Watch Anna Karenina For Free

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

I found this portrayal of the classic, tragic love story far stronger than the 1948 version starring Vivien Leigh.Garbo carries a lot more gravitas in the role of a woman who is suicidally depressed in her marriage to an icy, wealthy government minister for whom nothing matters so much as reputation.What was Anna thinking when she took notorious playboy Vronsky as her lover? This perceptive soul must have sensed how her conventional spouse would respond. The scenes between Anna and her son Sergei are amazing to watch. Their affection is deeply believable. As a parent, it's hard for me to grasp how Anna could place romantic love over contact with a child so beloved. Does she really think the count will compensate -- even in Venice? AS IF!!!! Anna had the best couture, and magnificent coiffure, but they did nothing to shield her from pernicious gossip. Nor were psychologists yet around to stimulate insight and perspective. Thank God, people nowadays have access to all kinds of support and assistance!While Garbo was perfect in the lead here, and this version of the story excelled at portraying camaraderie within the military ranks, the casting of Vronsky was less satisfying. Frederic March is a significant talent, but he lacked the sex appeal to be convincing as Moscow's most eligible bachelor. (To show him massaging his conscience in the film's final frame detracted from the story's gut-wrenching finale.)And Basil Rathbone conveyed a requisite chill as Karenin but he too lacked believability. Perhaps his character evinces more depth in the book. (I think it's time I read it!) In all, this was a powerful production. It will be interesting to see how more modern versions compare.

In Imperial Russia, the aristocratic Anna Karenina (Greta Garbo) travels from Saint Petersburg to Moscow to visit her brother Stiva (Reginald Owen) and she meets the cavalry officer Vronsky (Fredric March), who came with Stiva to the train station to welcome his mother.After a family reunion where Anna Karenina has a conversation with her sister-in-law Dolly (Phoebe Foster) to help to save Stiva's marriage, Anna is invited to stay for the ball. Anna Karenina is courted by Vronsky, but she decides to return to Saint Petersburg to her loveless marriage because of her beloved son Sergei (Freddie Bartholomew). However Vronsky follows her and she introduces him to her husband Karenin (Basil Rathbone) at the train station. Vronsky woos her and soon they have a doomed love affair that will lead Anna Karenina to a tragic fate."Anna Karenina" (1935) is the first and the unforgettable version of Tolstoy's classic romance. Greta Garbor is perfect in the role of Anna Karenina, a beautiful and aristocratic married woman that falls in love with a man in a society repressive with the women's rights and feelings. The scene where her face appears in a cloud of steam is one of the most beautiful of the cinema history. The grandiosity and the camera work of the initial scene showing the officer's table and the ball are still very impressive. The heartbreak conclusion of a woman destroyed by her love is very sad. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): "Anna Karenina"

Tolstoy's novel Anna Karenina is a truly great one, with an interesting story and memorable characters. True, the title character can be selfish and unlikeable(though I have heard and still hear similar criticisms directed towards Scarlett O'Hara from Gone with the Wind), but she is also a moving and interesting one.I have yet to see the Vivien Leigh and the Jaqueline Bisset versions, but while it is very condensed compared to the book, I liked this film. Why do I say it is condensed? Well the film has been described as pretty much paring the plot down to the bone, something which I have to agree with. And there are subplots that are completely eliminated here. Despite me saying this, that is not really one of the reasons why I didn't give Anna Karenina a perfect score.One reason is that I feel the film is too short and a tad rushed as well. If they had slowed the pace down and made it longer, the more interesting parts of the story that were left out could have been incorporated without that much of a problem. My other problem is to do with one casting choice. Sadly that choice is Fredric March as Vronsky. Now I am not dismissing March as a bad actor, on the contrary, I thought he was outstanding in the title role of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. However, his Vronsky left me cold, while he was dashing in terms of looks I found him rather stiff and ill-suited to the role, not to mention Vronsky is very Americanised here.However, Anna Karenina is gorgeous to watch. The cinematography, stunning. The scenery, breathtaking. The costumes, colourful and ravishing. Anna Karenina also has the benefit of being richly scored and the music is very pleasant and memorable and does give some dramatic weight. The direction is solid, and the script is intelligent and sophisticated. Aside from March, everyone else in the cast is very good. Greta Garbo has been considered by many as the definitive Anna Karenina, although I have to see other interpretations before I agree with or dispute this opinion, I cannot deny she is wonderful in the role. Very passionate and moving. Freddie Bartholomew is also surprisingly effective as Sergei, but the acting honours actually go to Basil Rathbone who is just superb and truly magnetic as Karenin- this role could have been clichéd but Rathbone adeptly gives it some depth and multi-layers. And I have to give a nod to the final station scene thanks to Garbo and the camera work that scene had a real dynamic sheen to it and is incredibly poignant.All in all, definitely worth watching and very solid. 8/10 Bethany Cox

"Anna Karenina" is based on a novel by Leo Tolstoy. I have not read Tolstoy's novel, but it is apparent from the thickness of the novel and the length of this film that this adaptation is heavily abridged. The story is simple; Anna Karenina is married to Karenin but has an affair with Vronsky.The film features impressive sets and costumes. There are depictions of upper-class Russian rituals such as drinking games, dancing and a stage production. These are for the most part well-done, although the stage production seemed drawn out.Greta Garbo as Anna, Fredric March as Vronsky and Basil Rathbone as Karenin lead the cast. It is an impressive roster, and all of them give solid performances, especially Rathbone and Garbo, but the characters they played were not exceptionally interesting. Freddie Bartholomew is notable as Sergei, Anna's astute young scientist of a child that has some touching scenes with Garbo.This film is watchable and has a number of decent scenes, but never gains much momentum beyond a basic love story. Sadly I didn't form any strong attachments to the characters such that I was even indifferent to Anna's final fate at the end of the story. I'm not sure how other adaptations of the novel compare, but this one is somewhat flat despite having three accomplished performers in the lead parts.