. Kaczmarek is lush and soaring. Most particularly stunning at the end of act two as Natasha descends the grand staircase with the viper Anitole Kuragin,Ken Dunken on her heals.
Good work
sergelamarche22 February 2018
This story is so epic, it is remade all the time. Even right now! This 2007 version has very good qualities, the most obvious being the sets, the locations and the costumes. The worst was the actors which are mostly very good but sometimes looked like only one take was made. The snow is also often paper. The fights were often not looking real at all. All in all, I liked it enough.
Excellent TV film
jamesnightshade8 December 2008
Excellent all-around--the superb acting is the high point--Alexander Beyer and Hannelore Elsner particularly good, and of course Malcolm McDowell is good. The cinematography and production design are gorgeous, and the historical realism is dense and exciting (best Napoleon you'll ever see). Costumes are excellent and rich, and the direction is skillful (wonderful close-ups of the actors, the directors really gave them a chance to shine). Music is beautiful. A really outstanding, well-made piece, a great tale with a wonderful cast of villains and delightfully honorable, upstanding characters, with many exciting contests and backstabbing among them. Though admittedly the narrative has to move along at a brisk pace, and much is left out of the story, this is true of any long tale like this one brought to the screen. Much fun to watch over a few nights.
A Dubbed Down Version of a Classic!
GaelicLass19 February 2011
I have to say that I watched this movie because of my love for Russian history and for Tolstoy. I was entertained yet, disappointed as well.
This series is based on the classic epic novel by Tolstoy and is a massive undertaking for any film company and this is a pretty good adaption. It tells the love story of several young aristocrats set against Napoleon's invasion of Russia in approximately 1812. There are a few war scenes, not many, but enough to know what is going on. While filmed in St Petersburg we don't get to see much of it due to it's limited budget I imagine. The focus is on the main protagonists and their relationships.
My main problem was with the casting of some of the leads. This was truly a multi European cast of actors coming from all over Europe, including Italy, Germany, Russia, Poland, with some Brits thrown in as well.
First of all, Clemence Poesy as Natasha wasn't believable to me. A young lady from an aristocratic family raised in the French style would carry herself much differently. Here she seems childish, bratty, and not especially beautiful, which she isn't in the book, but still she must show something that would attract as much passion as we are suppose to believe she does here. She certainly doesn't come close to the elegance and beauty of a young Audrey Hepburn in the 50's version.
The characters of Andrej and Pierre (Alessio Boni and Alexander Beyer) seem very unemotional and stiff, especially Boni who doesn't seem at all passionate. This may be due to the fact that while they spoke English in it-you could tell from reading their lips-their voices were dubbed by British people more than likely due to their heavy Italian and German accents, Bonni being Italian and Beyer German. I have seen Boni before and he is a fine actor when allowed to speak for himself.
The rest of the cast is good, with some fine older character actors included; Malcolm McDowell and Brenda Blethyn are marvelous. All of the actors are well known in their respective countries and some have made American or British movies before so they are recognizable to me. I loved the Russian general, Kutuzov, played so well by Dmitri Isayev, a fine character actor.
The screen play seems written with the thought that the film will be dubbed and subtitles shown in many countries (I watched the Spanish subtitled version). The sentences are kept short to allow time for the viewers to read the captions; I find this very annoying. Not all the actors are dubbed; some actor's voices were used, accents and all.
I love the story of War and Peace, so I watched the entire thing anyway and suggest you do the same if it is a favorite of yours. So far, I haven't seen a version I really love so I will have to make do with what we have so far. I prefer this version to the badly cast American version of the 1950's. Only Hepburn did a fairly good job in that film, possibly because she was born into a European aristrocaratic family and knew how a young woman would act. It did have a better screen play, in my opinion.
To dub or notto dub? I prefer subtitles, added after the fact. Amricans, in general, do not like dubbing which is probably the reason it was never released here in the States, but many European countries use it a lot, although I hear that is changing.
This series is based on the classic epic novel by Tolstoy and is a massive undertaking for any film company and this is a pretty good adaption. It tells the love story of several young aristocrats set against Napoleon's invasion of Russia in approximately 1812. There are a few war scenes, not many, but enough to know what is going on. While filmed in St Petersburg we don't get to see much of it due to it's limited budget I imagine. The focus is on the main protagonists and their relationships.
My main problem was with the casting of some of the leads. This was truly a multi European cast of actors coming from all over Europe, including Italy, Germany, Russia, Poland, with some Brits thrown in as well.
First of all, Clemence Poesy as Natasha wasn't believable to me. A young lady from an aristocratic family raised in the French style would carry herself much differently. Here she seems childish, bratty, and not especially beautiful, which she isn't in the book, but still she must show something that would attract as much passion as we are suppose to believe she does here. She certainly doesn't come close to the elegance and beauty of a young Audrey Hepburn in the 50's version.
The characters of Andrej and Pierre (Alessio Boni and Alexander Beyer) seem very unemotional and stiff, especially Boni who doesn't seem at all passionate. This may be due to the fact that while they spoke English in it-you could tell from reading their lips-their voices were dubbed by British people more than likely due to their heavy Italian and German accents, Bonni being Italian and Beyer German. I have seen Boni before and he is a fine actor when allowed to speak for himself.
The rest of the cast is good, with some fine older character actors included; Malcolm McDowell and Brenda Blethyn are marvelous. All of the actors are well known in their respective countries and some have made American or British movies before so they are recognizable to me. I loved the Russian general, Kutuzov, played so well by Dmitri Isayev, a fine character actor.
The screen play seems written with the thought that the film will be dubbed and subtitles shown in many countries (I watched the Spanish subtitled version). The sentences are kept short to allow time for the viewers to read the captions; I find this very annoying. Not all the actors are dubbed; some actor's voices were used, accents and all.
I love the story of War and Peace, so I watched the entire thing anyway and suggest you do the same if it is a favorite of yours. So far, I haven't seen a version I really love so I will have to make do with what we have so far. I prefer this version to the badly cast American version of the 1950's. Only Hepburn did a fairly good job in that film, possibly because she was born into a European aristrocaratic family and knew how a young woman would act. It did have a better screen play, in my opinion.
To dub or notto dub? I prefer subtitles, added after the fact. Amricans, in general, do not like dubbing which is probably the reason it was never released here in the States, but many European countries use it a lot, although I hear that is changing.
Really ENjoyed It
nicholls_les8 February 2016
I really liked this mini series and was never bored with it.
Considering how long it was that was some feat. I see many on here have criticised the casting of certain characters and I can agree with much of what has been said, however for me it didn't detract from the over all enjoyment.
It contained all the right emotions and I thought(casting aside) most of the acting was of a very high standard. The mix of European stars some more stars than others lifted the acting standard and it all worked really well. The scenery and sets were also truly breathtaking.
So over all a good series that reflected the spirit of the book.
Considering how long it was that was some feat. I see many on here have criticised the casting of certain characters and I can agree with much of what has been said, however for me it didn't detract from the over all enjoyment.
It contained all the right emotions and I thought(casting aside) most of the acting was of a very high standard. The mix of European stars some more stars than others lifted the acting standard and it all worked really well. The scenery and sets were also truly breathtaking.
So over all a good series that reflected the spirit of the book.
what can we expect from television drama?
renya426 December 2007
I have just seen the second part of the series. I read the book some time ago so I can compare it to this great story by Lew Tolstoy. What can I say is that the movie lacks the epic size of the story. Historical events were in Tolstoy "War and peace" as important as personal stories which seem to be in this movie the only important. This way the story has turned into a kind of melodrama - just another marital and love stories, without big depth. Most of the characters are not very expressive. I was very surprised of the look of Natasha as I remember her from the book description as very simple, joyful and black haired girl. Prince Bolkonsky is not very interesting and lacks any charisma. I like Pierre Bezuchow and can sympathize with princess Marie. And I can agree: lack of Russian language in any form is very painful. But what can we expect from television drama? Nothing more like the soap opera. And that's it. If I am wrong not having seen yet 3rd and 4th part - apologize.
cute illustration, but not too deep
bnm815109 October 2013
Never expect a screen treatment of Tolstoy's work to be as profound as the original. Any film version is best approached as a kind of comic book illustration. That being said, War and Peace in this "Golden age of TV" should be filmed as a multi-season show, not a miniseries, to even begin capturing the novel's depth.
This 2007 adaptation has better overall casting than the '56, '67, or '72 productions. Filming on location in Russia also helps. The Rostov family, Price Andrei, Old Bolkonsky, Helene, Dolokhov, and others are well-realized and well-acted (albeit dubbed into a rather stale English). Pierre is a quite bit leaner than Tolstoy's creation, but appropriately awkward, and a big improvement over the pretty-boy Fonda in '56 or the aging Bondarchuk in '67. As for Natasha, I got over her portrayal as a blonde pretty quickly, and thought Poesy does a serviceable job channeling the young Rostova's Manic-Pixie-Dream-Girl qualities.
The "War" scenes are duly enhanced by cgi, but are clearly not the main reason to see this version. The series fares better with the far more budget-friendly "Peace" portion of the Novel. Some of the sequences are remarkably faithful (most of the Bolkonsky family narrative, for example), but many others were altered for dramatic effect, or to suit modern audiences: Natasha's friendship with Pierre and acquaintance with Prince Andrei prior to 1811 has been considerably strengthened. Pierre's Masonic brotherhood is omitted, and here he's merely "studying the Gospel". Anatole is given a grudge against Andrei to start courting Natasha. The lively and very cinematic scene with Balaga and the gypsies is cut. Part 4 is the weakest, as there are many deviations from Tolstoy's plot to wrap up the story threads even more neatly, and a lot of it feels like by-the-numbers soap opera.
Still, for fans of the book, it's a worthwhile visualization of Tolstoy's characters and their world. With all the flaws, it's still not much worse than the previous versions, and even superior in some ways (mostly the authentic sets and the good looking cast). Just don't get your expectations too high.
This 2007 adaptation has better overall casting than the '56, '67, or '72 productions. Filming on location in Russia also helps. The Rostov family, Price Andrei, Old Bolkonsky, Helene, Dolokhov, and others are well-realized and well-acted (albeit dubbed into a rather stale English). Pierre is a quite bit leaner than Tolstoy's creation, but appropriately awkward, and a big improvement over the pretty-boy Fonda in '56 or the aging Bondarchuk in '67. As for Natasha, I got over her portrayal as a blonde pretty quickly, and thought Poesy does a serviceable job channeling the young Rostova's Manic-Pixie-Dream-Girl qualities.
The "War" scenes are duly enhanced by cgi, but are clearly not the main reason to see this version. The series fares better with the far more budget-friendly "Peace" portion of the Novel. Some of the sequences are remarkably faithful (most of the Bolkonsky family narrative, for example), but many others were altered for dramatic effect, or to suit modern audiences: Natasha's friendship with Pierre and acquaintance with Prince Andrei prior to 1811 has been considerably strengthened. Pierre's Masonic brotherhood is omitted, and here he's merely "studying the Gospel". Anatole is given a grudge against Andrei to start courting Natasha. The lively and very cinematic scene with Balaga and the gypsies is cut. Part 4 is the weakest, as there are many deviations from Tolstoy's plot to wrap up the story threads even more neatly, and a lot of it feels like by-the-numbers soap opera.
Still, for fans of the book, it's a worthwhile visualization of Tolstoy's characters and their world. With all the flaws, it's still not much worse than the previous versions, and even superior in some ways (mostly the authentic sets and the good looking cast). Just don't get your expectations too high.
Mediocre adaptation of Tolstoy's masterpiece
petra_ste28 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
It's difficult to adapt one of the greatest books ever written.
Exhibit A: this miniseries.
As far as adaptations go, this one at least doesn't desecrate the classic story it tells - but it doesn't do it justice either.
There is a bit in the novel when Natasha talks about colors he associates with people's personalities and describes a man he doesn't like as "grey". That's, in a nutshell, the problem with this adaptation: it's not awful or despicable, but it's banal, mediocre, forgettable. In a word, grey.
Casting is a major issue. Alessio Boni is flat and doesn't convey the steely charisma and the stern moral strength of prince Andrej: the character is softened to the point he loses any edge, so he comes across as a wimp. Alexandr Beyer as Pierre is better but still dour, without the pleasant naiveté, the simple-minded bonhomie and the inner fire the part needs. Clemence Poesy is pretty, but to express Natasha's charm and joy to live she resorts to perpetual smirking. Sorry miss, but I knew Audrey Hepburn, and you are no Audrey Hepburn.
Secondary players fare a bit better, like Andrea Giordana as the decent count, Valentina Cervi as shy princess Mary, Elodie Frenck as frail Lise, Dmitri Isayev as Natasha's likable brother Nikolaj. Violante Placido is fetching as the shallow Helene, and, although she isn't particularly good, she is maybe the only character who lacks depth, so Placido's performance doesn't do much damage. Malcolm McDowell plays Andrej's unsympathetic father and, while he is fine when the prince is required to be bitter and unpleasant, he VISIBLY does not get the character's few softer moments, which granted him depth.
Direction is lackluster: emotional scenes are either overdone or trivialized; there are clumsy narrative crutches such as abrupt voice-overs.
See the 1956 version instead, with the delightful Audrey Hepburn as Nathasha, Henry Fonda as Pierre and Mel Ferrer as Andrej. It's not perfect, but it definitely beats this one.
4/10
Exhibit A: this miniseries.
As far as adaptations go, this one at least doesn't desecrate the classic story it tells - but it doesn't do it justice either.
There is a bit in the novel when Natasha talks about colors he associates with people's personalities and describes a man he doesn't like as "grey". That's, in a nutshell, the problem with this adaptation: it's not awful or despicable, but it's banal, mediocre, forgettable. In a word, grey.
Casting is a major issue. Alessio Boni is flat and doesn't convey the steely charisma and the stern moral strength of prince Andrej: the character is softened to the point he loses any edge, so he comes across as a wimp. Alexandr Beyer as Pierre is better but still dour, without the pleasant naiveté, the simple-minded bonhomie and the inner fire the part needs. Clemence Poesy is pretty, but to express Natasha's charm and joy to live she resorts to perpetual smirking. Sorry miss, but I knew Audrey Hepburn, and you are no Audrey Hepburn.
Secondary players fare a bit better, like Andrea Giordana as the decent count, Valentina Cervi as shy princess Mary, Elodie Frenck as frail Lise, Dmitri Isayev as Natasha's likable brother Nikolaj. Violante Placido is fetching as the shallow Helene, and, although she isn't particularly good, she is maybe the only character who lacks depth, so Placido's performance doesn't do much damage. Malcolm McDowell plays Andrej's unsympathetic father and, while he is fine when the prince is required to be bitter and unpleasant, he VISIBLY does not get the character's few softer moments, which granted him depth.
Direction is lackluster: emotional scenes are either overdone or trivialized; there are clumsy narrative crutches such as abrupt voice-overs.
See the 1956 version instead, with the delightful Audrey Hepburn as Nathasha, Henry Fonda as Pierre and Mel Ferrer as Andrej. It's not perfect, but it definitely beats this one.
4/10
Finally I've got it!
alice-imwunderland16 January 2008
War and Peace is one of those detailed and never ending novels I have always postponed to read (and I really was, especially as a young girl, an extreme Reader! To be frank I started it and never went further the 30th page!). Thanks to this mini TV series, I have finally got the story, although the adaptation (according to those who have read the book) is not as detailed and sticking to the original. BUT---THANKS GOD it is not ;-) In fact, this very well built TV adaptation has a very, very good rhythm and you never get bored. Many thanks to the screen writers and to the director (I clap my hands). Very good photography, and very authentic characters (I hardly cry by watching movies and here I did ;-). 4 Russian good/aristocratic Families and their ups and downs through war and peace ages. The second episode is the spring of the series as there, taking advantage of peace, a lot of romances are consumed. Love is in the air! Although someone has criticized this TV version, I really appreciate the international casting and production. The mix is very good and well organized, the costumes and sceneries are nice and cared to detail. There are all the ingredients for a great movie work, because it goes under your skin, and you are still permeated with the atmosphere and the characters (all very fascinating) far beyond the "END". So, what do you expect more?
Quite good and definitely entertaining
exelenc5 April 2015
I never truly enjoyed adaptation of Sergey Bondarchuk. Actually, I didn't even finish it because of very annoying Natasha, with her constant overreacting and inappropriate emotions. Overacting was the issue of almost all Bondarchuk's cast, in my opinion.
This version has much better cast. Though I doubted that Clemense Poesy could be a good Natasha, she definitely is. The charming, sincere, unexperienced but honest young woman. I found myself really engaged into her emotions. I understood why she did this or that things, visiting Elen before the duel, going to run away with Kuragin...
Beautiful, seductive Elen is another gem of this film. She is so insidious and charismatic at the same time, that I'm sure that actress could easily play Cersei Lannister if she had to.
Men are good, too. Alessio Boni is handsome and noble, and his Andrey Bolkonsky is attractive and tragic figure. Pierre is cute, that kind of man you don't notice at first and even at second glance, but eventually you fall in love with.
The only problem with this W&P adaption (except of several historical mismatches) is that it is a bit superficial. However, it's a problem for all Tolstoy's movie adaptations - the directors haven't found the proper cinema language for that titan writer yet. On the good side, it looks like his books do not get old fashioned at all, so finally we'll see the perfect W&P and AK movies :)
This version has much better cast. Though I doubted that Clemense Poesy could be a good Natasha, she definitely is. The charming, sincere, unexperienced but honest young woman. I found myself really engaged into her emotions. I understood why she did this or that things, visiting Elen before the duel, going to run away with Kuragin...
Beautiful, seductive Elen is another gem of this film. She is so insidious and charismatic at the same time, that I'm sure that actress could easily play Cersei Lannister if she had to.
Men are good, too. Alessio Boni is handsome and noble, and his Andrey Bolkonsky is attractive and tragic figure. Pierre is cute, that kind of man you don't notice at first and even at second glance, but eventually you fall in love with.
The only problem with this W&P adaption (except of several historical mismatches) is that it is a bit superficial. However, it's a problem for all Tolstoy's movie adaptations - the directors haven't found the proper cinema language for that titan writer yet. On the good side, it looks like his books do not get old fashioned at all, so finally we'll see the perfect W&P and AK movies :)
International pozor, though the last part is not bad at all
AndreiPavlov7 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
For me the only reason for having a look at this remake was to see how bad and funny it could be. There was no doubt about it being funny and bad, because I had seen "Voyna i mir" (1968). Shall we begin? Here we go...
Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Pierre Bezukhov - a lean fellow that lacks the depth of the original; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Natasha Rostova - a scarecrow, her image can cause insomnia; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Andrej Bolkonsky - an OK incarnation which, like the lean fellow (cf. above), lacks depth of a Russian soul and "struggle within"; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Napoleon - a rather unimpressive leader; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Prince Bolkonsky - a turd with an English face; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Count Bezukhov - a spineless freak-show...
The rest of the characters are not much better.
The movements of the actors and the way they look and speak are often atrocious. They behave like modern EU citizens dressed up for a one-day masquerade. It all looks cheap and never comes close to the standards of our Russian men and women of the early 19th century.
A good piece of entertainment to scrutinize and make fun of. We had quite a few giggles in our office when remembering this modern product, which had been shown the previous evening on our TV.
"User Rating: 8.0/10 (29 votes)" - I guess, many young people have never watched our film ("Voyna i mir" 1968) or have weird sense of "Tarantino-Spielberg" quality. Remember the scene when our hussar is saving his friend, turns around, shoots, and the bridge goes boom? Looks like a CGI explosion.
There is neither sense nor craft to make a better version of the novel, which was screened properly in our country once. But I would be happy to watch a Russian remake of "Gone with the Wind". Hey, directors, wake up and get busy with that, instead of spoiling our classics.
Now back to common sense. Jokes aside. What I mentioned above is nothing new, though deadly exaggerated.
To make foreign actors trying to pass for Russians (while participating in very serious epics and dramas) is a rude mistake and the filmmakers are making this mistake again and again. Of course it results in numerous laughs - especially Clemence Poesy is uncomfortably ridiculous and her dancing and singing makes a Russian viewer think: "This sucks so much that it's funny!").
In order to say something new, I'd like to mention the pace of the movie. To my mind, this new version is very patchy. The narration and the scenes are not naturally flowing - they stagger and pop up like in a modern video. Again I have to remember our "Voyna i mir", where the action is so natural and the narration is so easy that you simply sit back and enjoy "going with the flow".
I thought that maybe the Borodino battle would be great (to somehow rehabilitate numerous drawbacks) but it has turned out to be no match for the war scenes filmed in 1968.
There should be something good in this movie after all. And there is. The actors seem to be trying hard to make it all work. They did not have a chance from the start but they still joined "the losers' team". Plus 1 point for that recklessness. It makes a Russian viewer uncomfortable - some scenes are ironically ridiculous though they are intended to be dramatically powerful and the actors are doing their best. It all evokes pity, and sometimes - fits of laughter.
What I still like about this serial is the last part of it. It shows very vividly how everybody gets his or her "salary and taxes". Besides, judging by the movie trailers I thought that the film would have an adult sex scene, which would definitely kill the whole project. But, fortunately, it does not have such rubbish. And that's a big plus.
"Voyna i Mir" is no "Harry Potter" and nowadays even we, here in present-day Russia, do not have enough craft to film it properly. Do I have to say that the moral quality of our life has deteriorated immensely? Fortunately, a proper film was screened during our Soviet times. The American version of the 1950s was justified to some extent - ours did not even exist yet. There were extenuating circumstances then.
4 out of 10 (1 point is given from the start, 1 point goes for the recklessness, and 2 points for the last part of the serial. Thanks for attention.
Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Pierre Bezukhov - a lean fellow that lacks the depth of the original; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Natasha Rostova - a scarecrow, her image can cause insomnia; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Andrej Bolkonsky - an OK incarnation which, like the lean fellow (cf. above), lacks depth of a Russian soul and "struggle within"; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Napoleon - a rather unimpressive leader; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Prince Bolkonsky - a turd with an English face; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Count Bezukhov - a spineless freak-show...
The rest of the characters are not much better.
The movements of the actors and the way they look and speak are often atrocious. They behave like modern EU citizens dressed up for a one-day masquerade. It all looks cheap and never comes close to the standards of our Russian men and women of the early 19th century.
A good piece of entertainment to scrutinize and make fun of. We had quite a few giggles in our office when remembering this modern product, which had been shown the previous evening on our TV.
"User Rating: 8.0/10 (29 votes)" - I guess, many young people have never watched our film ("Voyna i mir" 1968) or have weird sense of "Tarantino-Spielberg" quality. Remember the scene when our hussar is saving his friend, turns around, shoots, and the bridge goes boom? Looks like a CGI explosion.
There is neither sense nor craft to make a better version of the novel, which was screened properly in our country once. But I would be happy to watch a Russian remake of "Gone with the Wind". Hey, directors, wake up and get busy with that, instead of spoiling our classics.
Now back to common sense. Jokes aside. What I mentioned above is nothing new, though deadly exaggerated.
To make foreign actors trying to pass for Russians (while participating in very serious epics and dramas) is a rude mistake and the filmmakers are making this mistake again and again. Of course it results in numerous laughs - especially Clemence Poesy is uncomfortably ridiculous and her dancing and singing makes a Russian viewer think: "This sucks so much that it's funny!").
In order to say something new, I'd like to mention the pace of the movie. To my mind, this new version is very patchy. The narration and the scenes are not naturally flowing - they stagger and pop up like in a modern video. Again I have to remember our "Voyna i mir", where the action is so natural and the narration is so easy that you simply sit back and enjoy "going with the flow".
I thought that maybe the Borodino battle would be great (to somehow rehabilitate numerous drawbacks) but it has turned out to be no match for the war scenes filmed in 1968.
There should be something good in this movie after all. And there is. The actors seem to be trying hard to make it all work. They did not have a chance from the start but they still joined "the losers' team". Plus 1 point for that recklessness. It makes a Russian viewer uncomfortable - some scenes are ironically ridiculous though they are intended to be dramatically powerful and the actors are doing their best. It all evokes pity, and sometimes - fits of laughter.
What I still like about this serial is the last part of it. It shows very vividly how everybody gets his or her "salary and taxes". Besides, judging by the movie trailers I thought that the film would have an adult sex scene, which would definitely kill the whole project. But, fortunately, it does not have such rubbish. And that's a big plus.
"Voyna i Mir" is no "Harry Potter" and nowadays even we, here in present-day Russia, do not have enough craft to film it properly. Do I have to say that the moral quality of our life has deteriorated immensely? Fortunately, a proper film was screened during our Soviet times. The American version of the 1950s was justified to some extent - ours did not even exist yet. There were extenuating circumstances then.
4 out of 10 (1 point is given from the start, 1 point goes for the recklessness, and 2 points for the last part of the serial. Thanks for attention.
It's very convincingly and authentically
matvei178 November 2007
Countries of the Europe tried very much to make this movie. Movie is outstanding, but not without remarks. Firstly, Clémence Poésy does not approach for Natasha Rostova at all. There is no that charm which was described by the Leo Tolstoi in the novel. Secondly, in the end of first part of movie was used music by... modern composer Aram Khachaturyan for the Lermontov's drama "Masquerade". Italian actor Alessio Boni is ingenious! I think, that his role the best in this film! Hi is one of the best actors, ever played role of Andrey Bolkonsky. Alexander Beyer's work (Pierre Bezukhov) is very convincing. Noticeably, that this actor really very well knows "War and peace". It has allowed it to represent Pierre Bezukhov very authentically. The image of old prince Bolkonsky (M. McDowell) has turned out very expressive and truthful. Such old Russian prince - the petty tyrant. In common, movie is remarkable!
Decent production values; awful acting/directing
random-7077812 December 2020
I'm not saying it is easy to adapt and film a behemoth work like War and Peace. But they managed to get the production values fine, eg costumes, most of the architecture. Even battle scenes are not bad considering.,
But this production is ruined by awful acting and direction. And I don't mean a few or most of the actors -- but all of them.
Emotional epic story about Russian aristocrats and soldiers fighting Napoleon.
cgvsluis9 May 2022
This is a lush film adaptation of Tolstoy's epic classic novel War and Peace. The story is built around three Russian families that of Natasha Rostova, Prince Andrej Bolkonsky, and Pierre Bezukov.
Pierre and Natasha are childhood friends and Andrej and Pierre are best friends. Natasha at a young age meets Prince Andrej and falls head over heels in love, of course he really doesn't know she exists...until much later. Prince Andrej is a widower with a son who in seeking the approval of his father is a very brave soldier whose only goal is to die with honor. Pierre's father on his deathbed legitimizes him, this setting him in the sights of a gold digger and her manipulative father. Unfortunately he marries the gold digger who takes shameless advantage of him and whose brother seeks revenge on Prince Andrej thru Natasha.
This is a long and convoluted tale that involves a lot of war...involving Napoleon and his troops making their way into Moscow.
So much war and suffering...that at one point my husband asked "when do we get to the peace?", but the end makes it all worth it.
This tale is ultimately about love and forgiveness.
This is a decent production with some minor complaints about a couple actors and their overacting (Malcolm MacDowell is on that list).
I would recommend this series. So far it is the best production of War and Peace that I have seen.
Pierre and Natasha are childhood friends and Andrej and Pierre are best friends. Natasha at a young age meets Prince Andrej and falls head over heels in love, of course he really doesn't know she exists...until much later. Prince Andrej is a widower with a son who in seeking the approval of his father is a very brave soldier whose only goal is to die with honor. Pierre's father on his deathbed legitimizes him, this setting him in the sights of a gold digger and her manipulative father. Unfortunately he marries the gold digger who takes shameless advantage of him and whose brother seeks revenge on Prince Andrej thru Natasha.
This is a long and convoluted tale that involves a lot of war...involving Napoleon and his troops making their way into Moscow.
So much war and suffering...that at one point my husband asked "when do we get to the peace?", but the end makes it all worth it.
This tale is ultimately about love and forgiveness.
This is a decent production with some minor complaints about a couple actors and their overacting (Malcolm MacDowell is on that list).
I would recommend this series. So far it is the best production of War and Peace that I have seen.
Spectacular!
hatabonu9 December 2007
The book is fascinating and the movie is great. Clémence Poésy plays a great act however Alessio Boni is spectacular - a good way of a man's mind. I think the act of Natasha's brother is rather funny because Natasha's brother's role is cowardly. The new prince is a bit dumb because he does not notice about his "adviser's" plans. Since I've only seen the first part, I think the role of the prince's wife is rather good because it gives off hints of a "planned" marriage. Truthfully, I don't think the prince deserves to be a prince yet. The woman with the huge, puffy hair that is somehow related to Natasha, knows the plans of the adviser however why is she not unraveling them?? Public opinion? The peace between Russia and France was a bit too happy.
Anyway, to sum this up, the first part is marvelous. When I finish the other parts, I shall write about them, too.
Anyway, to sum this up, the first part is marvelous. When I finish the other parts, I shall write about them, too.
Clemence Poesy was excellent in a film.
lusto77721 November 2007
I think that this movie is a very good.In a movie i love Clemence Poesy she is a very beautiful and clever and sensitive.She's a best actress in this great film.Her image was genius and lovely.I love this cinema.And for me it film was excellent and great.I don't understand bad words about this movie.Dornhelm made a great film.I think that film of Bondarchuk was bad because it has politic and ideology. Communists were bad directors and actors and actresses.Communists were vile very strong and they liked death
people they killed Russian emperor and i think that they were bad. Communists don't like this movie because they can't fallen in love they dreams are about death and evil.They are bad and not brave.
people they killed Russian emperor and i think that they were bad. Communists don't like this movie because they can't fallen in love they dreams are about death and evil.They are bad and not brave.
Tolstoy at his blandest
TheLittleSongbird26 July 2015
Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace is a masterful magnum opus, with a riveting if very long story with many themes, interesting sense of history and very memorable characters brilliantly written. But because of the book's mammoth length, incredibly rich detail and the many characters that need a lot of development despite being one the greatest novels ever written it's also one of the hardest to adapt, word for word and detail for detail being almost impossible when adapted.
Of the major versions, the best version is the 1972 mini-series with Anthony Hopkins, not only an ideal adaptation of the book and as faithful as one could get but also brilliant in its own right, one of the best the BBC ever produced. The 1966 Russian one directed by Sergei Bondarchuk, while not as accessible, is a close second, a towering achievement and contains the best battle and ballroom scenes of all the War and Peace adaptations. The 1956 King Vidor film has a number of good things, like the production values, the music score, Audrey Hepburn and some of the supporting cast but the sound quality and two male leads are very problematic and the story is not as riveting as it could have been. Any version of War and Peace does deserve a pat on the back for even attempting to adapt the work, and although this 2007 mini-series was underwhelming and my least favourite of the adaptations it is not exempted from that.
The mini-series does have a fair number of virtues, first and foremost the exquisite production values, the amount of detail in the lavish décor and settings is jaw-droppings, the costumes are rich in colour and detail and the whole mini-series is beautifully photographed, especially in the ballroom scenes. The music score positively soars with elegant lushness, the ballroom scenes are gorgeously romantic (though the Bordachuk version's ballroom scenes still has the ones here beat) and there are some impressive supporting turns. Ken Dukan is deliciously serpentine as Anatoli, Benjamin Sadler is appropriately roguish as Dolokhov, Malcolm MacDowell makes for a chillingly arresting Bollonsky, Violante Placido's Helene is delightfully wicked and played with relish and Brenda Blethyn is marvellous. Vladimir Ilin is a very memorably forthright Kutuzov.
Clémence Poésy doesn't fare as well, her portrayal of Natasha is the least successful of the four adaptations, the problem is not that she's necessarily physically wrong but more that her performance is both melodramatic and anaemic and the character is written as a spoilt brat with not an awful lot of charm. Alessio Boni is sometimes successful at bringing out Andrei's tragedy, but generally his performance is rather stiff and his chemistry with Poésy rather cold. Alexander Beyer is attractive but rather too dour as Pierre, a character that is quite complex but written too much of an idiot here. Ana Caterina Morariu is also so bland it got irritating, Platon is pretty wasted and this is the War and Peace with the least interesting and one-dimensional Napoleon (the Napoleons of the other adaptations succeeded in bringing the character humanity, but here he's a broadly played caricature which was avoided before).
While War and Peace (2007) looks ravishing, the writing is less so. The script sounded underwritten and awkward, and very rarely delves into the depth of Tolstoy's writing and the points he's trying to make, the events are there but in very condensed and on-the-surface form. The story is written and adapted in a very rushed way and with not much emotional impact or substance at all, melodramatic soap-opera is what it's been described as and that's apt, while of all the adaptations of War and Peace this is the only one where the battle scenes (like the French Army's retreat, powerful in the other three versions but treated in a rushed indifferent fashion here) lack power, intensity or any kind of emotional connection. The CGI did strike me as unnecessary, and while they didn't hinder the scenes that badly they also added little and the quality was only standard, nothing to go wow over.
All in all, definitely worth seeing for anybody considering themselves completests of War and Peace or Tolstoy, but for me it was underwhelming and the weakest version. 5/10 Bethany Cox
Of the major versions, the best version is the 1972 mini-series with Anthony Hopkins, not only an ideal adaptation of the book and as faithful as one could get but also brilliant in its own right, one of the best the BBC ever produced. The 1966 Russian one directed by Sergei Bondarchuk, while not as accessible, is a close second, a towering achievement and contains the best battle and ballroom scenes of all the War and Peace adaptations. The 1956 King Vidor film has a number of good things, like the production values, the music score, Audrey Hepburn and some of the supporting cast but the sound quality and two male leads are very problematic and the story is not as riveting as it could have been. Any version of War and Peace does deserve a pat on the back for even attempting to adapt the work, and although this 2007 mini-series was underwhelming and my least favourite of the adaptations it is not exempted from that.
The mini-series does have a fair number of virtues, first and foremost the exquisite production values, the amount of detail in the lavish décor and settings is jaw-droppings, the costumes are rich in colour and detail and the whole mini-series is beautifully photographed, especially in the ballroom scenes. The music score positively soars with elegant lushness, the ballroom scenes are gorgeously romantic (though the Bordachuk version's ballroom scenes still has the ones here beat) and there are some impressive supporting turns. Ken Dukan is deliciously serpentine as Anatoli, Benjamin Sadler is appropriately roguish as Dolokhov, Malcolm MacDowell makes for a chillingly arresting Bollonsky, Violante Placido's Helene is delightfully wicked and played with relish and Brenda Blethyn is marvellous. Vladimir Ilin is a very memorably forthright Kutuzov.
Clémence Poésy doesn't fare as well, her portrayal of Natasha is the least successful of the four adaptations, the problem is not that she's necessarily physically wrong but more that her performance is both melodramatic and anaemic and the character is written as a spoilt brat with not an awful lot of charm. Alessio Boni is sometimes successful at bringing out Andrei's tragedy, but generally his performance is rather stiff and his chemistry with Poésy rather cold. Alexander Beyer is attractive but rather too dour as Pierre, a character that is quite complex but written too much of an idiot here. Ana Caterina Morariu is also so bland it got irritating, Platon is pretty wasted and this is the War and Peace with the least interesting and one-dimensional Napoleon (the Napoleons of the other adaptations succeeded in bringing the character humanity, but here he's a broadly played caricature which was avoided before).
While War and Peace (2007) looks ravishing, the writing is less so. The script sounded underwritten and awkward, and very rarely delves into the depth of Tolstoy's writing and the points he's trying to make, the events are there but in very condensed and on-the-surface form. The story is written and adapted in a very rushed way and with not much emotional impact or substance at all, melodramatic soap-opera is what it's been described as and that's apt, while of all the adaptations of War and Peace this is the only one where the battle scenes (like the French Army's retreat, powerful in the other three versions but treated in a rushed indifferent fashion here) lack power, intensity or any kind of emotional connection. The CGI did strike me as unnecessary, and while they didn't hinder the scenes that badly they also added little and the quality was only standard, nothing to go wow over.
All in all, definitely worth seeing for anybody considering themselves completests of War and Peace or Tolstoy, but for me it was underwhelming and the weakest version. 5/10 Bethany Cox
Phenomenal
sammybucadog30 January 2024
Best remake of a great movie. As good as the original.
It's a four part miniseries about the Russian aristocracy in the early 19th century.
Costumes are beautiful and historic accuracy about the war with Napoleon is true and correct.
The French Grande Army and the Czars troops are well represented. Battle scenes are short but not overly gory or excessively bloody!
Beautiful scenery and mansions too.
Clemenceau Posey is terrific. An equal to Audrey Hepburn.
All supporting actors and characters are also first rate.
A must see for any and all history buffs.
I love the story and the romance it tells.
It's a four part miniseries about the Russian aristocracy in the early 19th century.
Costumes are beautiful and historic accuracy about the war with Napoleon is true and correct.
The French Grande Army and the Czars troops are well represented. Battle scenes are short but not overly gory or excessively bloody!
Beautiful scenery and mansions too.
Clemenceau Posey is terrific. An equal to Audrey Hepburn.
All supporting actors and characters are also first rate.
A must see for any and all history buffs.
I love the story and the romance it tells.
WAR AND PEACE : French mini- TV series
msbsegal6 November 2007
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.
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.
Awful! How can one be so ill-educated?
artax50020 August 2012
Frankly, I have watched only two short extracts of Part 1 as I could not bear to watch the whole part. In the 1st extract I was surprised to see that Natasha Rostova was a blue-eyed blonde, below medium height (according to the book, Natasha was a tall brunette). And Pierre Bezukhov was a thin man! (a 'massive', overweight man - according to the book). In the 2nd extract (I guess, it was the end of Part 1), I was shocked to see Bolkonsky and Rostova waltzing to the music which was composed by A.Khachaturian in 1940's (i.e. about 150 years after the events described in the book!!!). I doubt if the movie-makers ever read the book. The movie may be alright only for the American audience :-)
Read classical books!
dina-salimova29 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't like this film at all! First of all,I don't know why, but everyone here says, that Clémence Poésy's play is excellent, which in my opinion is absolutely wrong! She is not like Natasha: another appearance, another character... What's worse, she is a very unexperienced actress and that's why she wasn't able to play this role! She disfigured the heroine completely! That was really disgusting to watch her play! To my mind, that would be much better to give this role to a Russian actress, because that would be much easier for her to understand the Russian soul for a Russian person. Unfortunately, Kutuzov looked like a drunk man, who hasn't shaved 2 weeks and defeated a battle in which he lost his eye...( Thank's God, in this film there're some actors, whose play was awesome! I suppose, that Alessio Boni coped with his task very well! I was pleasantly amazed! He is one of the few people who's read the book, which is very important for the play. In addition, I liked plays of our Russian actors, that was really wonderful to watch them)) The only thing I liked in this work was very beautiful views and amazing dresses! My advice is to read the book and to understand a real sense, the aim, with which Leo Tolstoy wrote this masterpiece, and maybe realize the whole idea of the book... 1 from 10
Boring to the bone
JakeGuzik19 November 2010
Sometimes I wonder how it is possible that movies like these (free of any inspiration) find a producer. Either do it for real or just leave it. But please stop serving these half baked cookies with far too much icing. To me the movie looks almost like a persiflage. The directing is a clear disgrace of the book. Obviously the director had no idea how to handle this fantastic story. The cast acts like they all have swallowed sticks. The living dead upper class in 19th century Russia - awful. Somewhere in between there is some Army stuff but it is neither close to anything like Austerlitz or Borodino. Tolstoi has deserved something else then a cheap costume soap Opera. And the people who watch it have deserved better too....an absolute waste of time!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
