War and Peace is a tremendous film, and an undertaking which will never be rivaled. Bondarchuk secures a spot for all time in adapting, directing, and acting in this giant spectacle. Its in my top 50 greatest films of all time, perhaps top 25, and I have had the privilege of seeing many masterpieces.
It is a film though, not with out its flaws. I think that War and Peace is a film that any filmmaker should watch and use as a guideline of what to do...and what not to do. First, the flaws: Bondarchuk lingers too much, much of the film is poetry, but one can only take so many shots of trees and the sky, and the battle that is part III is just far too long, when its intention is to show us the chaos of war, as viewed by Pierre-so there is no real development to the battle, its just random chaos carried over the course of 78 minutes-and that equals far too many overhead shots and shots of the legs of horses. The scene is spectacular, but for what it is trying to convey, it could have been done just as effectively in 40. I have no problem with the overall length of the movie, I just wish that more of the length was used to expand on existing characters or add other ones left out from the novel; rather than all of these aerial shots and shots of trees, and people looking off into space.
Like Cy Young, even with all of its flaws, this film has twice as many shinning victories. It gets better as it goes on, and parts III and IV are definitely the best and most spectacular parts of the film. The battle from part II is nothing compared to the one in part III, and the burning of Moscow is a candidate for the most spectacular scene ever filmed. Bondarchuk does so much right in this film, I don't know where to start, but one thing I will note is that this is no boring by the letters film. While Bondarchuk would have benefited from a Hollywood cameraman, what he achieves here is simply amazing, and I must thank him for being so experimental. Sure, a lot of the experiments don't work all that well, and have aged a bit, but the ones that work, work marvelously, and it keeps the film fresh. This film would have been much poorer if it were made like "Gettysburg", or in the manner of your standard movie, because with a running time of nearly 7 hours, this film demands innovation and freshness.
In the end this film is a monument of the medium. Not the most perfect film, but undeniably one of the greatest, and a must see for every movie lover.
It is a film though, not with out its flaws. I think that War and Peace is a film that any filmmaker should watch and use as a guideline of what to do...and what not to do. First, the flaws: Bondarchuk lingers too much, much of the film is poetry, but one can only take so many shots of trees and the sky, and the battle that is part III is just far too long, when its intention is to show us the chaos of war, as viewed by Pierre-so there is no real development to the battle, its just random chaos carried over the course of 78 minutes-and that equals far too many overhead shots and shots of the legs of horses. The scene is spectacular, but for what it is trying to convey, it could have been done just as effectively in 40. I have no problem with the overall length of the movie, I just wish that more of the length was used to expand on existing characters or add other ones left out from the novel; rather than all of these aerial shots and shots of trees, and people looking off into space.
Like Cy Young, even with all of its flaws, this film has twice as many shinning victories. It gets better as it goes on, and parts III and IV are definitely the best and most spectacular parts of the film. The battle from part II is nothing compared to the one in part III, and the burning of Moscow is a candidate for the most spectacular scene ever filmed. Bondarchuk does so much right in this film, I don't know where to start, but one thing I will note is that this is no boring by the letters film. While Bondarchuk would have benefited from a Hollywood cameraman, what he achieves here is simply amazing, and I must thank him for being so experimental. Sure, a lot of the experiments don't work all that well, and have aged a bit, but the ones that work, work marvelously, and it keeps the film fresh. This film would have been much poorer if it were made like "Gettysburg", or in the manner of your standard movie, because with a running time of nearly 7 hours, this film demands innovation and freshness.
In the end this film is a monument of the medium. Not the most perfect film, but undeniably one of the greatest, and a must see for every movie lover.