Anna Karenina [Blu-ray]

I have not (yet) read Tolstoy's novel and maybe that is why I could love this movie so much compared to so many who simply hated it. I *never* purchase movies but purchased this one from Amazon. I've now watched the film 3 times and am on the 4th as I write. Each successive time I catch new bits of mastery and genius by director Joe Wright and screenwriter Tom Stoppard.The movie has so many layers it is hard to adequately describe. I can only say watch, and watch again. After the third or fourth time you will start to see how the pieces of this movie fit together like the pieces of any exceptional puzzle -- the blend of flavors by a great chef, the interplay of notes and themes of a great composition, the design of a beautiful garden.What is it that grabs you and just doesn't let go?:*DANCE & CHOREOGRAPHY are THE star of this show. You don't quite know if this is realism, camp, vogue, ballet, broadway, or what. For me it worked beautifully and I typically don't like musicals. There is no singing, but the combination of realistic dialog and story with the fantastical dance and choreographed movement of the actors worked stunningly. My favorite scene of the movie -- the waltz scene -- is just mesmerizing...all of the dancers became frozen in time until Anna and Vronsky waltz past and pull them whirling into their vortex. In particular Aaron Taylor-Johnson's dancing left me slackjawed. All I can say is watch for yourself and see if you've ever seen a man dance like that.*SCREENPLAY. Brilliant. Each time I watch I see how the screenplay brings certainly not all of Tolstoy's plot, but surely a great deal of the meaning and larger themes he brought to the novel (I've since read several novel summaries). The screenplay is layered -- each time you watch again you see and understand more. These little bits step out front when you have watched several times and are no longer so distracted by the gorgeous and fantastical spectacle that is going on.*SETTING. As others have noted; all the world's a stage in this movie. For the first 10 minutes you don't know if you are watching the characters watch a play, but then you realize they *are* the play. I remember feeling very off guard my first time watching...is Stiva going to be murdered by the barber? Is the giant pear a bomb? Why is the barber like a toreador? Why is a couple dancing on the theater floor and another woman wandering playing a concertina? What the HECK is going on??? After about 5 or 10 minutes you get it, settle in and it no longer seems strange... you truly feel that life *IS* art. You never stop marveling at the beauty and ingenuity of it this bold directorial choice. The juxtaposition of reality and theater setting, the model trains segueing to real trains and back -- these things seem like they could not possibly work in theory. But they work. The choreography and dialogue of the actors at cousin Betsy's society party and her firework surprise were visually stunning and just magical.* COSTUMES. Lavish, gorgeous, over the top. Wright uses color like no other. Vronsky is all blond youthful curls, bright blue-eyed, and wore white and light blue, while Anna has deep dark burden of an older woman who has never loved -- she is dark haired, eyed and skinned, and wears only black or dark colors. Wright made the unusual choice of using a lot of redhead and very fair-skinned men throughout and film, which was quite beautiful with the film's coloring, and yet cast olive skinned women as their love interests. Very rich, visually interesting film.* ACTING: Jude Law as Karenin, Matthew McFayden as Anna's brother Stiva, Domnhall Gleeson as country landowner Levin all had scene-stealing performances. Olivia Williams shined as Vronsky's mother. Ruth Wilson's delightful turn as Vronsky's bad-tinkerbell cousin Princess Betsy made a new fan of me. Keira Knightly -- I'd give a maybe little pat on the back but nothing special. She looked exquisite and handled her part quite well and maybe that was enough. While everyone says Aaron Taylor-Johnson was miscast as Vronsky, I suppose that is only if you expect the character to be true to the novel. I thought Aaron brought a rakish vulnerability to the character that I've never quite seen on screen -- now that I think of it perhaps only Richard Gere in his youth -- rather like a desperate child on the one hand; on the other an arrogant cad, stopping at nothing to embroil a married woman in his torrid lust (or is it love?) affair. I think he will turn out to be one of this generations most gifted actors. You know the saying "so handsome it hurts". Well he's that too. Just as exquisite as Keira...so in that sense they are well matched, though I thought his depth as an actor was far greater. Their almost impossible beauty adds to the pain of the relationship.Any more and this review would be too long. See it for yourself, stick it out, and if nothing else, see something like you've never seen before.

Count me in the Joe Wright fan club. I've been a pretty diehard fan of his since seeing `Pride and Prejudice' and his knack for elaborate showmanship continues to elate me. He's like a more refined Baz Luhrmann and I love him for that. After failing to ignite audiences with `The Soloist' (the only Wright film I haven't seen) and then trying his hand at the popular `teen kills adults' genre, Wright came back home to his roots with `Anna Karenina'. This also reteamed him with his muse, Keira Knightley, giving them both something intriguing to sink their claws into.`Anna Karenina' was a project met with immediate skepticism. Tolstoy is not an easy author to adapt, and when taking on such a big and beloved literary piece the critics are already sharpening their knives to dig in and destroy. For those who love the original text, I can see where the complaints carry merit. I have not read Tolstoy's gargantuan novel, but I hear that the romantic subplot and Karenina's eventual demise is not the supreme focus of the book and so the constant focus on her romantic plight is a sore spot for those devoted to Tolstoy's classic.For those of us who have not read the book and are basing their opinions on the craftsmanship of the film itself; this is VERY rewarding.Yes, `Anna Karenina' is a sweeping epic that has so much character and style one cannot simply dismiss it. In the hands of visionary Wright, we are taking on a very visceral journey that stays with the viewer long after the credits have finished rolling. The story takes place in 19th century Russia where aristocrat Anna, married to the older Karenin, suffers greatly after entering into an affair with the dashing Count Vronsky. Vronsky is the eye of young Kitty's heart, but he is smitten with the illusive Anna and makes it a point to seek out her affections. In the meantime, Anna is trying to help mend the marriage of her adulterous brother and his wife, Dolly. When word of their affair gets out, shame is placed all over Anna and Karenin, and decisions must be made with regard to the repercussions circulating Anna's poor choices.The story is beautifully woven, with all ends brought into light at the right moments. The uniform performances by the entire cast are essential to this story feeling lush, and Knightley, Law, Macdonald, Vikander and especially Macfayden were up to the task at hand. This was really Wright's movie though, and the way he layers each visual is astonishing to witness. The idea of transporting every moment to the stage was one met with skepticism and yet one that was so elaborately detailed and so visually compelling. He captured so much romance and so much desperation through his visual tricks. The way the dances were staged was just stunning. Wright is a marvelous technician. He understands how to choreograph each moment to make it something memorable, something special.`Anna Karenina' is something special.