The story itself is fairly good, but I just don't understand that so- called 'actors' are incapable of doing accents. This is supposed to be about Russia, not England. The English accents make this absolutely comical and lowers the standard of the production. Sometimes you wonder how they got their acting jobs in the first place if they are incapable....of acting. And acting includes doing accents. I think it also reflects the level of acting coming out from England when they only seem capable of doing English accents. Was the whole world English at one time? I couldn't bare to finish watching this film and had to leave it about a third of the way into it, mostly due to the accents.I kept thinking it was set in England. Best going for the book.

I would love to say that I liked this movie but unfortunately, I cannot. I have not read the novel and it was only after a class discussion on the film that I understood what was happening. After the discussion, it became clear how the film illustrates the central themes of Anna Karennina, particularly the changing role of women in society as well as an analysis of family and relationships. The double standards between men and women are clearly shown in the film, most evidently with Anna and her brother, who experience totally different circumstances as a result of almost identical behavior involving adultery and the pursuit of divorce. Anna is relegated to a life of shame in which she cannot leave the house, let alone care for her son, while her brother and Vronsky are still respected in society and able to do what they please. In fact, Vronsky's involvement in the affair works to his advantage if he chose to leave Anna, though she is completely dependent on him.Furthermore, the juxtaposition of Anna's story and that of Levin serves to emphasize Tolstoy's deconstruction of family life and relationships. It is clear that their stories are polar opposites at all times. While Levin was alone and unhappy in the beginning, Anna was just beginning her passionate affair with Vronsky. In the end, Levin has a son with a loving wife while Anna loses her child, her husband, and eventually her life.Another critical aspect of the story that can be seen in the movie is the modernization of Russia and whether Russia would embrace or reject it. There are multiple demonstrations of modernization in the film, including the important role of trains in the storyline. This is also clear in the scene where Levin and his peasants work the land using traditional tools instead of more advanced plowing technology that was available at the time. Levin's appreciation of the traditional method and how peacefully they completed the task could show the rejection of modernization in that moment.Levin's character in general is a representation of Tolstoy himself, as demonstrated at the end when he signed the letter as Tolstoy. It was interesting how the film took it one step further by having Levin sign his name as such. Apparently Tolstoy also preferred the countryside and was close to his peasants. The representation of Tolstoy within Levin is also made abundantly clear in the two scenes where Levin attempts to identifies and attempts to answer philosophical questions. These include the accursed questions that were an integral part of Tolstoy's philosophy.Overall, the story and characters as envisioned by Tolstoy are great, but this film adaption did not do a good job of communicating the above ideas. The film itself provides no context or explanation for the plot or characters, and does a terrible job in portraying the characters in a way where one can empathize with and understand them. This is definitely a film that requires prior knowledge of the story and characters to be appreciated.

This is one of the better versions of Anna Karenina. It's not too old or too new. It's hard to watch the slightly cheap BBC versions or the old black and white Hollywood versions. It is modern enough to have a fresh feel and great on location filming. It's also not too long. The score is wonderful - Tchaikovsky.Sophie Marceau looks beautiful and tragic. Her acting is good too although her accent isn't Russian. Supporting cast are all good including Alfred Molina.The main problem is Sean Bean was a strange choice. He doesn't look Russian and he isn't dashing enough. He's more the villain with his cruel look.It is interesting to compare this with the Jacqueline Bisset and Christopher Reeve version. I think this one is better overall.

I'm not sure how this movie slipped past me, as I try to stay on top of the period movies that come out. Nonetheless I caught it on one of the Encore channels last night, and I'm glad I did. Visually this movie is incredible! The cinematography could not have been much better, down to small details such as Levin "mowing" in the fields with the scythe in perfect rhythm with the workers.As much as I like the film, however, I'm disappointed that Sophie Marceau's portrayal of Anna was not more passionate. On the whole I thought her performance was pretty good, but I agree with the comments above that she could have exhibited a much more involved and emotional presence in the face of a love that she could not resist. Ditto for Sean Bean, although he was somewhat better at it than Sophie. It's a situation where one fervently wishes that the actors were better than they were, because you know that it would have made the movie a "10." Both Bean and Marceau did provide some excellent glimpses into the souls of their characters, but only glimpses. One would wish for more intimate looks into their motivations and their respective desolations. I was not at all put off by accents of the actors. So Marceau has a mild French accent...French was the dominant language of the Russian court up to the Revolution, so it would not have been out of place at all.The story of Levin and Kitty fares better, if only because of the stellar performance of Alfred Molina. Offhand I can't think of a more underrated actor (save perhaps Ron Perlman). Ms. Kirshner was fine as Kitty, although her journey from infatuation with Vronsky to love for Levin was given short shrift.Overall I loved this movie, but I just wish it had been two marks better.