उन्नीसवीं सदी के उत्तरार्ध में, सेंट पीटर्सबर्ग के अभिजात वर्ग की एक शादी शुदा महिला एन्ना करनिना काउंट अलेक्सी व्रॉनस्की के साथ एक जीवन बदलने वाला अफ़ैर शुरु करती है.उन्नीसवीं सदी के उत्तरार्ध में, सेंट पीटर्सबर्ग के अभिजात वर्ग की एक शादी शुदा महिला एन्ना करनिना काउंट अलेक्सी व्रॉनस्की के साथ एक जीवन बदलने वाला अफ़ैर शुरु करती है.उन्नीसवीं सदी के उत्तरार्ध में, सेंट पीटर्सबर्ग के अभिजात वर्ग की एक शादी शुदा महिला एन्ना करनिना काउंट अलेक्सी व्रॉनस्की के साथ एक जीवन बदलने वाला अफ़ैर शुरु करती है.
- 1 ऑस्कर जीते
- 33 जीत और कुल 54 नामांकन
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
It took me about an hour to stop being irritated by the movie's self consciousness, to sort of enjoy it... but the damage was done.
As viewers, we have no reason to believe in the love Anna finds. He is creepy and give us no inkling of why she might ruin her life for him.
Kiera isn't bad, just annoying, considering we have no empathy for her self indulgence. If her husband was worse, her love a lot nicer, and if we could feel electricity between them, it would be a different matter, but the fact is the movie is too busy being clever... it misses out on having a heart and soul.
The theatre gimmick got in the way, and seemed like a cheap way of having Moscow backdrops without actually traveling there.
5/10
As viewers, we have no reason to believe in the love Anna finds. He is creepy and give us no inkling of why she might ruin her life for him.
Kiera isn't bad, just annoying, considering we have no empathy for her self indulgence. If her husband was worse, her love a lot nicer, and if we could feel electricity between them, it would be a different matter, but the fact is the movie is too busy being clever... it misses out on having a heart and soul.
The theatre gimmick got in the way, and seemed like a cheap way of having Moscow backdrops without actually traveling there.
5/10
The lead virtue - Jude Law as Karenin. The worst sin - the mixture of pieces from everywhere for create the atmosphere. The theater is a nice idea but only better used . Virtues - the portraits of Levin and Kitty. Problems - a not reasonable Vronski and imposibility to feel the drama of Karenina. Short. It is a film without soul. Images, inacuracy, a kitsch Russia and a sort of "ad usum Delphini" adaptation. Too noisy, too vulgar, using the not inspired actor for Vronsky and proposing a hard fight to Keira Knightley for create her Karenina. Short, a film without purpose. And that is all.
If your prime reaction to a film is one of disappointment there are usually some good reasons. My principal response to this version of a great and well-known story is one of irritation. The overblown theatrical format of the film gets in the way of character and dramatic development, to the point where you're aware of a director proclaiming "aren't we clever with the way we're staging this?" instead of admiring the straightforward and competent telling of a story. I'm not saying all films have to be constructed in a conventional manner, but when the form overtakes the substance something has gone wrong.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Count Vronsky is a piece of serious miscasting. Instead of looking like a great lover and sure temptation for wavering Anna,he looks like some feeble dandy with his foppish shock of dyed curly blonde hair which makes him look quite ridiculous. How on earth Anna could fall for such a creepy-looking guy is beyond most viewers I would submit.
Keira Knightley does the best she can, despite looking most of the time like she's attending a fashion shoot. The character of Anna requires portrayal of a tragic life which she doesn't quite achieve. However, the whole film fails to convey the grandeur of Tolstoy's vision, so she's let off the hook by the film's general levity and lack of substance.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Count Vronsky is a piece of serious miscasting. Instead of looking like a great lover and sure temptation for wavering Anna,he looks like some feeble dandy with his foppish shock of dyed curly blonde hair which makes him look quite ridiculous. How on earth Anna could fall for such a creepy-looking guy is beyond most viewers I would submit.
Keira Knightley does the best she can, despite looking most of the time like she's attending a fashion shoot. The character of Anna requires portrayal of a tragic life which she doesn't quite achieve. However, the whole film fails to convey the grandeur of Tolstoy's vision, so she's let off the hook by the film's general levity and lack of substance.
I once asked Dustin Hoffman if he had any favorite movies or actors. He replied that he had favorite performances. Referring it seemed, to much smaller periods within a film. There are several shots where Keira is picture perfect, but this role was not for her. This performance ruins our memory of her former success under Joe Wright. Especially her first, which is her most unforgettable. Black Swan did the same for Natalie Portman, another of our cinema sweethearts. Which I walked out of.
Her part here needed to be much deeper and more complex, but instead it was shallow and trite. The way Anna was portrayed was out of place. Whether by acting or writing I don't know. Either way it was a mistake. All of the male leads, four at my count, complemented each other perfectly and were well done. Some surprising cameos among the women.
I didn't see it at the theater after hearing about the stage within the movie technique, which has actually been done in a few good movies. I didn't see it as a problem. The recent film Anonymous about Shakespeare began this way, as do others based on plays of his. Julie Taymore in her solo attempt to put Titus on film blended styles while injecting modern means and mechanism into near ancient settings, and pulled it off very smartly. Both of these were good films and highly worth watching. I point this out as there were many complaints about it in other reviews.
It isn't the blending of the modern and the ancient, or the use of multiple styles in itself that is a problem. It's more a question of whether it works, and how well it was done. I believe here it does. Peter Greenaway excels at this kind of film making. We sometimes forget how shallow we have become as a society. What a melange and patchwork our culture is. Are we surprised it shows up in our films.
There are some moments of clarity in the movie that are almost bewitching. While others present motion picture as painting or poetry. Some very good transitions. Overall I believe it to be a very creative effort. It is a blending of choreography, stage, and cinema with a desire to please the eye and entertain our emotions. It was only the moral ambiguity and modern sensibilities between the two lovers I found contemptible. Both of them being out of time and out of place.
Love is the great conquerer of lust. As lust is the great destroyer of love. I believe the author intended this to be about the second. It is a mistake to think movies from books should be the book. Just as it is wrong for an amoral people to replace the beliefs of a moral people . . with their own. Especially when borrowing or telling their stories. One of the great enjoyments for all lovers of period pieces is going back to a time when people knew morality and understood what it was, and most agreed with it. Whether or not they actually were moral is entirely . . another story.
http://fullgrownministry.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/covet/
Her part here needed to be much deeper and more complex, but instead it was shallow and trite. The way Anna was portrayed was out of place. Whether by acting or writing I don't know. Either way it was a mistake. All of the male leads, four at my count, complemented each other perfectly and were well done. Some surprising cameos among the women.
I didn't see it at the theater after hearing about the stage within the movie technique, which has actually been done in a few good movies. I didn't see it as a problem. The recent film Anonymous about Shakespeare began this way, as do others based on plays of his. Julie Taymore in her solo attempt to put Titus on film blended styles while injecting modern means and mechanism into near ancient settings, and pulled it off very smartly. Both of these were good films and highly worth watching. I point this out as there were many complaints about it in other reviews.
It isn't the blending of the modern and the ancient, or the use of multiple styles in itself that is a problem. It's more a question of whether it works, and how well it was done. I believe here it does. Peter Greenaway excels at this kind of film making. We sometimes forget how shallow we have become as a society. What a melange and patchwork our culture is. Are we surprised it shows up in our films.
There are some moments of clarity in the movie that are almost bewitching. While others present motion picture as painting or poetry. Some very good transitions. Overall I believe it to be a very creative effort. It is a blending of choreography, stage, and cinema with a desire to please the eye and entertain our emotions. It was only the moral ambiguity and modern sensibilities between the two lovers I found contemptible. Both of them being out of time and out of place.
Love is the great conquerer of lust. As lust is the great destroyer of love. I believe the author intended this to be about the second. It is a mistake to think movies from books should be the book. Just as it is wrong for an amoral people to replace the beliefs of a moral people . . with their own. Especially when borrowing or telling their stories. One of the great enjoyments for all lovers of period pieces is going back to a time when people knew morality and understood what it was, and most agreed with it. Whether or not they actually were moral is entirely . . another story.
http://fullgrownministry.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/covet/
Good production but doesn't quite hit the spot.
Set in 19th century Russia, a married aristocrat, Anna Karenina (played by Keira Knightley), starts an affair with a Count. After a while, the relationship becomes quite serious...
A decent adaptation of the Tolstoy novel. Lavish costumes and sets, and a sense of the emptiness and superficiality of Russian aristocracy. However, for all its intrigues, just doesn't quite hit the spot. Not entirely engaging and seems to drag in segments. Some of the imagery was just to clever for its own good, ending up feeling pretentious.
Solid performances all round. Jude Law is the best of the lot, as the conservative husband of Anna Karenina.
Set in 19th century Russia, a married aristocrat, Anna Karenina (played by Keira Knightley), starts an affair with a Count. After a while, the relationship becomes quite serious...
A decent adaptation of the Tolstoy novel. Lavish costumes and sets, and a sense of the emptiness and superficiality of Russian aristocracy. However, for all its intrigues, just doesn't quite hit the spot. Not entirely engaging and seems to drag in segments. Some of the imagery was just to clever for its own good, ending up feeling pretentious.
Solid performances all round. Jude Law is the best of the lot, as the conservative husband of Anna Karenina.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाOne of Alicia Vikander's favorite experiences from the production was the filming that took place in the countryside outside of St. Petersburg, Russia. The temperatures dropped below -40 °C, and she stayed in a cabin for five days that didn't have hot water and only featured benches instead of beds. Meanwhile, Russian security guards protected her and co-star 'Domhnall Gleeson' from wild wolves and bears that dominated the deserted area.
- गूफ़The label of the bottle of morphine Anna drinks from changes from "la Morphine" to "Morphine" between shots. The only correct French form would be without an article (prescriptions would have been written in Latin in 19th-century Russia anyway).
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Projector: Anna Karenina (2012)
- साउंडट्रैकSong for a New Life (Masha's Song)
(uncredited)
Written by Anoushka Shankar
Performed by Tannishtha Chatterjee
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Anna Karenina?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइट
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Chuyện Tình Anna
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- Kizhi, Karelia, रूस(on location)
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $4,06,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $1,28,16,367
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $3,20,690
- 18 नव॰ 2012
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $6,89,29,150
- चलने की अवधि
- 2 घं 9 मि(129 min)
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.35 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें