Watch Anna Karenina For Free

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Don't listen to the negative reviews

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

I felt compelled to create an IMDb account and write this review after reading some of the negative reviews that exist for this movie. First of all, let me say that this movie is underrated on IMDb. It should have a rating of at least a 7.0. At the time of this review, this movie has a lower rating than Star Wars I Phantom Menace. Come on people, that's an outrage! I feel an 8.0 is a solid and reasonable rating when you compare this film to most of the movies that are overrated on this site. Now to the bulk of the review.First of all, I think most people would agree that the film is visually stunning. Everything from the costumes, to the landscapes, to the buildings, all of it is eye candy. While this is only one aspect of the film, I think it is an important one because the visuals help set the right tone and romantic atmosphere that is found in the novel. The visuals themselves are enough reason to see this film, even if you know nothing about the story or don't care for it.Secondly, the performances by Sophie Marceau, Sean Bean, and the rest of the cast were superb. There was only one major issue with the acting in my opinion.I wasn't fond of how Stepan (Stiva) was portrayed in the movie. The actor who played him was too dull and flat. In the novel, Stepan is supposed to be charming and sort of opposite to Levin in personality. Other than that, I found everyone to be excellent in their roles. Contrary to what you may think after reading some of the negative reviews, Sophie Marceau was a wonderful Anna. As a previous review stated, I think her French accent was positive and enhanced her performance. After all, in the novel it says that Anna and Vronsky spoke French with each other most of the time. Secondly, I found that both her and Sean Bean made the affair between Anna and Vronsky credible, believable, and every bit dramatic as it is in the novel. Some have complained that Sophie did not capture Anna's simplicity or elegance, but this is just outright wrong. Sean Bean, despite not having the mustache, played Vronsky well. As a guy, I generally hate love scenes in films because the lines are so cheesy and the actors/actresses have no chemistry. While some of the things Vronsky says in the movie/and the novel may seem cheesy and overly dramatic, Sean Bean's delivery is perfect and not overly done. On the whole, Sophie Marceau and Sean Bean had great chemistry in this film. Alfred Molina and Mia Kirshner were great as Levin and Kitty, although I thought her accent was a little weird and out of place.Lastly, the director did a really good job of selecting appropriate scenes and making them fit together to do justice to the novel. As with any other film based off a long novel, much had to be cut out. However, all the important scenes that compromise the essence of the many themes in the novel were all present. With that being said, the movie still had its flaws. For example, I did not like the few narrations that were placed in the film and thought they were unnecessary and detracted from the film's flow. Maybe this is because I watched the film right after finishing the book for the second time, so the plot was fresh in my head. The film also had a few oddball scenes that were not done well, such as in the beginning with the conversation between Dolly and Anna. For me, this whole scene seemed wrong because of how they changed Anna's lines. However, on the whole most of the scenes were not only faithful to the novel, but due to the wonderful visuals and performances, brought it to life.On the whole, I wasn't expecting much from this film. I thought it was going to be a crummy "Hollywood" version of one of my favorite novels and wasn't expecting much from Sophie Marceau or Sean Bean. While there were some of these "Hollywood" style elements, ( just look at the waltz they had in the movie) the movie overall was surprisingly refreshing and well done. Definitely worth seeing.

The BBC made a serial of this in the 70's and despite the lack of funding that went into that series, they pulled it off rather well. So finally about the iron curtain had been taken down, the filmmakers could use the best scenery Russia had to offer including the Romanov palace. And you would have thought Sean Bean in a 'Sharpe' style uniform would have made it a certain winner. Afraid not. This is a story of passion and romance and forbidden love, one where you feel for the characters, get entwined with them and almost beg them to stop whilst wishing they could get away with there illicit affair. This 1997 version, I felt no connection to the characters and couldn't really care less about the 2 dimensional performance. If I had bothered to watch it to the end, instead of hanging on the edge of the seat to stop Anna from jumping on the rail tracks, I probably would have volunteers to give her a push. A wonderful Russian tragic love story, though the only tragedy here being this lot bothered to make it.

"Anna Karenina" isn't quite a terrible movie. The scenery is pretty; the score, courtesy of Tchaikovsky, is great; and the attempt to balance the two types of relationships is a noble one. Unfortunately, "Anna Karenina" is a severely hobbled movie.The biggest problem, it pains me to say, is the miscasting of Sophie Marceau in the central role. She is never passionate enough to make us understand why she gives up everything for Vronsky (Sean Bean). Even during some of the more passionate scenes, she is still too composed and collected (Bean suffers from a similar problem, although not as severely as Marceau). Moreover, her French accent is seriously distracting. I admire anybody who can speak multiple languages, but it's all wrong for this movie. The wildly different accents destroy the rhythm of Anna and Vronksy's conversations, and it sometimes feels as though they're not even in the same scene. This, in turn, disastrously torpedoes their chemistry -- a fatal flaw when your entire movie is based on a hot, illicit love affair.Ironically, both Bean and Marceau have their best moments after the affair goes sour. Vronsky's impatience is the first time we see true sparks from the character; Anna's hallucinations, and the separation from her living son, are genuinely disturbing. The filmmakers try to juxtapose Anna and Vronsky's whirlwind affair with the slow-but-steady love that develops between rich Levin (Alfred Molina) and Princess Kitty (Mia Kirshner). Although the effort is noble, it has the same effect as the smorgasbord of accents, that of entirely destroying the movie's pace. It feels rushed and superficial in some places, but ploddingly slow in others. Taken on its own, however, Levin's story is far more compelling than the main plot's lukewarm attempts at passion. Wringing every last drop of psychological depth out of the script, Molina gives a wonderful glimpse into the character's loneliness, melancholy, and eventual peace -- you almost found yourself wishing the movie were just about this guy. As his love interest, Mia Kirschner is a total lightweight and her Canadian accent is as jarring as Marceau's French one; fortunately, Molina has enough gravitas for both of them. If the script had been better, he would have brought the entire movie into warm focus. As it is, the movie feels disjointed and rambling. Had it been better organized -- and perhaps differently cast -- we might have seen an interesting meditation on the various kinds of love. As it is, we see only a few bright spots amid a sea of disappointment.

I will hereby join the legions of ladies (and perhaps some gents too?) that sat down to watch this version of Anna Karenina simply because of the presence of Sean Bean.I have to say, I was not disappointed, though in this version Vronsky's screen-time is drastically reduced. I was very impressed with Alfred Molina and James Fox, both played their parts with conviction and in my opinion stayed true to the characters from the book. I wish I could say the same for Sophie Marceau, but unfortunately I found her rather shallow and annoying. Perhaps it was just because her accent was so out of place, but whatever the reason, I found her portrayal of Anna unrealistic and unsympathetic.The best Anna Karenina that I have come across so far, is easily Vivian Leigh in the 1948 version, which to date I believe to be the best one yet. If you are looking for only one version of this movie to watch, I recommend that one, although it is of course sadly lacking the dashing Mr. Bean :-)