Excellent adaptation.

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

I felt compelled to create an IMDb account and write this review after reading some of the negative reviews that exist for this movie. First of all, let me say that this movie is underrated on IMDb. It should have a rating of at least a 7.0. At the time of this review, this movie has a lower rating than Star Wars I Phantom Menace. Come on people, that's an outrage! I feel an 8.0 is a solid and reasonable rating when you compare this film to most of the movies that are overrated on this site. Now to the bulk of the review.First of all, I think most people would agree that the film is visually stunning. Everything from the costumes, to the landscapes, to the buildings, all of it is eye candy. While this is only one aspect of the film, I think it is an important one because the visuals help set the right tone and romantic atmosphere that is found in the novel. The visuals themselves are enough reason to see this film, even if you know nothing about the story or don't care for it.Secondly, the performances by Sophie Marceau, Sean Bean, and the rest of the cast were superb. There was only one major issue with the acting in my opinion.I wasn't fond of how Stepan (Stiva) was portrayed in the movie. The actor who played him was too dull and flat. In the novel, Stepan is supposed to be charming and sort of opposite to Levin in personality. Other than that, I found everyone to be excellent in their roles. Contrary to what you may think after reading some of the negative reviews, Sophie Marceau was a wonderful Anna. As a previous review stated, I think her French accent was positive and enhanced her performance. After all, in the novel it says that Anna and Vronsky spoke French with each other most of the time. Secondly, I found that both her and Sean Bean made the affair between Anna and Vronsky credible, believable, and every bit dramatic as it is in the novel. Some have complained that Sophie did not capture Anna's simplicity or elegance, but this is just outright wrong. Sean Bean, despite not having the mustache, played Vronsky well. As a guy, I generally hate love scenes in films because the lines are so cheesy and the actors/actresses have no chemistry. While some of the things Vronsky says in the movie/and the novel may seem cheesy and overly dramatic, Sean Bean's delivery is perfect and not overly done. On the whole, Sophie Marceau and Sean Bean had great chemistry in this film. Alfred Molina and Mia Kirshner were great as Levin and Kitty, although I thought her accent was a little weird and out of place.Lastly, the director did a really good job of selecting appropriate scenes and making them fit together to do justice to the novel. As with any other film based off a long novel, much had to be cut out. However, all the important scenes that compromise the essence of the many themes in the novel were all present. With that being said, the movie still had its flaws. For example, I did not like the few narrations that were placed in the film and thought they were unnecessary and detracted from the film's flow. Maybe this is because I watched the film right after finishing the book for the second time, so the plot was fresh in my head. The film also had a few oddball scenes that were not done well, such as in the beginning with the conversation between Dolly and Anna. For me, this whole scene seemed wrong because of how they changed Anna's lines. However, on the whole most of the scenes were not only faithful to the novel, but due to the wonderful visuals and performances, brought it to life.On the whole, I wasn't expecting much from this film. I thought it was going to be a crummy "Hollywood" version of one of my favorite novels and wasn't expecting much from Sophie Marceau or Sean Bean. While there were some of these "Hollywood" style elements, ( just look at the waltz they had in the movie) the movie overall was surprisingly refreshing and well done. Definitely worth seeing.

In general I liked this movie very much. It has a very authentic atmosphere and is the only movie version of "Anna Karenina" that actually follows the point of view of the book. The setting is amazing and the costumes are brilliant. The actors are great: Karenin - James Fox is amazing. I've always had a weak spot for Sean Bean as well and I think (although in his usual roles he is more of a rogue) he carries off the part of the count rather well. When I said the actors are great however, that does not stretch to Marceau. She's just not good as Anna Karenina. And, more important, the relationship between Wronsky and Anna does not work - I don't know, but the acting between those two could not have been worse if the actors actually despised each other. And the relationship has no development. The audience does not even get an idea what their relationship is about - there is no tension between them. Anna Karenina seems to be more hysterical than anything else. To Summarize: Yes, this movie is worth seeing. It is a wonderful story, told in a great setting with a lot of good actors. Just ignore the performance of Marceau.

I saw this movie probably nine years ago, and although I have read the book, the scene of her death- and showing her body, the blackened lips, open, that horrible expression on her face... it killed the entire story for me. It overshadowed the characters, the love, the passion, the obsession, everything. Although the acting, music, cinematography, set design, the costumes-- everything was quite close the ambiance I felt in the novel, that last scene just put an enormous cloud. I firmly believe that our modern-day obsession with the gruesome took over the director and screenwriter and they turned a classic tragedy into roadkill. It is an unfortunate use of classic literature, contemporary fine actors and modern mediocrity.

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.