Watching the whole series on the one hand did not work out in time, and on the other hand, when it turned out, I wanted to look for something more worthwhile on TV. And it seems that everything should not be so bad - a famous director and actors, good scenery and costumes, but as a result, the film is terrible.
Perhaps something completely absurd is happening with our domestic cinema. Yes, spectacular pictures are shot, but to create deep works, it seems, completely forgotten. Perhaps that is why it is impossible to choose the appropriate actors.
I like Maxim Matveev. The films that I saw with him are not brilliant, but create a good positive mood, he radiates energy, he creates multifaceted images. But in this film he seems to be lost, it is completely unclear what emotions he wants to convey, he has almost one indifferent cold expression on his face.
I don't like Lisa Boyarskaya very much. She does a lot of acting, but it is hardly possible to talk about her as a good actress; everyone understands how she got into the movies. She is not bad for modern films, including because of her appearance and voice, she can play a confident woman. But when it comes to a more serious game, the complex transmission of emotions and experiences, the semitones - she does not succeed. And the story of Anna Karenina is just such semitones, this inability to express all experiences in words, these are such deep emotions that are difficult to feel and therefore such roles are complex and become an important milestone in the acting life. As I watched the last scenes of the film, as Anna’s crisis reached its peak, I didn’t even realize that a tragic ending was coming soon. Boyarskaya does everything very superficially and mechanically - her trembling hands, tears on her cheeks are visible, but the facial expressions are so unnatural, there is absolutely no depth, the cry of the soul, a powerful stream of emotions pouring out on the viewer. After all, this is not just a film, this is an adaptation of a great work, a world classic, recognized all over the world. This role is really difficult to play, but Boyarskaya could not catch my attention for a second. And then I caught myself thinking that I was already beginning to find fault with the small details in the film – to the fact that it is clear that the scenery is not voluminous, to the pasted beard of the coachman.
Shame on my head, but it so happened that the only film adaptation of Anna Karenina that I had seen before was a film starring Keira Knightley. For me, Kira is also an actress far from perfect, but in comparison with Lisa - she is simply brilliant, she still makes you worry (although she uses her standard tricks), I did not want to switch completely and not watch anymore.
In the film adaptation of Shakhnazarov for some reason threw out the line of Levin and Kitty, although without it the meaning of the whole work is lost, Tolstoy specifically showed us the development of the relationship of the two pairs - conditionally speaking - how to and how not to. And leaving only the line of Anna and Vronsky, the director creates a feeling that he was somewhere very late, and not to be confused, decided to read at least half of the novel - and about Levin and Kitty in the title is not - so you can skip. But the director for some reason decided to shoot a fashionable recent work in the style of memories in old age (it probably came from the time of the Titanic).
If the film had been better designed and thought out, if they had not tried to make both the series and the film, but concentrated on one thing, if the change in the plot was truly justified and gave a new look at the work, and the acting was full of strong emotions - the audience would admire. But lately, directors and producers are making everything easier – they create a lot of hype around the film, spend a lot of money and time on advertising and give out a mediocre product. After all, the most important thing is to recoup costs with the minimum expenditure of your own efforts.
Very sad.
Shakhnazrov's film is academically true. Everything is stylish, qualitative, extremely clear, crystal clear, but not at all according to Tolstoy. Most monologues, dialogues, and even images are fictions of the writer. So Dolly did not love Anna at all, and certainly never envied her; not deservedly put out of brackets Levine and Kitty (the true protagonists of the novel), Kitty appears for moments and looks like an unnecessary fool. Vronsky desperately defends Karenina, which was not in the book, but Karenin turned out to be more vivid and human. The role of Kishchenko, of course, was successful, and he completely took on the blanket of audience attention.
Casting here is not very good at all. Boyarskaya is not bad, but it is surprising that all these dresses and hairstyles do not go well, thin and bitchy Isakova is not suitable for the role of a mother of seven children, forgiving another infidelity of her husband and not noticing these infidelities, Steve almost succeeded, but he should be a little more self-sufficient and self-satisfied. There is something slippery about Matveev, and this brings him together with Vronsky, but bookish, not serial, there is nothing in the series about his meanness towards Kitty. But both Kareninas are beautiful, only they can cause empathy. This is generally surprising, but the part that is not Tolstoy turned out to be much more alive, deep and interesting. Although the cowardly and weak Vronsky would hardly close the embrasure.
In general, a good movie, but no more.
6 out of 10
First, a terrible selection of actors. There is no aristocracy in Boyarskaya; the actors who play Vronsky and Sergei are like twin brothers. By the way, the makeup that was supposed to age Matveev for the role of Vronsky “after 30 years” is frankly ridiculous and does not make him old at all. Further, Boyarskaya and Matveev, despite the fact that they are husband and wife in life, failed to play love and passion. I'll try to argue. Acquaintance at the station, then a brief meeting in the house, then again the station and Vronsky is already recognized by Karenina in love, but if you do not read the novel before, you do not even understand when and why they managed to fall in love, so dry and emotionless it is played. Karenin, on the contrary, is too temperamental not according to the canon.
About the fact that half of the plot is thrown out of the script, I am generally silent, because these are Vronsky’s memories. But this move completely kills the very essence of the work, which was written not about a love triangle, but about comparing the family life of Karenina and Vronsky with Levin and Kitty.
Why make a full-fledged work of cheap fan fiction? I don't understand. In short, people who scolded the British film adaptation for the fact that the director added an element of theatricality to the narrative, while not disturbing the plot, simply did not see it.
4 out of 10
Not bad. That is, in principle, crap, wild game, but not bad. It's like my amateur friend and football connoisseur bewildered at my indignation at playing the Russian national football team: What did you actually expect? We played our best. Exactly! And there is no such thing as Mikhalkov’s style: he sold his soul and his talent evaporated. I shot as I could: the last decent film - "Tsarekilya" was shot in the distant 1991, and the previous decent - in 1986., i.e. for generations Z, Y and even X - Shakhnazarov - gray-haired uncle from the show Solovyov, and they no longer need to specify that not the Solovyov, who also made a similar film - they do not know him at all, and not because his film is a complete rubbish, but because in the TV show is not removed. In fact, through the show Shakhnazarov is unknown to them - these generations - they do not watch it, but they know what their parents and grandfathers are watching. In short, nothing else could have been expected.
Now for the movie itself. Look, that's a gross mess! Why do you want to hurt Tolstoy like that? It seems that Lev Nikolaevich himself said: to understand why Anna threw herself under the train, you need to read the whole novel. Here the novel is anatomized, shabby, and therefore to understand why this "Anna" rushed is completely incomprehensible. Love? But love is not shown, but pronounced gray “Vronsky” in a fit of more than strange frankness to a person much younger than him. This story is being conducted, why in Manchuria, with the constant flashing of a Chinese teenager, whether girls or a boy, and impressionable viewers are already beginning to fear that the exuberant imagination of the director, who was not enough of the Count’s novel, will find that this is a young Mao, especially since it happens somewhere in years.
But what then pushed the unfortunate Anna under the train? I want to answer: Director, but let’s not get ahead of the events. Conventional society? But they are shown only briefly, which is due to the form of presentation of the material as Vronsky’s story, and accordingly he could not tell about events in which he was not a participant. However, some of the events, including Anna’s dream under the snoring of her disgraced husband, are still shown, it remains with horror to assume how Vronsky could become a witness to them.
Maybe morphine did. But this theme from the novel gave way to such a sweet heart of the director Manchurian events.
Thus, the main question is: Why? There's no answer. And if that's the case, it gives a woman the right to be outraged: If she had my problems, I would have looked at her! The difficult life of this woman does not allow her to read the novel of the great Count, Shakhnazarov with his interpretation kills the last hope.
Putting an end prevents the chilling question: Did the director read the novel himself? And is this not the reasoning of Vronsky: “Maybe she is alive?” In the last shots, I was horrified to wait for the phrase: “Continuation should ...” But no, it's over. Thank you for that!
Between design and incarnation there is an unbridged chasm.
I am not sure if my negative review will be published, but it is very hooked.
I am 67. Anna Karenina was first read in 10th grade before the 1967 film. I was completely fascinated by the novel. Aleksandr Zarha’s film only made the impression stronger. Look at the titles – no name, no name! And how “delicious” is put, played, filmed and voiced! This film is still unsurpassed genius! A slight doubt was only about the choice of T. Samoilova for the role of Anna.
I have great respect for Karen Shakhnazarov as a thinker, I am always interested in his position in television political talk shows.
Therefore, the idea of the director to see the connection of times and destinies in a new way seemed to me interesting, although already in commercials the low voice and intonation of Lisa Boyarskaya alerted me.
I started watching the film only with episodes of horse racing and an explanation of Anna and Karenin in the carriage. My anger increased. I changed the channel. After a while, I watched the birth fever scene and switched the channel again. I just wanted to watch the last episode yesterday. I am very saddened, but Anna in this serial film leaves the impression of stupid, selfish and absurd, I apologize for the harshness, a woman focused solely on her experiences. Lisa Boyarskaya failed to express neither love nor passion, plus an inappropriate timbre of voice and intonation on the verge of vulgarity.
My impressions of what I saw: an extremely unsuccessful choice of actors (episodes with the actors praised above I simply did not see), did not like the camera work, did not even like the music!
In the newspaper “Komsomolskaya Pravda” when reviewing new films, a rating scale is used from “5 stars – genius!” to “1 star – inhuman horror!”.
So: for me - fans of such different directors as Tarkovsky, Danelia, von Trier, etc., the discussed creation of Karen Shakhnazarov is just the same - "horror inhuman", a catastrophic failure. It's a pity.
Please forgive me for the possible typos - poor vision.
Tolstoy is self-sufficient, not necessary to improve it
Watched the show. I saw through the force - I had to find out how it all ended.
What can I say? After watching, there was a feeling of deep disappointment and bewilderment. It is not clear what motivated a good director, known for many quality films, to bring to the screen the best, according to Dostoevsky, novel of the 19th century with such distortions, withdrawals, and unjustified, in my opinion, insertions. Tolstoy is self-sufficient and does not need improvement.
First, it is unclear how it was possible to throw out such an important line of the novel as the line of Kitty and Levine. In Levin, as you know, there are features of Tolstoy himself. The story of Kitty is a very difficult and instructive story. After Vronsky left her, Kitty became seriously ill and was taken to the water to be treated, where she met a wonderful girl Varenka, for whom loving people and helping them was as natural as breathing. Communication with Varenka greatly influenced Kitty, contributed to a spiritual revolution in her, a certain transformation. Returning home, meeting Levin again, to whom Kitty had previously refused a request to marry him, she agreed to the marriage. The description of their relationship in development, the role of the sensitive and wise Kitty in building a family with Levin, in smoothing out the roughnesses inevitable with the complex character of her husband, goes like a parallel to the description of the development of relations between Anna and Vronsky. Anna, succumbing to the temptation, leaving her husband, in the end made everyone unhappy: her son Seryozh, and Karenin, who was, in general, noble enough to forgive Anna’s treason (and later take her daughter and Vronsky, whom he loved as his own), and her daughter, whom she did not love, and Vronsky, whom she had harassed with jealousy and suspicion.
In addition, in Tolstoy’s novel, Anna became addicted to morphine, and her behavior in the last period of her life was largely due to this circumstance.
What about Shakhnazarov? Inexpressive play of Matveev in the role of Vronsky; Boyar, which has nothing in common with Anna in Tolstoy’s novel, failed to show the whole tragedy of her heroine – her origins and development; indistinct Karenin. There is not that nerve, that strained string that is felt when reading a novel. It was boring to watch. The one where Anna is doing the ventilation engineering at a hospital under construction is, frankly, laughable, so ridiculous. Or here’s another: it’s unclear why the director came up with a confession to Dolly Anna that she is jealous of Anna, that she should have left her husband and live as she wants. Well, this does not correspond to the image of the meek Dolly, Dolly the hen.
And the scenes in Manchuria ... endlessly appearing on the screen Chinese girl ... It is not at all clear why the director needed this, how it improved the content of the novel?
Anna Karenina, mortal life, memories of love ... and brands
In Literary Encyclopedias, they do not like a tabloid novel - there they do not write much about it - a very slippery article.
Wikipedia is less shy in this sense, but still refers to the Literary Encyclopedia, which claims that the tabloid novel is “... the sinister bottom of the city and its gilded foam.”
Moscow, even more St. Petersburg - this is the "gold foam" of the Russian Empire of the XIX century, where the heroes of the novel by L. N. Tolstoy "Anna Karenina" live.
This novel, in fact, is a mix of a love novel of the XIX century, Tolstoy’s “mythical realism” and moralizing. Only the last two components and the writing genius of Tolstoy did not allow this work to become an ordinary tabloid fiction, but turned it into a classic example of a tragic love novel.
Tolstoy’s rather cool attitude to this novel is known for certain, and this once again confirms that one of the founders of “mythical realism” in psychological prose perfectly understood the real value of his novel as an epic work.
However, world cinema uses his novel “Anna Karenina” as an “infinite soap” with the Tolstoy brand – it is painfully suitable for its production at world film factories.
So our film factory "Mosfilm" under the leadership of director K. Shakhnazarov (part-time director) shot a new television series based on the novel of the great Russian writer.
Its authors decided to distinguish themselves and “completed” the novel for Tolstoy, using the works of V. Veresaev about the Russian-Japanese war of the beginning of the last century, so as not to repeat themselves as another film based on the novel, and at the same time increased the epicity of their film narrative.
In the novel by L. N. Tolstoy about the tragic love of a married capital aristocrat to a single and brilliant young officer, epicity was clearly lacking, and in the films on him, until now, she was absent completely.
From the point of view of the artistic nature of the TV series and its marketing, such a move may be justified, and the viewer will probably add new emotions and thoughts during and after watching it.
When building the film, as Vronsky's memories of Anna to her adult son, the line Konstantin Levin-Kiti Sherbatskaya becomes superfluous, and the authors of the series prudently removed it from their film narrative, as absolutely unnecessary in this case.
There are no tormenting scenes preceding suicide, as well as the act of its commission by the main character of Tolstoy’s novel. And here everything is quite clear: firstly, it is very difficult to reproduce artistically in a new way, and secondly, logically, and most importantly, historically difficult to explain. Sorry, but Tolstoy was obliged to “death” Anna Karenina not according to the laws of logic, history and traditions of the highest aristocratic society of Russia of the XIX century, but according to the laws of the genre of a tragic love novel, replacing realism with its Tolstoy – “mythical”.
If Tolstoy did not do this, then his novel would look more like tabloid fiction about the love adventures of the nobility in the “gold foam” capital of the Russian Empire.
As for the artistic reflection of the love story of Anna-Vronsky, then, in my opinion, in this series with new performers, the level of the film by A. Zarhi “Anna Karenina”, already half a century ago, with actors T. Samoilova-V. Lanove, unfortunately, is not surpassed...
And, in general, as the director admitted, the TV series is about memories of the unforgettable, only and eternal love of aristocrat Alexei Vronsky to a woman named Anna. And Anna’s relationship with Vronsky in the storyline of the series is more a background for the hero’s love memories than their love in itself.
As the great poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko, who left us, said: “This is the law of ruthless play.” It is not men who die, but worlds.
Worlds are dying, only our memories remain. And the film would be more suited to the title not “Anna Karenina”, and “Memories of Anna”, but brands, brands.
And so – a decent series about memories of real human feelings. It is better to watch it than to watch or read modern boulevard and pop, which like a tsunami covered us, and after which there were generations of fans “... read stories about the life of roosters in the zone for free in good quality”, visual novels, graphic novels and other garbage.
"Take care of love." Or at least remember about her..." - that's what the new TV series "Anna Karenina" warns us all about.
Now it has become fashionable to freely treat classics and many directors resort to this technique, some even successfully. Something is taken from a familiar plot, something is invented and as a result, a new mosaic is obtained that entertains the spoiled viewer. But in Karen Shakhnazarov’s series Anna Karenina, the ornament did not work out, probably because he mixed incompatible fragments.
First of all, why did he need to dilute Tolstoy Veresayev? Scenes from the life of Russian aristocrats are punctuated by the horrors of a military infirmary. But the Tolstoy part of this Frankenstein is heterogeneous. Boyarskaya and Matveev instead of familiar characters depict a modern man and woman. This is more of a novel by a representative of the golden youth and, say, the wife of a deputy. Very sorry, but Elizaveta Boyarskaya, so convincing in other films, the role of Anna failed, she comforts this image, in some episodes makes it even rude.
Artists such as Tatiana Lutayeva and Vitaly Kishchenko create more classical images, and more successful ones. In general, Karenin in this film is very cute, I think he aroused the warm sympathy of most viewers. The roles of Oblonsky, Dolly, Princess Betsy are quite colorless, they lack life, but it may be so intended. Kitty appears only in the episode at the ball and all her love for Vronsky is ruthlessly cut off by the filmmakers.
The drama takes place against the background of rich, but gloomy interiors, which gives the characters’ intricate relationships even more despondency. Also dull scenes in the infirmary, and the constant flashing of a Chinese girl in them seems to me and completely meaningless reception.
Unfortunately, this film cannot be called successful, and if I want to watch the story about the sad fate of Anna Karenina again, I will turn to other film adaptations.
To be very brief: by the 5th series I am already impatiently waiting for the train.
Such ' non-reading' Tolstoy from Karen Shakhnazarov, the master, I did not expect. The author (by his own admission) is fascinated with the love line of the novel, but this line in Tolstoy is so metaphorical, so subservient to the main idea and the author's idea! Otherwise, we would read not ' Anna Karenina', but an ordinary female novel in a poket edition, where a prosperous, married, bored and sexually unawakened woman suddenly meets a young handsome man, he threw her on the couch and went... And this is just what is in the film, plus boring and inexpressive excursions to the existence of the wounded Count Vronsky in the hospital during the Japanese war in 1904 under the howls of a Chinese girl, always standing in an unnatural pose of a bogeyman. What this girl means, whether - a symbol of purity and defenselessness, or Russian-Chinese friendship - I have not yet understood. I have not read Veresayev’s novel, but if the storyline is built in accordance with it, it is monstrous vulgarity – the very admission of these revelations between Vronsky and adult Seryozhya.
Levin and Kitty crossed out as unnecessary, there is no adultery, no passions beyond, but only a calm awareness through the work of the soul of the World, Life, Love, his land and his place on it. It's not interesting, is it?
The wretched mare Fru-Fru, beautiful and trembling, written out by Tolstoy lovingly and in detail (not by chance, as a sign of what happened later with Anna), so ruthlessly and in vainly ruined by Vronsky, in the series metaphorically turned into a red (!) merina, which, falling down at the races along with the rider, jumped up, shook off and sprinted into the foggy distance of the director’s imagination.
We can go on and on. The most important episodes of the novel are either crossed out or completely reversed. .
Playing actors does not stand up to criticism. I'm not fascinated by anyone. Is Kolesnikov praised? Remember him in Govorukhin in ' End of a beautiful era'. He's as diverse as Ken, Barbie's friend. Neither Boyarskaya nor Matveev. . . Well, Lutaeva, perhaps. But there are few episodes with her.
In general, when you take on the adaptation of such a work, and even having a sample of Zarha 1967 (the best in my opinion), you need to try hard not to miss. And so, remember Pushkin's ' blind violinist'? - ': We have something from Mozart. . . '
And here we have something from Lev Nikolaevich. ..
It just happened.
I don't know if I will. I was looking forward to the holiday.
"Non-Indigenous." Anna or a new script for a talk show?
Shakhnazarov is an outstanding master. And only a great director can call himself... how to put it... not quite a masterpiece.
The film adaptation of Tolstoy is not an easy matter. This is clear to any layman who can easily give advice: how to make box office films, how to increase GDP or how to increase yields from one hectare.
However, this same layman is too spoiled by the adaptation of the classics of the Soviet era, which became a kind of benchmark for him. If you ask him: what is this criterion and what is it that catches him, he may not answer clearly. He'll just change the channel! Unfortunately, with the adaptation of “Anna Karenina” there is just such a sad switch.
Why? Let's just say... strange acting! You look at the blue screen and it’s like you see the blue light. The same pathos in an attempt to pretend to be secular masters, the same attempts to pass off skill for talent and the same confidence that even an atomic explosion will not displace you from this native and warm place! But only "Blue Lights" are created so that only those who are filmed in them can see them. But when you switch the channel from the classic film to any other channel, it becomes offensive.
If you try to figure out what exactly “did not catch” in the acting game, then here it remains to quote the time-tested: “I do not believe!” Stanislavsky. Probably, for the layman, this phrase can be called the same tuning fork, using which, his unprofessional look can distinguish a fake game from a real one!
Do you believe Vronsky's game? Nope! It feels like someone sucked all the energy out of him and a little bit more, he'll throw himself under the train. But not from the torment of the soul, but from the fact that his feet do not keep from impotence. He should lie in a hammock and give Pad in his hands: let him rest, gain strength and re-read the classics. It's too early to run for married women.
Do you believe Anna? Well... The idea of secular lioness as hysterical and exalted ladies is conveyed correctly. But is there anything behind it? Nothing! Looking at her, I can't believe that light can turn from such a person. As you know, “patients” are not offended. Who is she challenging with her actions? On the contrary! She wants to write out expensive dokhtur from abroad, or vice versa - send to the water. Let the nerves heal, so as not to worry so much!
Do you believe Karenin? Nope! He looks like a history teacher, not a prototype of Pobedonostsev. It is difficult to believe that this person holds a serious public office. It feels like Karenin can't say the word "no." Then the question is: why does Anna, throwing him a tantrum, not decide everything in his favor? What is the intrigue?
It turns out that Tolstoy did not create a great novel, but wrote a script for a talk show. In it, the non-working Anna is riddled with drugs from idleness and dissatisfaction in the lower chakras. She tells how her husband didn’t understand and how boring her life was. If it were not for the affair with Major Vronsky, she would not have known what it means to be a real woman. Vronsky enters. He's fashionable and saturated. Vronsky slowly gets on one knee, like a circus horse, and proposes right in the studio. The hall explodes with applause! Here they sit, two doves on the same couch and listen to instructions from invited “experts”: how to divorce or how to live when one is married and the other is not. Here comes Karenin and tells his story: I work hard, I keep the whole family alone, I do not take bribes, I do not contradict my wife. I know my wife is pregnant again. I'll take the baby. I'm sorry, cheating wife! After such a statement, the hall was divided into two parts: some scream, they say, deprive the unlucky mother of parental rights and in general - where are the guardianship authorities? The second part of the room is busy praising the unhappy father and offering himself or his girlfriends as potential brides and nannies. Suddenly, the mother of Major Vronsky enters the hall with a statement, they say that the son will soon have a wedding, the bride is already in the veil at the registry office waiting, only the groom is waiting! The passions in the hall are high. But suddenly... Anna Karenina says she's late for another show and has to get on the train! The talk show ends with the appearance of a running line: "The second part of the program will not be due to the accident that happened to Anna Karenina."
What's left behind? Another “strange” adaptation of the classics, after which you want to watch an old, time-tested Soviet film with the same name, but with a different cast.
I would say like Stanislavsky - I do not believe!
Looking at Karenin performed by Kishchenko, I do not understand how such an interesting, brutal man can be so disgusting to Anna. Perhaps Kishchenko plays well, but this is not what Karenin sees after reading the novel. His image is very clearly shown in the 1967 film adaptation.
Elizaveta Boyarskaya, of course, a charming young woman, but the role of Karenina she can not afford. It is too modern, emancipated, well, women of the 19th century did not have such facial expressions, such laughter, gestures. In the series, she is very pragmatic, or what, there is no passion in her, she is calculating, calm. And Vronsky on her background looks like a henberry. I can't believe her whole life depends on whether Vronsky loves her or not. And I believe that it will be perfectly arranged and will not disappear without him. It seems as if she directs the process of relations in their pair with Vronsky, he does not solve anything at all.
And at the beginning of the film long looked at Vronsky in his youth and Sergey Karenin at the age, even climbed on the Internet to see if the same actor plays. Why is that? What is the wrong choice of actors?
It is strange to see a film adaptation with the inclusion of a Chinese theme. Perhaps this is permissible, but still ' Anna Karenina' is a classic.
Watching and writing reviews. Scene: Karenina and Vronsky are sitting at a table, received a letter from Karenin about refusing a divorce. Her tone is as if she were saying, ‘Here’s a goat, he’s torturing a child.’ I'm not giving him that now. Do I need it? She behaves like a modern independent emancipated woman. So incredible!!!
I think if the Karenin couple had been played differently, the series would have been better. And here she is kind of a greyhound, and her husband is also ardent and passionate, and not at all boring, as it should be.
In general, the play of the main characters negated the efforts of the other actors.
The first sadness is how awful it is! Why, why, why did I have to sacrifice the Vronsky-Kitty line? For what? After all, this episode is so vivid Vronsky characterizes!
The second impression is, where are the morals of the high society? After all, Anna was not blamed for the fact that she dared to change her husband. And for the fact that she dared to change ' careless', on display. Where ' neat adulterers' the same married ladies of that society? Anna is a product of her age, her circle and its customs. Thank you for leaving Betsy Tverskaya with her ' make a mistake and get better'. But this is so small, compared to what is in the novel on this topic!
Actors... also deliver... They must be playing well. A couple of scenes must have been great. But there is a very noticeable difference in the skill class of young actors and actors of the old school. It seemed to me that Boyarskaya played Anna, but Anna was not. To compare the game of Lutaeva and Boyarskaya - well, it's heaven and earth. They could not be put together in a common scene! Boyarskaya looked faded and pathetic against the background of Lutaeva. . .
The scene in Moscow at the station - hug and cry! With such a stunning passion material, to be able to so crumple, turn into a passing episode. Why do actors say the text as they read the tongue? Like 'Vitalik, souls hurry, I want to go home, my back hurts' (c) Where we go, where we go, people! Why are we in a hurry to show a sad Chinese girl song for the seventh time? This is the 19th century, unhurried, measured, without planes and texts, wake up, actors!I understand why it was tied together ' In the Japanese War' and ' Anna Karenina' Very subtle and successful move, really! But the Chinese girl is too much and too much is not needed.
Scene 'To be where you are' - seriously? Are you kidding me? Where's the blizzard? Where's the riot of nature, so responding to Anna's inner storm at this moment? Where are Anna's gestures? Unhappy Matveev tried to drag out the scene on himself, failed, outplayed. That's bleating ' Enough, enough' - that's all?
Where is Anna's family life after Moscow? Where is it ' why does it have such big ears?' Man, Karenin's not that boring in the novel, by God. Judging by the film, Anna contacted Vronsky because it was unbearable with Karenin. Are you kidding me? She became unbearable with Karenin only when she met Vronsky.
A bunch of key scenes passed, and everything is slurred, and everything is on the run, glimpses. . .
Totally - tired Boyarskaya, superficially playing Anna. Anna in the Admiral did brilliantly, Karenina - no, no and no! Matveev is good, but the class of the game is not enough for Vronsky. Isakov and Kolesnikov were very pleased - bravo, guys. That's how they lived in their roles! Magnificent (against the background of youth) Lutaeva - the eye rested, to be honest. Kishchenko did well. Maybe his role will be increased and this will improve the whole series? I hope so. ..
In general, expectations were so unfulfilled that it is time to cry.