Watch Anna Karenina For Free

You won't be disappointed!

The Age of Commercialism

Such a frustrating disappointment

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

I'm not sure if anyone was more excited than I was to see the newest remake of Anna Karenina, besides the families of the cast and crew. Sure, the story isn't that great, but Keira Knightley is my favorite actress, and the preview made it look like a moving art gallery rather than a film. Even though I didn't end up adding this one to my permanent collection, it was very entertaining.The reason the film didn't work was because of the casting. In the story, the title character is unhappily married to an older, pious man, and she has an affair with a handsome, virile, young man. Jude Law was cast as the husband, and Aaron Taylor-Johnson was cast as the lover, and this is why the film makes no sense. They tried to ugly Jude up and made sure he wore a perpetual scowl, but the audience is still very much aware he's still Jude Law! Why would she stray? And if she must, why wouldn't she choose someone so incredibly handsome, charming, and full of appeal that the audience understands and excuses her betraying "Alfie"? There wasn't a single moment of the film that I was rooting for Aaron, and the fact that Keira sacrificed everything for him made me not respect or like her character.That crucial criticism aside, the rest of the film is incredibly beautiful to watch. It truly is an experience, not just a film. Joe Wright, director of Pride and Prejudice and Atonement, knows how to capture Keira Knightley perfectly on camera. She's so incredibly gorgeous, it's almost stunning to believe she's real.The costumes, sets, and production values are some of the richest, most beautiful I've ever seen. The colors both blend and stand out among one another, and if you press pause during any given moment, you could easily imagine the frozen frame pained and mounted upon your wall. While the film took home a well-deserved Academy Award for Jacqueline Durran's costume design, it was grossly under-appreciated in its other technical aspects, and Keira was once again ignored for her incredible performance.Seamus McGarvey's cinematography, combined I'm sure with Joe Wright's direction and the way Tom Stoppard's script was crafted, is what separates Anna Karenina from ordinary historical films. The entire film is sewn together seamlessly, with scenes folding into one another in different creative ways. One scene may show the characters walking off a literal stage, and the camera follows them as they walk to a different setting. Another may show an indoor curtain parting, showing the audience the snow outside, and the film continues outdoors. If you're not expecting it, the style might feel jarring at first, but once you're aware of the fluid structure, it's glorious.Watch the preview to get a feel for the style and see if you think you might like it. Even if you're rooting against Keira because of her serious lack of judgement, it really is an engrossing film with many elements to appreciate, including a supporting cast with Kelly Macdonald, Matthew Macfadyen, Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander, Holliday Grainger, Ruth Wilson, Michelle Dockery, and Emily Watson.DLM warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. There are a couple of scenes where the camera spins in a circle, and it might make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

With the help of theatrical scenes, events speed up but yet they didn't manage to cover up. Many events, motivations, ideas are missing. No scent of Tolstoy's criterion about the Russian society. A sub-secondary representation of Levin, who is normally a dominant character, and Tolstoy's reflection of himself in the book. Acting is good but doesn't save the movie.Read the book.

Anna Karenina follows a married woman who falls for another man and, despite her attempts to fight her feelings, ultimately engages in an affair. The movie won an Oscar for it's costumes and they are good. They're extravagant and very fitting of the time period. It had a few good ideas when it comes to story and presentation, but it was clear that it was shooting for style over substance here. The movie at first plays itself out like a play being performed on stage, with set pieces moving and changing while the actors are still acting on stage, but it quickly abandoned that idea for typical directing. I had two problems with this movie that really weighed it down. One of them was the pacing. It's so boring. The characters are impossible to relate to, and most everything about it is largely generic. We've seen it all before, so there really wasn't anything going for it. My second problem was the length. It was way too long, and even faked out it's ending on occasion. I found myself begging for it to just end already. Combine bad pacing with too much on the run time, and you've got a recipe for disaster. And that's what this is. Overall Anna Karenina had some good ideas, but is basically just a generic snorefest. In the end I wouldn't recommend it.

I watched Anna Karenina when it came out in the cinemas, and it was, in my opinion, a masterpiece: it follows the love affair between the rebellious Anna and the dashing Vronsky and the hypocrisy that ensues; it was told in such a creative way: it reflects that life for Russian aristocratic was, in a way, like being on a stage. As always, Keira Knightley shined; her performance as Anna Karenina stunned me, and it left me emotional. She seems to shine the brightest in historical settings; she was the perfect Elizabeth Bennet in Pride & Prejudice, and in Pirates of the Caribbean, she made Elizabeth Swan just as memorable.Overall, I love Anna Karenina; it surprised me, and it inspired me to read the book, which is, like, 800 or so pages long; I enjoyed that, too. I need to rewatch it at some point; it was a while that I saw it.