War and Peace (1965) User Reviews

"It is always the simplest ideas which lead to the greatest consequences"

[ackstasis · 9/10 · 15 July 2008]

Few people have been daring enough to even read Leo Tolstoy's epic story, "War and Peace (1865-1869)," let alone adapt it to the screen. At over 1000 pages in length, the novel is notorious for its intimidating thickness, but those who have read it will usually agree that it is one of the finest achievements in the history of literature. I've never been courageous enough to attempt the story myself, but Sergei Bondarchuk's 1960s adaptation, 'Voyna i mir (1967)' seemed an equally ambitious undertaking. At over seven hours in length – usually divided into four parts – the Soviet film defines "epic" in every sense of the word, and, with a budget of $100 million, it is also (adjusted for inflation) the most expensive movie ever made. Watching such a lengthy film in one sitting seemed a daunting task, so I instead decided to segregate my viewing into the picture's original four parts, over as many nights.

I'm the first person to admit my bias towards epic cinema. Regardless of all other factors, if there's sufficient spectacle then I'm a sucker for it. Bondarchuk's 'War and Peace' possesses spectacle in great abundance, and, in every frame, the picture's considerable budget has been put to excellent use. Even the most brief and discreet sequences are gloriously embellished with lavish set decoration and costuming, to such an extent that the flood of colour and creativity becomes almost overwhelming. Unlike comparable masters of epic cinema, such as the wonderful David Lean, Bondarchuk apparently has little use for precise cinematographic composition, and frequently the photography is entirely hand-held, no mean feat considering the bulkiness of those 70mm cameras. In some ways, the unexpected use of this filming style is distracting and occasionally sloppy, but it also adds a unique liveliness to the proceedings – why not brighten things up a bit with a dynamic camera?

The opening hour of Part One, 'Andrei Bolkonsky (1965),' is a watchable but occasionally tiresome introduction of the major characters, the most intriguing of which is Pierre Besukhov (Bondarchuk himself), whose habit for alcohol and recklessness must be stifled following the inheritance of his father's fortune. It is only during the first bloody battle that the director finally spreads his creative wings, and Bondarchuk's magnificent cinematic scope is almost awe-inspiring to behold, as thousands of soldiers fall amid the blood and smoke of open warfare. During these sequences, the film generally avoids spending too much time on any one character, and the director is evidently most concerned with offering an "God's eye" view of events, rather than from the perspective of war's insignificant pawns. Using this method, Bondarchuk is able to retain the "sprawling" tone of his source material, even if such spectacle comes at the expense of any intimacy that we might have had with the story's characters.

Part Two, 'Natasha Rostova (1966)' contains not a single gruesome war-time death, and yet I think I enjoyed it more than the previous instalment. The story almost entirely follows the exploits of the title character Natasha (Lyudmila Savelyeva), the adolescent daughter of a countess, whom we first glimpsed in Part One, as a bright-eyed and giggling youngster yearning for her first romance. By the story's conclusion, she has forever bid farewell to her childhood, and has entered the sobering years of adulthood, heartbroken and disillusioned. The film's first major set-piece – perhaps rivalling Bondarchuk's own battle recreations in scope and attention-to-detail – is a breathtaking New Year's Eve ball, adorned by hundreds of elaborately-costumed dancers who sweep across the floor with impeccable grace. Displaying a versatility that calls to mind a similar sequence in Orson Welles' 'The Magnificent Ambersons (1942),' Bondarchuk's camera glides majestically amid the flurry of waltzing couples, while retaining its intimacy through focusing the spectacle largely from Natasha's perspective.

By Part Three, Bondarchuk seems to have decided that mere personal affairs are no longer important – this episode is about war! Despite a brief running time of 84 minutes, '1812 (1967)' nonetheless contains among the most awe-inspiring depictions of conflict ever committed to film, surpassing even the grandeur of the Bondarchuk's work in Part One and later in 'Waterloo (1970).' Over the course of his film's production, the director sustained no less than two heart attacks – as one might expect, one of these came about during his recreation of the Battle of Borodino. I really can't blame him. This battle, which lasts the bulk of the film's running time, is a genuine battering of the senses, film-making of such overwhelming excessiveness that it just about places the viewer amidst the blasts of smoke and the shudder of cannon-fire. After somehow securing the support of the Soviet Government, Bondarchuk employed full use of their resources, and conscripted 120,000 men to help recreate the Russian Army's mighty encounter with Napoleon Bonaparte's forces.

I must admit I was surprised when, following Russia's so-called "moral victory" at the bloody Battle of Borodino, 'Pierre Bezukhov (1967)' opened proceedings with Field Marshal Kutuzov's reluctant retreat and Napolean's march onwards into Moscow. Nevertheless, Part Four is a visual masterpiece, and Bondarchuk once again presents us with dramatic episodes that are staggering in their intensity and attention-to-detail. During the burning of Moscow, as Pierre stumbles through a fiery inferno, the characters are almost completely obscured by the blustery splinters of ash that gust across the screen. The sheer intensity of the raging red flames often gives one the impression that Pierre has, with the arrival of the French, unexpectedly descended into the sweltering pits of Hell. The picture's eventual conclusion, though certainly sad, strikes just the right note of bittersweet, and we genuinely do feel as though we've just completed something very special. The overriding emotion is one of hope: wars will come and go, but life goes on, and life is the most important thing of all.

Voyna i Mir

[trochesset · 8/10 · 21 May 2007]

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.

A "Moving" Movie

[ttoelenko · 9/10 · 27 June 2005]

I haven't seen the DVD version,but I have seen the English version in the movie theater,and,on the whole,loved the movie.Its spectacles,such as battle scenes,hunting scenes and ballroom scenes are magnificent and breathtaking.The costumes and settings are authentic and beautiful! I loved the sepia colour of the film---it gives the movie an old--fashioned,nostalgic and poetical look! The movie's chief accomplishment is its ability to draw the spectator into the scenes and to make them experience the same emotions that the characters are experiencing:i.e. Pierre's relief and joy at the end of the movie ,when he is riding through Moscow ,as it's being rebuilt.

As one writer pointed out,the relationships between characters ARE stilted.I was somewhat disappointed by the depiction of the relationship between Prince Andrew and Natasha:it lacked the charm,poetry and poignancy as described in the novel.

The epic accomplishment of this film will crush your skull.

[saint#50 · 10/10 · 27 January 2001]

If you can find it, watch it.

Admittedly, the 7 hour plus running time is pretty daunting, but consider the source material. This film deservedly won the best foreign picture Oscar when it was finally released in the U.S. The fact that a Soviet film was able to garner such an award during the height of the Cold War is a testament to its greatness.

There are 3 intermissions to this, the Pangaea of all epic films, and each section draws the viewer in more than the last. The spectacle will blow your mind in a way that digital effects never will be able to do. To actually see the Red Army (and what looks like all of it) marching in costume over the expanse of miles into the distance will change any prior notions of spectacle you held. Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, whatever awed you before is chicken feed compared to the brutal grandeur of Bondarchuk's recreation of The War of 1812.

There are beautiful interludes of excellent acting amidst extremely costly sets--it's a shame I don't know Russian because those subtitles chew up a lot of exquisite scenery. The characters are fully developed, the direction is inspired (no run-of-the-mill static camera work in any of this).

They showed this in 70mm at The Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood last year. Before that it was 10 years without a screening in the U.S. We can't afford to let this shimmering prize of film history lapse. In a theatre, or if it is ever issued on DVD, this movie will deeply reward all those who watch it. There was nothing as grand as War & Peace before; there will be nothing on its scale ever again. Treasure this masterpiece...if you can find it.

Collossus

[OttoVonB · 10/10 · 29 May 2006]

War and Peace, to many, is synonymous with a colossus of a book. The ultimate door-stopper. It is among the most complex and epic works of literature ever written. In 19th century Moscow and St-Petersburg, youths grow, make their mistakes… hearts are bound and then broken… and then the great war against Napoleon tears all these lives apart. Leo Tolstoy created intimate portrayals, compelling characters and epic action, telling the story of an entire country and an entire era effortlessly and elegantly. So if books are often difficult to adapt, this one should be completely impossible (witness the shallow King Vidor adaptation).

This film is the stuff of legends. Reportedly one of the most expensive productions ever created, Sergei Bondarchuk's "War and Peace" benefited from the Red Army's involvement and the Soviet Government's financing, and clocks in at about 7 hours. It is as faithful to its source as could be imaginable. In fact, it almost transcends its source.

Admirably cast (the angelic Liudmila Savelieva is ideal as Natasha Rostova and the director was unbelievably wise in casting himself as Pierre Besukhov), elegantly transcribed into a witty screenplay and enacted with class and conviction by its immense cast, "War and Peace" is not just a good adaptation. Its merits as a film are colossal. The cinematography defies any other film, particularly during the battle scenes: rejecting the painterly staticism of Barry Lyndon and the simple charging and distant shots of older films, the violence in Sergei Bondarchuk's epic mirrors that of Kingdom of Heaven (2005!!!), as the camera flies over a never-ending battlefield at full speed, glides aver frantic canons and divisions, crashes into mêlées and follows haunting stampedes of riderless horsemen (a potent metaphor for how the great leaders of the time lost all control over the conflict's proportions). All this without a pixel of CGI in sight (and all the better for it as it presents shots that the eye would simply refuse to believe if generated by a computer) The epic battle of before the sack of Moscow is so colossal and devastating, that even Napoleon looks confused at how to feel before the ocean of corpses sprawled before him. This is the greatest display of cinematic warfare ever committed to the screen. That the calmer scenes manage to sustain that level of excellence is a testament to how grandiose an effort this film is. The display of repressed emotions and overt tenderness are heart-breaking and many episodic scenes stand out magnificently, such as the wolf hunt, the opening balls (easily rivaling anything in "Il Gattopardo") and the duel. This is a film to which the fantastic "Dr Zhivago" feels like a small appetizer… Bondarchuk's "War and Peace" reaches beyond the book and in doing so successfully is one of the greatest motion pictures of all time. It is cinematic poetry and entertainment of the highest order. And to sum things up in an overused – but never more appropriate than here – they'll never make'em like this again.

Amazing Epic

[richard-larios · 10/10 · 27 February 2004]

I remember seeing this film without a break back in the 1970s in Greenwich Village. It's a grand work of art. The movie started around 9pm and ended 5:00 am. It was snowing outside. I felt we had all lived through the War with Napoleon, seeing Natasha grow (the movie took so long to make that the young actress visibly grew before our eyes), and confronting the issues of war and peace.

It was in Russian with English subtitles. That was better than the TV version some years later that was overdubbed. The feeling of the actors didn't come through in that broadcast.

The music was extraordinary. There was a certain waltz that intrigued me. Saw the other War and Peace with Audrey Hepburn that just could not compare to it. It was too lame.

Nothing in film today can compare to those battle scenes. Nowadays, such scenes are too computerized.

The most faithful movie adaptation of a book I've seen

[Sascha Tesch · 28 October 2000]

When you see the movie that adapts your favorite work of literature you have high expectations. You have a picture of the scenes, locations and characters in your mind, and hardly ever a movie comes close to those images. Likewise, I found the 1954 movie War and Peace very disappointing. I was prepared for a similar experience before I saw the two-part movie by Russian director Sergei Bondarchuk. And was surprised. Still, the seven hours' version still omits many facets (including the almost satirical epilogue) of the original 1600 pages work of Leo Tolstoy. But never before lived a movie up to the images of my mind like this one. The actors, the locations, must have been picked very carefully, because they are very close to how they are depicted in the book. In more than one instance I had the feeling that my imagination had been brought to the screen. But it isn't the faithful rendition of the material alone that makes this movie so unique and wonderful. The broad scope of emotions, the grand scale of the aristocracy's parties with all their luxury, the battles with tens of thousands of extras, the impressive burning of Moscow, the actors who don't act but live the plot, it all adds to the wonderful experience of this film. This movie is highly recommended to any true lover of Tolstoy's book, who is interested in Napoleonic history or simply anyone who likes deep, moving, impressive movies. For anyone interested in Napoleonic history, I also highly recommend Bondarchuk's Waterloo, from 1969/70.

An incredible realization

[hawparks · 10/10 · 22 May 2005]

Ever since I've heard about this movie, I always wanted to see it. It was not until recently that I acquired a great Russian DVD copy with multiple subtitles. A restoration of the complete 7 1/2 hour long, widescreen version thought to be lost for a long time. It took me a whole week after work to see it all (4 DVDs + 1 of extras) and during the weekend I had to see it again, this time with company who also enjoyed it until the end.

I'm certainly not a movie critic or pretend to be so I'm not going to dissect and criticize this movie. It is just the urge to express my joy when I confirmed again that the cinema is undoubtedly a new form of art from the 20th century. It is a media that can display (audio visually) all the forms of art. Theater, music, paint and in this particular case, literature. I must confess that I never read the whole "war and peace" book, just a digest in high school. I calculate that it would take me at least a month of daily reading during a whole vacation with nothing else to do but to read the whole book. And in 5 years I m sure I'll remember the movie better than the book, just like many other movies made after the book. For instance; when I think of "A street car named desire" I immediately think of Brando yelling "STELLA", reading the Tennesee Williams play couldn't make me feel what the picture did, but the picture made me feel what Williams wanted me to feel. Many times the movie differs from the book and fails to deliver the message or feeling that the author pretends, usually because of the "natural handicap" that movies have which is the short time (usually 2 hours) to complete a whole novel. The best example to probe this should be the other "war and peace" from 1956. There is just no comparison. And since I'm not a critic I give this a 10.

The most epic movie that no one has ever seen.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 10/10 · 29 December 2007]

This is one real grand old fashioned epic movie, in basically every way imaginable. But how many people have actually ever heard or watched this movie? Surprisingly not nearly as much as it's deserving. It of course also has to do with the fact that this movie was made at the time of the cold war, so this movie wasn't largely viewed or available in the West. And of course its extreme long running time is also an element that prevents lots of people from watching this.

Yes, you can view the movie in parts, since each part of the movie forms a new different 'chapter' (Chapter I: Andrey Bolkonskiy, chapter II: Natasha Rostova, chapter III: 1812 god, chapter IV: Pierre Bezukhov) of the story, focusing on another character, in either war or peace but its of course best and most effective to watch this movie as one whole. After all the chapters and characters are of course all connected. There are a couple of characters that appear- and connect the 4 stories. The chapter themselves also aren't at all times chronological with each other and its rather 4 different tellings and different point-of-views, each of them providing more in depth of the story and characters. Each chapter has of course its own qualities and some are more appealing than others for certain people. And even though the movie its running time is over 7 hours, it still is a movie that moves along just fine. Despite not having the most fast pace, it never drags.

It's especially the contrast between the war and peace situations that makes the movie so epic and powerful in what it tries to achieve. Each chapter focuses on a different either war or peace situation. I think Tolstoy himself would had been pleased with this adaption of his novel.

It's probably one of the, if not the, most expensive movie ever made but that's hard to really say because of the inflation. So it can't be really said how much this movie cost to make with today's money. The movie not in the least also was so expensive because it took years to make it. It was good to see that they didn't just only put all in the money in the battle sequences of the movie but also obviously in the overall look of the movie. The movie features some amazing large detailed sets and good, detailed, authentic looking costumes. But it of course are still the battle sequences that will impress the most. It will blow your mind. Ten-thousands of extra's were used during the big battle sequences. I keep saying this but it's always more impressive to see an extreme number of real humans charging than it is to watch a grand CGI-battle, no matter how realistic and impressive it all looks.

What I also liked during the battles was that it in parts used the same style as '20's and '30's Russian genre movies, in its camera-work and style of editing mostly. No doubt an homage to the good old golden days of Russian cinema. But the movie overall also uses a great and unique unusual style at times. It uses lots of tricks in parts, such as split-screens and extreme fast editing, to often give the movie an unique and sort of surreal feeling. The movie would often also feature some extreme long shots, in which the camera moves all the way through the ballrooms or other rooms in the palaces or over the battlefield.

The acting in the movie is also surprisingly great, as far as I'm able to judge that. I mean it's also hard to really judge the acting quality in a movie in a language that you don't speak or understand for yourself. Seemed to me that most of the actors in this movie are normally stage actors, which was a good and suiting acting style for this, of course sort of overblown, movie. The movie of course features a whole lot of characters but they all get the right required treatment and are deepened out. The long running time of course allowed this all to be possible. No way this movie would had worked out as good as it was just 'merely' a 3 hour epic.

I think the fact that the movie won an Oscar for best foreign film, despite of the cold war at the time, shows how brilliant the movie is.

10/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Subtitles and original dialogue please.

[John-153 · 10/10 · 21 February 2000]

If at all possible try to see the film with the original language soundtrack and subtitles. The sound of the original Russian dialogue complements the stunning visual sweep of the film in a wonderfully satisfying way. The dubbed version on the other hand degrades the whole experience horribly.

Tremendous spectacle, Uncompelling drama

[JasonTomes · 7/10 · 1 March 2008]

This could be the ultimate epic film: an overwhelming sequence of extraordinary visual set-pieces on the grandest possible scale. Director Sergei Bondarchuk seizes every opportunity to deliver gargantuan spectacle with all the manpower and resources at the command of the Soviet state. His filming of the Battle of Austerlitz, the Battle of Borodino, the burning of Moscow, and the retreat from Moscow is patently a determined quest for the visually superlative, and it is a successful one. Even the depiction of such lesser events as a court ball and a wolf-hunt is lavish to an astonishing degree.

In the face of all this phenomenal effort, expense, and ingenuity, it seems downright ungrateful to say that my appetite for such brilliant grandeur was well and truly sated long before the end of the film. I started to notice that the acting and the music are sometimes rather less than superlative. More seriously, I felt the lack of narrative drive. Bondarchuk appears much more interested in the fate of armies and nations than in the fate of individuals. The great spectacles are what matter to him, and the human stories of "War and Peace" are merely fitted into the interstices. One never gets close enough to the characters. There is a lack of concern for story-telling, perhaps because this is an adaptation made by Russians for Russians, i.e., by and for people who already know the novel very well. Would anyone who has not read the book really be able to follow the film? I am doubtful. On the other hand, viewers who have read it are likely to miss access to the inner life of the characters. Of course, this is one of the unavoidable difficulties of filming any novel. Suffice it to say that Bondarchuk displays no particular skill in getting round it. Repeated use of short voice-overs to convey unspoken thoughts is not altogether effective. On a more technical note, the sound-recording fails to create a sense of intimacy. Often, regardless of whether the actor is seen to be near or far, the volume of his voice is just the same.

The central character of Pierre Bezukhov seems to me miscast. (The director, I learn, chose himself to play the role.) Unless I am remembering the novel wrongly, this Bezukhov appears too prim, too secretive, too calculating, and plainly too old. He frequently comes across as a disapproving bourgeois in the midst of aristocratic excess.

The problems of the viewer in following the narrative are increased by the casting-director's rather limited notions of what constitutes good looks. Among the men, Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, Dolokhov, Kuraghin, and Prince Bagration are all of broadly the same physical type. The same may be said of the young women, Natasha, Soniya, and Mariya (not that the latter two receive much attention). As usual in historical films, some of the women have hair-styles and make-up more suggestive of the time in which the film was made and than the time in which it is set. Anachronistic music within the film is also occasionally distracting.

This massive patriotic prestige project is worth seeing. The battle-scenes are absolutely outstanding. Its ostentation, however, means that the personal stories of Bezukhov, the Bolkonskys, and the Rostovs are by no means as absorbing and affecting as they ought to be.

Leo Tolstoy: "My idea, in its entirety, is that if vile people unite and constitute a force, then decent people are obliged to do likewise; just that."

[Galina_movie_fan · 10/10 · 27 September 2007]

Sergei Bondarchuk, one of the most talented and important Russian filmmakers (he is known as an actor and epic- director) had made many good movies, very interesting technically and artistically. All of them are based on the first-class books (novels, stories, plays, and non-fiction) by the talented writers: Leo Tolstoy, Alexander Pushkin, Anton Chekhov, John Reed, and Mikhail Sholokhov, a Nobel Prize winner for Literature. Sholokhov's authorship of "Quiet Flows the Don" has been questioned lately but the novel is undeniably great.

Bondarchuk's finest directing achievement is 7 hours long epic "Voina i Mir" aka "War and Peace" which is a great film, worth of all money and effort spent. "War and Peace" which took over five years to complete is a masterful combination of many genres (just as Leo Tolstoy's greatest novel is). It is an awesome epic, and a lot has been said about the breathtakingly spectacular battle scenes that were shot on the historical locations and involved tens of thousands of extras, horses, explosions, and complex camera moves. The film is also the incredibly accurate period piece, moving romance, family drama, search for meaning of life (as all Leo Tolstoy's works are: "I want only to say that it is always the simplest ideas which lead to the greatest consequences. My idea, in its entirety, is that if vile people unite and constitute a force, then decent people are obliged to do likewise; just that. "). There are so many unforgettable scenes in the film: the first Natasha's ball and her waltz with Andrei Bolkonsky, the death of young Petya Rostov from a stray bullet, the meeting of Natasha and deadly wounded Andrei and their conversation...and many, many more. Sergei Bondarchuk's choice of the actors for the familiar and beloved characters has proved to be mostly successful. Ironically, the least convincing is for me Pierre Bezukhov. Bondarchuk cast himself as one of the most important novel's heroes, Leo Tolstoy's alter ago, and even though he was a very talented actor, I can't forget that he was twice as old as Pierre when he took the role. One of the most memorable performances was given by the veteran screen and stage actor, Anatoly Ktorov as old Prince Nikolai Bolkonsky. Ktorov's aristocratic looks and noble manners along with his talent made him simply perfect for the role of opinionated, proud, sarcastic but frank and absolutely non-sentimental nobleman. Antonina Shuranova shot to fame in 1966 after her stunning film debut opposite Anatoli Ktorov as his daughter and Andrei's sister, Princess Mariya with her "radiant eyes". Bondarchuk took the risk casting young professional ballerina Lyudmila Savelieva in the coveted role of Natasha Rostova, the most beloved female character in the Russian Classical Literature. Savelieva was natural as Natasha whom we see first as a 12 year old restless, spontaneous, gushing girl and in the final scene as a young woman who had lived though mistakes, regrets, and terrible losses.

I've seen "Voina i Mir" many times. I was even lucky to see it on the big screen in Moscow. It was originally released in four parts: I: Andrey Bolkonskiy (1965), II: Natasha Rostova (1966), III: 1812 god (1967), and IV: Pierre Bezukhov (1967), and for many years it had been shown in Russia as four films. To see this miracle on the big screen was the experience I will not forget.

Mixed bag

[chengiz · 6/10 · 28 February 2016]

War and Peace the novel is so long its length has entered popular culture. So a four part, seven plus hour movie adaptation of it makes sense. But not if you're gonna devote a quarter of it to just one battle. I don't know if the Communist party was responsible for the third part, but it just drags. Yes, it's very real, and I love realism in a movie, but realism is not *sufficient*. The battle sounds superb on paper, certainly *looks* like the costliest battle ever shot, but it's a poorly directed, boring, overlong, confusing mess. The first two parts of this movie were very good: the balls, the duel, some of the soliloquies (the one where Andrei's first wife dies got to me), the scene where Rostova dances in the caretaker's place (also the best scene in the book, by the way). Yes, it's a little dated - everyone seems to act too much with their faces, and the voiceovers tend to be a tad much at times - but it's par for the course. What I minded was the third part bringing this movie down. It recovers somewhat during the fourth, but you realize it's no longer a masterpiece as you'd formerly hoped. Also, Bezukhov (Bondarchuk himself, sadly) is too old and too fat.

I still don't understand...

[yespat · 3/10 · 29 April 2019]

After attending all four parts of this film on four separate nights, I still don't feel as if I have even a cursory comprehension of what War and Peace was about. Let me back up. I am someone who has never read the book or seen any other version of this film. I had hoped after seeing the four part newly remade Russian version, I would have the best opportunity on film to get the most understanding possible from a film. I figured they would have to leave huge chunks out just due to the sheer size of the book but I felt confident, if I stuck with it, I would walk away with some insight. I'm guessing those of you who have studied the book in school prior to seeing this newly restored version were able to see the excellence in this movie but I would guess that others who have had a similar experience as I have will walk away bewildered by the prior fantastic reviews. Here is what i saw.

Part 1: I thought I was watching a Fellini film. Everything seemed nonsensical and bizarre. Nothing was explained and all the characters were treated as if we already knew who everyone was. I almost got up and walked out many times but as I had already paid for all four installments I decided to stay. Funnily enough, the first part was broken into 2 parts. At the end of part one film one, most of the attendees got up, thinking part one was completed. That is how bizarre the first part was. It made no sense for it to be over but nothing made any sense to that point either, so why not end it there? When the screen showed, "part 2" there was a mix of emotions, sorry it was to continue and the vague hope things might be made more clear.

Part 2: This part seemed less fellini-esque, slightly more relatable. I began to get the slightest glimmer of insight as to who the characters were, but still not very much. Even so, after the first part, I was glad to have anything to hang onto. That gave me hope for the rest of the parts and I had renewed energy to continue, hoping the next two parts would enlighten me even more.

Part 3: War, war and more bloody war. Why, I have no idea. There were times when I couldn't figure out what side we were even looking at, the Russians or the French...who was winning and who was losing. I remember watching this week's game of thrones "after the episode" when I came home. The creators spoke of how they had to mix things up because too much unending war gets boring after awhile even with the best special effects. I had to note, that is what happened here.

Part 4: War, war and more bloody war. There continued to be no effort at describing the many relationships between the main characters. It was as if we were supposed to have read the book and knew everything and everyone ahead of time. Even so, most of part three consisted of marching, stuff blowing up, men screaming in pain, flying severed limbs, etc., and most of the time I still had difficulty understanding which side was which...who was fighting who. And the music mixed with the shouts of war were so loud I had to literally plug my ears for much of this part (and part 3 too.).

The only solid takeaway I got from this viewing experience was, I could surmise which character was the one that Audrey Hepburn played in the Hollywood version. Even though I had not seen that film before, the actress they chose resembled a "poor man's version" of Audrey Hepburn. I am now interested in getting that version to see if I might be able to understand a little more what the book was about.

After the third part, I was so frustrated by my experience I spoke with another attendee who seemed to share my POV. Her explanation was, "men!" She seemed to think that as the director was a man a lot more time was spent on depicting war than describing relationships or characters.

The dialogue and relationships made no sense to me. Fathers who were cruel to their children were worshipped by their kids, kissing the father's hands and crying like babies when the fathers died. And there was a part where the field Marshall grasped one of his underlings in a passionate embrace that just seemed silly to me. There was a lot of that kind of thing, people crying their eyes out for circumstances that did not appear to warrant it. It could be that this part was difficult for me to understand as it might have had something to do with Russian culture. Could be they worship their elders regardless of how they were treated. Also, the dialogue was stilted and not relatable. I hoped to remember some of the oft repeated phrasing but cannot. Suffice it to say there were some phrases repeated over and over and over again that never made any sense.

So often throughout my experience I kept noticing my hand reaching for the unavailable remote in the hopes of fast forwarding through it. Had I been at home I could easily have fast forwarded through this massive effort and not lost what little understanding I was able to glean. Probably 90%. So my recommendation for this film is, if after reading my review you still want to watch it, only watch it on dvd where you can have a remote in hand. Don't go to the theater four nights in a row and waste so much of your life as I did.

I gave it 3 stars for their effort in redoing the film. Had I rated it on how much I enjoyed it, I would have had to give it 1 and 1/2 stars, if that was possible, as I did enjoy seeing the beautiful costumes and gorgeous marble floors in the ballroom scenes. And I liked how they dressed the women in flats during the dance scenes instead of seeing them in stilettos.

the very best!

[artnamy · 3 January 2002]

The best film ever made, ESPECIALLY when taking into account all the logistics - the Soviet Government as a film studio?? (sort of makes sense, after you picture Leonid Brezhnev as Louis B. Mayer), and the world's most infamous LONG novel turned into a megamotion picture.

It probably hasn't been seen in the US on a broad scale since ABC had the good sense to run it as a four part late-night special in early 1973 (anyone else remember)?

Not even subtitles - for those of us who are not true foreign film buffs, I mean - can hurt this film. Bondarchuk's amazing direction, as well as his acting, is breathtaking. The Russian people have been celebrated as lovers of great writing and the subject at hand, "War and Peace", becomes a poem at the conclusion.

Truly magnificent from every level - as a period piece, a psychological drama, a war movie, a love story, a history...Tolstoy would be universally acclaimed ahead of Shakespeare if he (Tolstoy) had the good sense to be from England...

Don't miss it. How the Soviet Government, at the height of the Cold War, could finance and produce a masterpiece like this is one of the great mysteries of the 20th century. Give Bondarchuk the credit.

Not an original statement, but it's a cinematic masterpiece

[relaxer4 · 10/10 · 20 October 2006]

When this movie was done I was a little frustrated because of certain things that were left out of the book. Boris practically didn't exist, Nikolai Rostov also had significantly less time which almost made Sonya obsolete. Prince Andrei's father did come off as horribly mean as he was in the book which didn't make you hoping for Princess Maria. Natasha didn't seem as wishy washy in this film as she is in the book (probably because of the near exclusion of Boris). I could go on and on about things that were missing from the movie but when it comes down to it, what's the point? It's a huge book to adapt and 8 hours as it is is a huge amount of time for a film. With that said, the elements from the book that are in the film are wonderful. Often the film is word for word from the book. The realism of the film perfectly matches with the realism of the book. The battle scenes were absolutely amazing. If you liked the book, you must see this movie. As I said, there are some things missing and it does get a little rushed at the end, but that doesn't make it a bad film at all. If you haven't read the book, I would say please read it first. I think you might not completely understand certain parts of the film without the book. Most of you will be fine, but a few things the book helps clear up.

Perfect!

[vdg · 10/10 · 16 September 2004]

Most of the Russian movies have something in common: a highly dramatic content. This one is not of an exception either…a very touching human drama in times of Peace and WAR. I shall not say the same things that other reviewers said, so I just want to mention the brilliant camera work and the almost flawless direction.

I was expecting a rather conservative approach of the camera, with pan and scan shots, but at some times I was pleasantly surprised by different techniques: you'll have to see the movie for yourself…as I wont make a technical analysis here. There are certain scenes where you get the feeling that you are privileged in watching them, as a spectator, but at the same time you can 'feel' the atmosphere so real, so you might think you've been there for real…

The music, ohhhh…the music…flows through the whole movie so natural: from the Russian folk songs to the army marches, going through the waltzes and other époques music styles. There a quite a few scenes where there is nothing else but MUSIC, and a wonderful camera work.

One special note about the actors: beside Sergei Bondarchuk (who is the director as well) we have a cast of brilliant actors that are just perfect for their roles. Indeed the scenario is very good, so their roles are well developed, but nevertheless , the young Lyudmila Savelyeva is quite a Russian gem that unfortunately has not been used much in the later years…

What can I say more about this movie…just that there is new version on 5 DVDs, with a 5.1 re-mastered soundtrack, and with an acceptable picture quality: sometimes you can see some dark corners, scratches and so one..but overall is the best version you'll be able to find..so GET IT and WATCH IT.

10/10 – perfect movie for movie lovers!

The epic film in it's most perfect form

[D_vd_B · 10/10 · 3 May 2007]

This film, made in the 60, is one of the greatest triumphs of Russian cinema. The budget was enormous, but when you watch this film, you have the feeling that it was all spend in a good way.

The first part opens with a lineup of nature scenes followed by an introduction of the main characters. There are the three main characters: Andrei, Pierre and Natasha, and many many smaller roles, but you'll get plenty of time of to get to know them.

The first thing that makes this movie stand out, is the size of the production. The sets are huge, the clothing looks very real and you'll see no empty air between the extras in the crowd scenes.

But the directing is what makes this movie so special. First of all, you hear the thoughts of the characters as a voice over. This might take some seconds to get used too, but works great. You can see that the actors understand their characters, or at least do they know how much these persons know about themselves.

The feeling is incredible. When you are outside, you can almost smell the air and feel the cold (or the warmth of the sun). The indoor scenes vary from claustophobic to cozy. The estates are full of life when there are guests, but after they leave and the sun goes down, the halls become cold and dark.

The battles have great atmosphere. They don't really focus on the battle itself, but more on the madness of them. So there are some structural battle shots missing (the approaching armies, building tense music and the way the soldiers come closer are only shown in the first battle) and mostly you'll be placed right in the action. And the battles aren't shown as something glorious. The main focus is on the madness of the fighting itself. When the first cannonballs fly trough the air, some soldiers become insane bloodthirsty killers that don't care for their allies, while other become mad with fear. All this bloodshed is shown with a shaky camera covered with dirt and dust, a technique later used by many modern directors like Spielberg for Saving Private Ryan. And all this spectacle is done with thousands of extras, hundreds of horses and canons and under giant pillars of gun smoke.

But when there is not battle going on, the surrealism never leaves the characters. They dream and imagine things in a colorful way. There is a great scene where two people are sitting in a room with dripping water. They don't know what to say to each other and all you really hear is the water. This makes it a very nervous scene, but it's exactly how these people feel at that time.

The 4 parts are pretty balanced. The first part is the most open part, with a little of all (spectacle, drama, surrealism). Part 2 has the most personal drama, and 3 a lot of spectacle. Part 4 is a grande finale that will knock you out of chair, help you back in and knock you out again.

The acting is not the best I have ever seen, but it's better than most Russian films. The main characters act very well, but there are some smaller parts that seem a little over acted. The music is not beautiful, but that was never it's intention I think. There is no real main melody and no particular theme that comes back, but the choirs and orchestra are there when they can be used. This film doesn't need a soundtrack that carries it, and that was understood by the composer. The music is not dominating and you cannot whistle with it, but when it's there you might just experience one of the most complete movie moments of your life.

8 hours long, Russian with subtitles (no problem for me, but I understand people that have English as their first language are not used to them), drama and philosophy. Don't watch this film for it's battle scenes alone, but enjoy every scene. It might take a while, but when the last credits are rolling off the screen, you'll have no idea that 8 hours can be so easy to kill.

A great movie, near perfect. If you like directors like Eisenstein of David Lean, this might just be your new favorite film. Give it even a second viewing a couple of months after the first one.

10/10

The film is marvelous

[tsanev · 10/10 · 26 December 2004]

The film is marvelous /Academy award for foreign film in 69/ and close to the book anyone could make. It was directed with a big Russian heart, only Bondarchuk could do /see some of his other masterpiece like "Sudba cheloveka" or "Povest o nastoyashchem cheloveke"/ The book itself is going to be impossible task for 99% of the average Joe and Mary in the USA, even though it is one of the greatest book in history of mankind and a "must read" for every person calling himself half intelligent.

Anyone recommending the the US version of "War and Peace" should realize that those films are so far away from truth as if the Russians try to do a movie about the Civil War in the States. I am not a Russian, though I read the book in Russian when I was 14, and I am thankful to my mother pushing me to do it. I saw the movie for the first time 20 yrs. ago and many times since then.

Yes, you who read those lines READ the book, it will open your mind, and it will make you more knowledgeable about the Russian soul, which is big as the fields of Siberia, knowledgeable of an important period of European history.

Epic

[MaximusXXX · 10/10 · 22 August 2006]

Unlike many individuals who rank movies from 1-10, I have an additional 10-12 category, for Epic films, films that reach a category of their own and are basically equal among each other.

This 8 hours film is truly a masterpiece, not just for its time, perhaps for all time, no film has to date been made for as much money ( adjusted for inflation ) and such word for word layout, the film does unbelievable justice to the long book by Leo Tolstoy. The flaws in this film are non existent. This is one of the most perfect films to date in history.

The quality for a 60s film, indeed, a 70s or 80s film is astounding. The violence, the romance, the story, everything you can want in a film is there. Few films can truly measure up to this Epic.

THE REAL 1812 OVERTURE

[Mohican15 · 9/10 · 13 December 2022]

This film is living proof that only the Russians can truly do Tolstoy justice. Growing up, I thought the 1956 Hollywood adaptation to be the definitive take on his magnum opus chronicling the disastrous Napoleonic invasion of Russia...

But it doesn't come anywhere close to achieving the heights set by Director (and star) Sergei Bondarchuk's glorious 1966 adaptation that cost around 10 million dollars to make and has a running time of over five hours! This is a true masterpiece and (I believe) cements Bondarchuk's legacy as one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, definitive in not only its portrayal of the battle scenes (specifically, the great slaughter at Borodino: a 30-minute-long marvel which required over 14,000 extras and was filmed with a series of cameras suspended above the battlefield on telegraph lines) but of the characters as well. 1970's Waterloo proved just how fine an action director Bondarchuk was but this is a far more delicate, sensitive piece, constructed with real care and consideration towards its source material (adapting the greatest novel of all time, Sergei? No pressure! Seriously, this film nearly killed the guy but he kept going and finished it with the help of his darling wife, Irina). The soirées, the music, the female narrative, the cinematography... it's a love letter to not only Tolstoy, but to Russia as a country. This is a real piece of art and it captures the unspoken poetry and mental anguish of Tolstoy's work as no one else has (thus far) been able to. Not one shred of detail is CGI'd and it truly pays off: when the horses are tripped at Borodino as the cannons go off, I nearly cried because it was all so beautiful!

Seriously though, adapting what is considered by many to be the greatest novel of all time is no mean feat but having read a great part of the book myself, I have to say that although he may have dropped a few elements (that the much-loved 2016 BBC adaptation) for the sake of state censorship, Bondarchuk's adaptation hits the nail right on the head:

Pierre Bezukhov is just as he should be: a fat bumbler.

Andrei Bolkonsky is just as he should be: a moody git.

Natasha Rostov is just as she should be: a silly girl.

But the journeys that all these characters go on are just so wonderful and if the man himself could see what Bondarchuk did to his novel, I think he'd clap him on the back and say: "that's my boy!" If I have one criticism, it's that the ending could've been expanded on... as it was was the 2016 adaptatin. It would've been nice to see Bondarchuk's Pierre and Savelyeva's Natasha as the happily married couple that they become... But that's just me!

It's difficult to weight this one up with all the other excellent adaptations (I still love the 1956 version, though Fonda is perhaps a little miscast but still good; 2016 was good fun; don't even get me started on the Anthony Hopkins adaptation... The Count would be spinning in his grave!), but here are the performances I consider to be the definitive standouts in the War & Peace cinematic universe:

Best Pierre- Sergei Bondarchuk

Best Andrei- James Norton (though I personally think Leslie Howard would've made the perfect Andrei)

Best Natasha- Ludmila Savelyeva

Best Maria- Jess Buckley

Best Helene- Irina Skobtseva (or "Mrs. Bondarchuk")

Best Anatole- Vittorio Gassman

Best Dolokhov- Tom Burke

Best Nikolai- Jack Lowden

Best Kutuzov- Oskar Homolka

Best Napoleon- Herbert Lom (for War & Peace, that is... For Napoleon? Steiger will NEVER be surpassed!)

1966's War & Peace remains a true classic of European cinema that (I hope) will bring more people round to not only the works of Leo Tolstoy, but of Sergei Bondarchuk as well. Witness one of the greats adapting one of the greats!

So much effort to make this film, only to miss the heart of the story

[danny_trihas · 6/10 · 6 November 2021]

What is most important when a director adapts a book is that he understand the soul of its author.

Bondarchuk, for all the painstaking epic granduer that he brings to War and Peace, decided to gut the moral core of the story, which shows that he never really understood the spiritual depths of Tolstoy.

The most important part of this story comes when Pierre Bezukhov is on the brink of moral collapse after witnessing the sacking of Moscow and the execution of innocent life. He has lost his faith in humanity and life as such, and the loss of meaning for a being so sensitive as Pierre signals that even his physical collapse is immanent.

It is here that he encounters the most important character of War and Peace, Platon Karataev,

It is Karataev that teaches Pierre to put his faith in God, instead of trying to control events beyond his control, and it is Karataev that teaches Pierre that it is still possible to show love and compassion to others in the face of horrific circumstances. Moreover it is Karataev that teaches Pierre the value of simplicity, honesty and a love for all that God has made. In effect, it is Karataev who resurrects Pierre, and helps him to love life and God again.

That Platon is given no more than a minute of screen time in such a saga is a joke, and just shows that Bondarchuk missed the point.

The irony in all this is that Tolstoy emphasises time and again that it is not generals and their military plans that move history forward but individuals and the meaning they bring to each other's lives. Instead, Bondarchuk spends the film displaying the epic sweep of events and gives background thought to the lives of the characters and their spiritual struggles.

Bezukhov's spiritual epiphany where he starts laughing was beyond cringe, and by that point I was out.

It's a shame, because you can tell that Bondarchuk put his heart and soul into making this film, but he should have spent a bit more time re-reading the book and less time with the superficial aspects of the time and this could have been a different film.

I can speak of other key characters that were equally basterdized, e.g. Marya Bolkonskaya, but the throwaway portrayal of Platon Karataev was the end for me.

Magnificent but a bit confusing

[Steve-566 · 8/10 · 9 July 2003]

I recently purchased the DVD release of this spectacular production. The battle scenes are breathtaking, but a bit confusing when you see infantry columns marching in circles and cavalry units galloping back an forth between the columns, with no apparent destination in mind. About half of the movie is dubbed in English, but the rest is in Russian with English subtitles and some of it is even in French with English subtitles! There are some scenes that are dubbed in English followed by Russian with subtitles then back to English, and so forth. It was quite challenging to keep up with the switching between listening and reading the dialogue. You can also see some of the Soviet influence in some of the scenes. There are a number of blustery patriotic songs and some rather over-dramatic soliloquies (sp?) scattered throughout the "War" portion of the movie. In spite of these drawbacks, I rather enjoyed this movie. War and Peace has always been one of my favorite stories, and this movie certainly does the book justice. The DVD version is spread over 4 discs (with a 5th disc containing bonus materials). It is packaged in a very attractive box and the discs themselves are attractively presented with images of the main characters and scenes. The widescreen format is nice because the subtitles are displayed in the blackened areas of the screen, rather than intruding into the picture itself. It's a bit on the expensive side (I paid $49.95 for it at Best Buy) but if you're a fan of the Napoleonic era or a lover of Tolstoy, it's worth it. I rate this movie a solid 8.0.

A Great Ship Needs Deep Waters.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 10 April 2014]

I tried to tackle Tolstoy's "War and Peace." I'd read "Anna Karenina" as a teen and found it interesting. And I positively enjoyed "Crime and Punishment" later in life -- an AXE MURDER! But "War and Peace" was simply too big.

Natasha is a doll-like figure resembling Audrey Hepburn, with her long neck, slender figure, wide eyes, and fragile features. She's elfin with a touch of the Tatar brush. She looks as if you could take one of her long bones and snap it like a twig. Only her lips are plumper than Hepburn's, suggesting she is prepared to be debauched more thoroughly than Audrey Hepburn ever was.

Still, she looks like an adolescent throughout, and has an adolescent's impatient, flighty notion of love. She pines for Prince Andre and he finally proposes, but there is no formal engagement, and he tells her he will spend a year away to give her time to think. She thinks. Then she leaps headlong into a glandular love with some already-married Schmuck who tries to sweep her away and ruin her. She's eager but her family prevents it.

The Battle of Borodino, a Russian victory that didn't save Moscow, is long, action filled, gory, smoky, hard on horses, and confusing. Half the time I couldn't tell who was who. Andre is in the midst of the fighting, and Pierre is covered with mud while observing, but it was possible to identify the French in long shots only because their headgear had a kind of plume sticking straight up, and in close ups their blue blouses could be clearly seen. I said that it's hard on horses because of the obvious use of a device called the "running W". Wires were attached to the horse's front legs and the horse was made to gallop until the wire ran out to its full length, yanking the horse's legs out from under him.

It's extremely impressive. At any given time there may be literally hundreds of soldiers galloping, marching, or running across the screen amid the racket and puffs of exploding shells, often in aerial shots. But it's impossible to follow the developments. It's all done by editing or montage, rather than from a particular individual's point of view. I'd contrast it with a much briefer and equally effective, studio-bound scene of combat from "Pride of the Marines." In some ways the most harrowing scenes are those of executions, not battles. We get to know a little about the people being tied helplessly to the stake, blindfolded, and shot. In battle you can defend yourself, but this is murder.

Bondarchuk, the director, has given himself the part of Pierre, a nice sympathetic role, but he doesn't try to become a matinée idol. How could he? He looks like James Coco. He has a fine scene in which he has a duel with some smart aleck and almost by accident shoots the fellow in the ribs, after which, filled with guilt, he runs drunkenly through the snowy woods, stumbling over everything.

The night before Borodino, Andre and Pierre have a chat in Andre's dark cabin. Andre is full of misgivings about tomorrow, certain he will be killed. And he rhetorically asks some simple questions. Tomorrow hundreds of thousands of men will try to butcher one another and he, Andre, will be among the most enthusiastic. The side that kills the most will be the winner. But everyone, soldier and civilian alike, will suffer. If God is good, how can He allow all this crap to continue? It's a conundrum that has no satisfactory answer although most world religions have been at pains to find one. Christianity decided that God gave man free will as a kind of test. He can create evil if he likes. In other Eastern religions, suffering is working off some bad karma leading to redemption in the next life. But Andre never answers his own question. He's just perplexed by it all.

A lusty theme of nationalism runs through the film. The narration tells us about the role of the Russian spirit in turning Napoleon away from Moscow. It's believable enough. In what the Russians call "The Great Patriotic War" and we call "World War II", it's doubtful that many involved were fighting for Josef Stalin.

I found the narration a bit much, rather like Basil Rathbone's patriotic platitudes at the end of his Sherlock Holmes movies. But there is a warm little scene at the time of the wolf hunt. In a humble wooden cottage, after a simple meal, a servant in the next room is playing a balalaika and the patriarch at the table takes up his guitar and begins to play an unpretentious ballad. He begs Natasha to dance and she holds her skirt wide and glides from place to place with tiny graceful movements. The tempo picks up and she spins madly and joyously. Afterward the old man applauds and wonders how -- what with her French nanny and her cosmopolitanism -- Natasha could still be so aglow with Russianism. The later part of the film gets all spiritual, as Tolstoy himself did.

Its most pronounced attribute is its length. It's a longie. It goes on and on and on. It's like driving through Texas. And it still fails to cover all the text. There's nothing about Pierre's experimentation with the Masons, for instance.

I don't know what it was about the Napoleonic wars but Russian General Bagration, who became a hero at the Battle of Austerlitz, had a salad named after him. No kidding. You can look up the recipe easily. And then, of course, Napoleon is a creamy pastry and Beef Wellington is roasted in a pastry shell. Something about food and the French, I expect. A Gallic influence seems to be everywhere. And now, please excuse me as I warm my baguette over the bidet.

Very boring

[Boris-Sh · 4/10 · 25 January 2018]

I watched the film in Russian, as I'm a Russian speaker. The film focuses less on the characters and the people, and mostly focuses on patriotic issues, such as showing how Napoleon and the French are cruel, showing how the Russians are brave and how they protect their motherland and "sacred Moscow". The story telling is very outdated. There are jumps within the story between scenes. Scenes with potential emotions and empathy are cut short, just when they get interesting, and sometimes the narrator just tells you what happened instead of showing it. You can count the emotional scenes on 1 hand. You just can't get any connection to the characters. The battle scenes are impressive, with many participants and extras, and are done in a very large scale. But they are too long and tiring. After you get impressed from the first minutes, you just get bored and wait for the lengthy scenes to finish. The too long and outdated effects and the lengthy many philosophical texts also do not contribute to the viewing experience. And add to everything the length of these film-series... I was very disappointed, after having high expectations due to the good reviews on IMDB. Recently I watched a much newer version made by BBC. It was much much better and interesting - it captured all the key moments and developments, but added a lot of emotion and empathy to them.