I can't believe it how many people have rated this film so highly! Don't want to be a troll, but this version is just fake, plastic, hollow. All young good-looking actors with fake beards just can't get to grips with complex personalities of the characters. And everything just looks so clean... even when Zhivago is traveling with partisans. It also doesn't feel connected to Russia or Russians in any way.I can forgive the 1965 film for these faults, because it's an old Hollywood film, and even there the acting was better.Can't properly put it into words, but just felt there should be an antidote to the overwhelming majority of strangely positive reviews on this site. All this mini did for me was annoy me at the fakeness of the whole thing. The only thing the film was true to is Keira's pretty face.

I have never understood people's fascination and love of tortured love stories? Like this one, "Thornbirds" and others like them? Yury is married to a beautiful and sweet woman. They have great history together. And yet he can't resist the temptation of Lara. I think its a pity that adultery gets glamorized by Hollywood and we all buy it as some great love story. It is just cheap lust that is repackaged as star-crossed lovers meant to be together.I for one don't buy it and see it for the garbage it is, no matter how beautiful the scenery, the landscapes, the soundtrack music etc. Wake up people!

This version is a lot more faithful to Pasternak's book than David Lean's version. It is great. It doesn't have to compete with the David lean version. It stands up very well on its own. Ludovico Einaudi's score is every bit as good as Maurice Jarre's. I also think that Keira Knightley is better as Lara than Julie Christie was. I also think she's better than Andrea Corr would have been and I'm a dyed in the wool Corrs fan. It was sensible casting young actors who are the age the characters are meant to be at the outset of the story and then ageing them via makeup. One is a bit incredulous when one sees David Lean's version and Pasha says Lara is 17. Julie Christie looks the age she was when the film was made, namely mid-20s. Each actor puts a different interpretation on his or her character from the 1965 version. Bill Paterson makes Monsieur Gromyko less pompous than Ralph Richardson did. He's also quite charming where he pretends a knotted handkerchief is a rat for the children at the beginning. Sam Neill makes Monsieur Komarovsky more menacing and sinister than Rod Steiger did. He also doesn't have the paternalistic streak that Rod Steiger had. Mr Neill has also given older guys carte blanche to wax lyrical about Keira Knightley. He's done scenes with her and he's about 40 years older than her. Kris Marshall doesn't portray Pasha Antipov as Tom Courtenay's angry young man. He's shown to be quite a fun guy when he swings about ringing church bells which are standing in frames in the street to amuse Lara and her classmates. But he still becomes just as psychotic and unfeeling as Tom Courtenay's interpretation. But, as in the 1965 version, Zhivago is portrayed as a throroughly decent guy who starts off very well in life and his life ends sadly. This version also shows some grim aspects of the revolution such as mutilation, children being murdered and cannibalism, which of course was referred to by Alec Guinness in the 1965 version. This is a very good adaptation which I would recommend to fans of the 1965 version and even more so to fans of the book.

I watched this movie on accident actually, sending someone else to rent "Dr. Zhivago" for me, and he returned with this mini-series, I of course intending the 1967 classic which I love. I gamely watched the re-make anyway and was absolutely thrilled! This version actually had dialog! I hadn't realized how much an actual plot line or character development had been missing from the old one, but I was amazed at how well these characters were developed, lovingly acted and portrayed, and while I have not read the book, it appeared to be a good adaptation. Hans Matheson was a much better Zhivago than Omar Shariff, though I didn't think I would ever find myself saying so, and all the other characters were well-cast. The only disappointment to me was Sam Neill, who is one of my favorite actors. While his performance was solid, I didn't feel that he brought anything extra to Kamarovsky. Even if you love the classic, as I do, give this one a chance.