This is not a review of the series--you like it or you don't--it's about the way you'll get to see it. The original UK presentation was a six part series totaling 370 minutes. The first five episodes were roughly the same length; the sixth ran longer. These are the scripts as written by Davies. This is the content of the UK discs. The US and Canadian discs contain eight episodes, totaling 357 minutes--13 minutes less than the UK version. They are all exactly 45 minutes long. The most obvious cut is the entire 13 minute sequence in which the Kuragins try to marry off Anatole to Marya Bolkonsky. (Most of the reviewers seemed to think that Jessie Buckley's Marya was one of the high points of the series, but apparently the US programmers didn't agree.)There are other, more subtle cuts; and some of the deleted scenes on the UK disc extras are in their place. They don't seem to have any particular reason other than to fit the 45 minute time limit--which also seems to throws off the continuity that Davies crafted. In one scene Nikolai and Denisov are in their quarters, each with a girl in bed. Nikolai has to go. The US scene ends there; in the UK version, Denisov tells Nikolai's girl to get in his bed to stay warm and they all go back to sleep. In another, Count Rostov's dance on Natasha's name day is cut short, but appears fully in the short bonus feature. (It seems that the US cable presentation, in two hour blocks, actually comprised 90 minutes of actual show and half an hour of ads.)As well, the UK version comes on three discs and looks like a premium release; the US version comes on two discs and looks like a rental release. The UK release is region 2, view-able on multi-region or hacked viewers, or a computer with a multi-region program, readily available through shareware. Or you can wait for the full UK version to get to the US. UK version: 10; US version: 8.5

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 at first), very rich story and dialogues, and complex characterisations and themes it is also one of the most difficult to adapt.Of the major versions, the best version is the 1972 mini-series with Anthony Hopkins, not only an ideal adaptation of the book and as faithful as one could get but also brilliant in its own right, one of the best the BBC ever produced. The 1966 Russian one directed by Sergei Bondarchuk, while not as accessible, is a close second, a towering achievement and contains the best battle and ballroom scenes of all the War and Peace adaptations. The 1956 King Vidor film has a number of good things, like the production values, the music score, Audrey Hepburn and some of the supporting cast but the sound quality and two male leads are very problematic and the story is not as riveting as it could have been. Faring least is the 2007 adaptation with Clemence Posey as Natasha, beautiful production values and some impressive supporting performances but sunk by the problematic performances of the three leading characters, awkward and underwritten script-writing and bland storytelling.This latest offering from 2016 courtesy of BBC is not as good as the 1972 mini-series or the Sergei Bondarchuk, but is far more successful than the 1956 film and 2007 adaptation. It isn't one hundred percent flawless, agree with Andrew Davies himself that the mini-series could have been two episodes longer as the final episode did feel a little rushed and Helene's story too hastily and conveniently wrapped up. Although the production values are wonderful on the whole, some of the costumes don't fit as well with the period and are not as lavish as the rest and some of the make-up is 21st century-ish.However, considering that adapting 'War and Peace' is a mammoth task and virtually impossible to be word for word, detail for detail this does very well as an adaptation. It is condensed and not one hundred percent faithful, but the heart and soul of the book is there and while focusing predominantly on the relationships between the characters and the characterisations it is very intelligently written and everything feels coherent and emotionally investible. Even if the Sergei Bondarchuk film has more beautiful ballroom scenes and more powerful war scenes, this adaptation hardly underwhelms in either.'War and Peace' (2016) stands brilliantly on its own, and shouldn't be marked down solely for it not being a completely faithful adaptation, that is not fair on the adaptation as they are two different mediums and deserve to be treated as such. It is wonderfully made for starters. The photography is some of the most beautiful personally seen all year on television, almost poetic and heart-breaking in its beauty (episode 3 is particularly striking), the settings, interiors and period detail is sumptuous in every sense and it's always special when scenery is like a character all of its own and the Russian landscapes is one of the greatest examples of that, as well as looking exquisite, seen anywhere on film or television not just this year but possibly ever.Another standout is the music score, words cannot describe how amazing it is. Not only is it so dynamic with every scene, with the haunting choirs, chilling ambiance, poetic nuance and rousing bombast even enhancing the impact, but it serves as an amazing score on its own and one of the best music scores for television this year as well as worthy of its very own soundtrack album. The script is very literate and intelligent, the characterisation meaty and the dialogue always flowing beautifully. The storytelling throughout is engrossing with a lot packed in but elaborated upon enough to make it fascinating and easy to follow.Performances are top-notch, regardless of any reservations as to whether certain actors are right physically. Paul Dano's sensitive and multi-faceted portrayal Pierre is one of the most successful ones of all 'War and Peace' adaptations, and is one of his best overall performances. Wasn't sure about Lily James at first, but as the character grows James grows too and becomes enchanting. James Norton is a handsome, commanding and tragic Andrei. In support, standouts are an outstanding Jessie Buckley, Tuppence Middleton as a Helene that's somewhat both a villain and a victim and Jim Broadbent's incredibly powerful and affecting Bollonsky (especially his breakdown).Overall, a very successful adaptation of 'War and Peace'. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Submitted on behalf of my Russian immigrant mother-in-law and student of Russian literature, who was very disappointed in this film version of War and Peace. War and Peace is about three aristocratic families: St. Petersburg's Kuragins are close to the Tsar (Tolstoy uses irony to show his dislike of them); the provincial Rostovs, who are in the process of losing everything; and the Bolkonskys of the old aristocracy, who are favored by the author. The novel is huge and extremely detailed in its descriptions of characters and details of Russian life in the beginning of 19th century.Leo Tolstoy intended his historical novel to be a majestic and profound one. In this film adaptation, "War" remains faithful to the novel. This is evident in the majestic panorama of the battle at Borodino, or the tragic escape of the broken and hungry French Army as they advance through the snow, and the impossible roads of a vast and empty Russia. However, "Peace" leaves much to be desired.At the party of the house of the Grand Dame Anna Pavlovna Sherrer, one of the guests, Princess Drubetskaya, asks Prince Kuragin to find her son a safe (comfortable) position in the Tsar's army. In her gratitude she kisses Kuragin's hand. Why? Only servants kissed the hands of their owners, or children kissed the hands of their parents. So why does the princess kiss Kuragin's hand?The house of Count Rostov in Moscow, shown in the movie several times from its backyard with livestock, such as pigs, chicken, etc., is not an accurate depiction of an aristocrat's home. No aristocrat's home, especially in a city such as Moscow, would have such a backyard. Furthermore, Pierre would never enter Rostov's home, or any home for that matter, through the backyard. That is a servant's entrance.There is a certain responsibility when working with historical material. One must show respect to the epoch being shown and understand the significance of decorum, protocols of behavior, etc. It is equally important to have actors who correspond to the characters of the novel and the times in which they lived. Tuppence Middleton's portrayal of Helene Kuragina (later Bezukhova) was taken too far from the character of this classic. Tolstoy wrote of Helene's beauty as if she were a perfect Greek statue. Napoleon, seeing her in the theater, praised her beauty. Pierre, standing next to her, wanted to own this beauty. So, the scene of her having sex on the dinner table is so modern and vulgar that I am afraid poor Count Leo Tolstoy turned around many times in his grave, as the Russian proverb says.Similarly, the character of Anatol Kuragin is also miscast. Callum Turner's portrayal of this character on screen is so far from how Anatol is developed in the novel that it leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of Natasha's behavior in the movie. In the novel, the young, beautiful, and smart Natasha (with her inner understanding of people) sees extreme beauty, bravery, confidence, and arrogance in Kuragin, and she is smitten. It is impossible to accept while watching this movie why Natasha has any passionate desire to run away with Anatol, who is played by a stiff, uncertain, and unhandsome actor. I could go on in detail about several other characters and, to a point, I will: The stiffness and monotonousness of James Norton does not show all the transformations through the life of Tolstoy's favorite character, Andrei Bolkonsky. There is some luck despite the wrong appearance of the actor who plays Pierre Bezuhov. In the novel, Pierre is a huge bear of a man, sometimes even comical looking. Though he may not look his part, fortunately, the talented Paul Dano tries to play him accordingly to L. Tolstoy's idea of Pierre. And it seems Dano is the only actor here who read the novel and understood his character.This film did not do justice to Tolsoy's telling of Russian aristocracy in the 19th century; it looks more like the petty bourgeoisie of some unknown country. But, thanks to the movie, I reread the novel with great pleasure. I am afraid, though, I and Paul Dano were the only ones who did.

Right, I'll cut to the chase, I've never read the book; War and Peace and the BBC Adaptation is the first time I've ever paid it any attention.My main draws for watching the show were Lily James (Downton Abbey) and Tom Burke (The Musketeers) and a growing love for 'period dramas'...I was not disappointed. Lily James was adorable and endearing as 'Natasha' and portrayed the role of a 'ruined woman' very well. Tom Burke was transformed as the wolfish 'Dolokhov' and as always Jim Broadbent failed to disappoint.The show also introduced me to several new actors whom I will be keeping a close eye on, namely Paul Dano who played 'Bezukhow'.The costumes were beautiful and the settings stunning, a joy to watch!