IMDb RATING
6.3/10
6.3K
YOUR RATING
Anna (Marceau) is a wife and mother who has an affair with the handsome Count Vronsky (Bean). Based on the novel by Tolstoy.Anna (Marceau) is a wife and mother who has an affair with the handsome Count Vronsky (Bean). Based on the novel by Tolstoy.Anna (Marceau) is a wife and mother who has an affair with the handsome Count Vronsky (Bean). Based on the novel by Tolstoy.
Petr Shelokhonov
- Kapitonich, Chief Butler
- (as Pyotr Sholokhov)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThis was the first western production of "Anna Karenina" to be filmed in Russia (St. Petersburg).
- GoofsDuring 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.
- Quotes
Anna Karenina: What are you doing here?
Vronsky: You know that I have come to be where you are. I cannot help myself.
- ConnectionsReferenced in 13 posterunek: Kalambury filmowe (1998)
- SoundtracksSymphony 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
Featured review
Along with War and Peace, Anna Karenina is one of the greatest Russian novels and one of the greats of 19th century literature, the story is heart-breaking and intense and the characters compelling. Anna Karenina has often been filmed, and of the film versions the 1967 Russian and 1935 Greta Garbo films fare the best and the 2012 Joe Wright-directed version the weakest. This 1997 adaptation from Bernard Rose (Paperhouse, Immortal Beloved, Candyman) has a good amount to like but is one of the weaker adaptations.
Visually, the film looks absolutely stunning and along with the 1967 Russian film it is one of the most evocative adaptations period detail-wise. Although some of the editing is choppy, the cinematography is ravishing and the costumes and sets are some of the most beautiful and evocative of any adaptation of Anna Karenina, especially in the opulent ballroom scene and the gorgeous wintry landscapes. The Tchaikovsky-laden music score makes for an aural feast and couldn't have fitted more perfectly.
Three performances are good. Coming off best is Alfred Molina, who brings authority and many layers to Levin, wish more was done with developing the character more in terms of writing but at least the film included the character and his subplot with Kitty. James Fox is a ruthlessly cold and haunting Karenin, the character played consistently well in all the Anna Karenina adaptations even in the not-so-good ones. Sean Bean is a handsome Vronsky, but brings a steely intensity to the role that stops the character from being wooden or tragic, rightfully avoiding the dashing heroic figure stereotype.
Sophie Marceau however I found miscast as Anna, she looks splendid but is pretty vacuous and lacking in passion. Her chemistry with Bean convinces in the latter and more turbulent parts of the relationship but dull in the early parts. Mia Kirschner is also rather too modern and lightweight for Kitty. This version of Anna Karenina is a visual and aural stunner with a few impressive performances, but is one of the least successful and interesting versions in terms of script and how the story is told.
The dialogue doesn't always flow naturally, and feels very dry in tone and with little depth and substance, and the narration was rather unnecessary. Rose's direction shows terrific technical assurance but lacks the same kind of momentum in telling the story. It's the story where the film most falls down, feeling far too short and far too rushed, with about half of the story (or so it feels) being told but all in Cliff Notes version, and it even feels like more of the film was filmed but cut due to studio interference. Neither of the romances are dealt with well, Anna and Vronsky's is too rushed and the very incomplete-feeling one between Levin and Kitty sometimes really slows down the film.
Overall, not a bad version but a less than ideal one, as an adaptation and as a film on its own. 5/10 Bethany Cox
Visually, the film looks absolutely stunning and along with the 1967 Russian film it is one of the most evocative adaptations period detail-wise. Although some of the editing is choppy, the cinematography is ravishing and the costumes and sets are some of the most beautiful and evocative of any adaptation of Anna Karenina, especially in the opulent ballroom scene and the gorgeous wintry landscapes. The Tchaikovsky-laden music score makes for an aural feast and couldn't have fitted more perfectly.
Three performances are good. Coming off best is Alfred Molina, who brings authority and many layers to Levin, wish more was done with developing the character more in terms of writing but at least the film included the character and his subplot with Kitty. James Fox is a ruthlessly cold and haunting Karenin, the character played consistently well in all the Anna Karenina adaptations even in the not-so-good ones. Sean Bean is a handsome Vronsky, but brings a steely intensity to the role that stops the character from being wooden or tragic, rightfully avoiding the dashing heroic figure stereotype.
Sophie Marceau however I found miscast as Anna, she looks splendid but is pretty vacuous and lacking in passion. Her chemistry with Bean convinces in the latter and more turbulent parts of the relationship but dull in the early parts. Mia Kirschner is also rather too modern and lightweight for Kitty. This version of Anna Karenina is a visual and aural stunner with a few impressive performances, but is one of the least successful and interesting versions in terms of script and how the story is told.
The dialogue doesn't always flow naturally, and feels very dry in tone and with little depth and substance, and the narration was rather unnecessary. Rose's direction shows terrific technical assurance but lacks the same kind of momentum in telling the story. It's the story where the film most falls down, feeling far too short and far too rushed, with about half of the story (or so it feels) being told but all in Cliff Notes version, and it even feels like more of the film was filmed but cut due to studio interference. Neither of the romances are dealt with well, Anna and Vronsky's is too rushed and the very incomplete-feeling one between Levin and Kitty sometimes really slows down the film.
Overall, not a bad version but a less than ideal one, as an adaptation and as a film on its own. 5/10 Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- Jul 28, 2015
- Permalink
- How long is Anna Karenina?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Languages
- Also known as
- Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $35,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $858,553
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $75,268
- Apr 6, 1997
- Gross worldwide
- $858,553
- Runtime1 hour 48 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content