IMDb
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5...jaswo1_500.png
Printable View
Stylistically, this is Speed Racer by Tolstoy. The continuous stage-setting is refreshing at first, but it ultimately becomes a distraction.
It's funny that I saw The Deep Blue Sea earlier this week because that does Anna Karenina better than this film. All I could think about was how much better Rachel Weisz was at Anna than Keira Knightley.
A pleasant theatrical experience but I just can't give it a Yay. I have too many reservations about the style of this film and how much Wright did and did not do to boost the material.
It's a very slight, very superficial adaptation. I don't think the style ever became a distraction, but it only serves itself, and by having the film move so effortlessly fast, it makes Anna's love for Kick-Ass seem more bipolar than a discovery.
I disagree. I actually was disappointed that after using it heavily for the first 30 minutes or so of the movie it went away except for rare occasions throughout the rest of the film.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watashi
Don't really have much to say about this one other than I enjoyed the theatrics of it all but I found the story a total snooze.
Aaron Johnson makes me laugh. He's very pretty, but silly; his ostentatious gestures highlight the absurdity of performance while his occasionally flat delivery is rendered transparently dull considering the juxtaposed flair for camp. Wait, I forgot if I was talking about Aaron or Anna Karenina itself. Umm, oh yeah, it's definitely both.
conversely, i didn't feel it was faithful enough to its aesthetic. it would shift from the overly theatrical stage-settings to more conventional sets, to the russian countryside, but then would have outdoor scenes inside, etc. etc. it was jarring and kept me from ever being able to become fully enveloped in the story, despite it being the most beautiful film i've seen from 2012.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watashi
This film confirms for me that Wright is one of the most stylish, pleasingly theatrical directors alive. And yet, once again, he's working with material of limited interest. I just find it hard to care all that much about 19th century slut shaming.
This is not the adaptation I was hoping to see from Wright after reading this novel. He boiled an enriching, multicentric, psychological character study down to a stagey soap opera. Ugh. This might have been more palatable had I been unfamiliar with Tolstoy's original work. As it stands--a gross misfire.
EDIT: Must give credit to the ball dance sequence. One of my favorite parts of the novel as well.
Yeah. Because it's so irrelevant. And stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinal
The 19th century is sooo two centuries ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Israfel the Black
Why is there an enormous A and K in that poster, that's dumb as hell.
There are certain topics that I'm just not grappling with at this point in my life. And stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Israfel the Black
Prob cause you're not a slut, give it a shot and then see if the film resonates. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinal
But in all seriousness do read the book because it has a psychological complexity that I'm sure the film didn't fully capture. It's a classic for a reason and the reason is not the overarching narrative as much as it is the nuanced portrayal of these characters.