With all its flaws is a decent movie, i first watched as a teenager around the early 90s, if not for the soundtrack so fashionable in the 50s Hollywood movies i would have thought it was perfect, but now like 25 years later and after reading the book, and watching the different adaptations i find out it wasn't just the soundtrack it suffers from the silliness of 50s Hollywood movies, characters had to explain why do they do what they do when it is so obvious, over the top soundtrack and for moments seems that the movie wanted to be a musical Audrey Hepburn was cast because she was the Hollywood´s Barbie doll, she doesn't convince me she is a teenagerHenry Fonda could have been great if he was 30 years younger, Many complain about Mel Ferrer, but I like him, he was handsome enough, prince Bolkonski is not a very demanding role, handsome, stiff, serious but he melts for Natacha, and his love for Natacha looked real because he wasn't acting. Depite silly dialogs that are not in the book and some terrible bad lines, it is not that bad, not that it us as good as any of the following adaptations

Anyone who has read, as I read, the entire book "War and Peace", has a clear idea of ​​the enormous work that must have done to make this film. Its probably one of the most complex war dramas ever written and the largest dramatic book I have ever read. It's not my bedside book, but it's certainly one of my favorites when it comes to Russian literature. Directed by King Vidor (who transformed this film into his greatest masterpiece), he has Audrey Hepburn (in the role of Natasha), Henry Fonda (as Pierre) and Mel Ferrer (as Prince Andrei).The script is very faithful to the book and seeks to make a legitimate adaptation. However, its very slow, giving too much emphasis and spending too much time on certain scenes without need, and it lacks emotions and strength, being unable to thrill or grab our attention. Perhaps the complexity of the original material has caused so many difficulties for the writing team that they have not been able to handle it in the best way. As for the actors, I liked Audrey Hepburn, she knew how to give life and joy to her character, but I expected more from Mel Ferrer, he did not understand his character. I hated Henry Fonda... he had one of the most psychologically rich characters in the novel and simply was unable to deal with it. It was a clear casting error.The film has excellent war scenes and portrays very well the armies but always without emotion or danger, in a very warm manner. The costumes and scenarios fill my expectations and have taken great attention with detail and realism, which is quite pleasant. Cinematography is quite pleasant, although it exaggerates in brightness sometimes. Nino Rota is responsible for the soundtrack and did a good job. Anyway, as this movie has the worst sound effects I've heard in movies, I will not criticize the soundtrack.

Anybody who even as much attempts to adapt Leo Tolstoy's magnum opus War and Peace deserves at least a pat on the back for trying, regardless of how successful it is in doing so or not. The novel is one of the greatest there is, but because of the enormous length (one of the longest novels I've ever read, and it was admittedly not the easiest to immediately get gripped), very rich story and dialogues, and complex characterisations and themes it is also one of the most difficult to adapt.While this 1956 film adaptation of War and Peace may not quite work (one of the most problematic War and Peace adaptations), it is a valiant effort and still has a lot of merits. The costumes and settings, while not as evocative of Russia as it could have been, are incredibly lavish, the colours are bold and opulent and the cinematography is very handsome, spectacle-wise War and Peace is hugely impressive. Also incredible is Nino Rota's music score, it's gorgeously lush in an unmistakably Nino Rota sort of way and it really stirs the emotions, not one of my favourite scores of his (seeing as he wrote so many great ones) but hearing how effectively it works in the film and how well it works as a work on its own it is clear why Rota and his music are so highly regarded. King Vidor directs very thoughtfully, with an eye for spectacle and addresses as many of Tolstoy's themes as possible.The war scenes are powerful and moving, with the French army's retreat from Russia resonating especially strongly. The performances are mostly odd, though reasonably odd on paper for some. Audrey Hepburn was simply born for Natasha, she portrays her with a real charm and touching dignity, and the camera simply adores her in some to-die-for shots. John Mills is similarly excellent, giving the film some telling optimism without taking one out of the situation. Napoleon could easily have been written and performed as a hammy buffoon, but not only is Herbert Lom delightfully pompous and imposingly tyrannical but he also brings some truly affecting humanity to the role. Anita Ekberg is luminous and emotive, and Okskar Homolka is ideal casting as well.However, the sound quality is agreed very poorly done here, while the voices sounded echoey the surrounding sound is artificial (this is including the war scenes) and like it was recorded on near-silent and the dialogue sounded canned. The script is thought-provoking and literate, but while the themes and events are present the impact and the substance they should have aren't so much, a lot of it too on-the-surface. With the story, the simplification didn't bother me, seeing as it was only a nearly three-and-a-half-hour length (whereas a 10-12 part mini-series is much more likely to do this massive story complete justice), but the rather sluggish pacing, on-the-surface writing and that some of the drama scenes were needlessly stretched to the point of near-tedium did. Two performances didn't come over so well either. Mel Ferrer is very wooden and stiff, with his performance often lacking in expression. More problematic is a badly miscast Henry Fonda in a rare 'bad' performance, didn't have the 'he was physically wrong' problem like a lot did but it was more to do with that he made little if any attempt to look and sound Russian, it was more Henry Fonda playing himself, while looking and sounding bored, but he just looked so disengaged and clumsy. Ferrer at least looked the part, so whatever the large shortcomings there were in his performance he did acquit himself a little better than Fonda.Overall, doesn't quite work but is a valiant effort adapting a classic but very difficult book. 6/10 Bethany Cox

1st watched 9/21/2014 --- 6 out of 10(Dir-King Vidor): Despite it's faults -- this adaptation of the classic novel by Leo Tolstoy leaves the viewer thinking about "war and peace" and the advantages and disadvantages of both. Henry Fonda is wonderful as the outside observer and main character in the story that see's love, hate, war and peace -- gobbles it all up and fights his way thru it. Audrey Hepburn is the young vivacious love interest for a few of the characters, who also has to live thru the ups and downs from the female side. Mel Ferrer plays a military man who initially joins up to get away from his current wife, and then eventually makes it his "primary" focus in life despite the allure from female characters including Natasha, Hepburn's character. The middle section of the movie -- where the love triangle takes center stage -- seemed unnecessary and was hard to get thru, making the movie longer than it needed to be. The other fault is some editing issues where the movie seems to move forward too quickly in time especially in a very early scene after Fonda's character wins an inheritance. The ending also seems to have been given a Hollywood treatment that is expected in this era of filmmaking. Fonda's characters' dilemma seems to eventually get back to center stage where he questions, "why war", "what is the necessity of it" as he observes first-hand a battle and eventually becomes a prisoner. His perceptions change throughout the movie as a real person's would experiencing what he did. King Vidor attempts to recreate this enormous novel of importance and fails in some ways, but succeeds in others. I now would like to read the novel to see the differences and I think this is a positive thing -- as far as the movie sparking this interest. A worthy movie despite not being perfect, so view this forgotten film if you get the chance.