Featured Audience Ratings

• Jason R

  
  Two problems with this movie: (1) the source material is deadly boring and (2) Keira Knightley. She's just not the elegantly tragic figure that the central role needs to generate an audience's empathy. On the bright side, I really liked the whole "stage thing"… More
  Two problems with this movie: (1) the source material is deadly boring and (2) Keira Knightley. She's just not the elegantly tragic figure that the central role needs to generate an audience's empathy. On the bright side, I really liked the whole "stage thing" that the director threw in to throw an element of movement in a storyline that mostly treads water. (yawn)

• Alice S

  
  Setting this sprawling, aristocratic tale of social and literal suicide on a stage is at first gimmicky, later mindfucky, and on the whole, an interesting choice with uneven but admirable execution. I especially liked the backstage/wings/galleys used as the seedier parts of… More
  Setting this sprawling, aristocratic tale of social and literal suicide on a stage is at first gimmicky, later mindfucky, and on the whole, an interesting choice with uneven but admirable execution. I especially liked the backstage/wings/galleys used as the seedier parts of Moscow/St. Petersburg and the breaking of the opera house's fourth wall during the disastrous horse race. Keira Knightley is fine; I have come to not hate her anymore. Alicia Vikander sparkles as the spoiled and naive Kitty. Domhnall Gleeson is romantic but severe as the smitten Levin. Blond pretty-boy Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) sticks out like a sore thumb as Vronsky, the object of Anna's affections. Movie-mate, Jim Hunter, suggested that in keeping with the magical realism of the set design concept, Jude Law should have played both Aleksei, the cuckolded husband, and the hapless "other man." That would have been bomb-diggedy. In terms of story, I'm disappointed that this version of Anna Karenina is so visually vanguard but still entrenched in the tradition of representing Anna as merely an adulterer, then hot/crazy harpy, then cautionary tale.

• jay n

  
  Amazing production design, really breathtaking but the staged presentation while unusual puts the story at a remove. Good performances especially Matthew MacFadyen and Jude Law.

• Raymond W

  
  Boasting splendid production design, gorgeous set pieces, stunning cinematography and a wonderfully immersive score, Anna Karenina is mostly an art piece, with a love story at it's heart. The only thing about this love story is that it's too drawn out and slow moving as is… More
  Boasting splendid production design, gorgeous set pieces, stunning cinematography and a wonderfully immersive score, Anna Karenina is mostly an art piece, with a love story at it's heart. The only thing about this love story is that it's too drawn out and slow moving as is the story, to really keep the audiences attention. There are some electric scenes that are stunning and elaborate technical showpieces, and there is some fantastic acting by Keira Knightley and Jude Law, but overall Joe Wright's Anna Karenina is somewhat of a bore, but made watchable by the performances, elaborate production design, music, costumes and cinematography. Expect lots of oscar nominations in the technical categories.

• Carlos M

  
  A gigantic novel impressively adapted to a little over two hours of sumptuous experience. The production design is splendid, with the action brilliantly placed on a theater stage representing society - and the powerful story benefits from many amazing performances.

• KJ P

  
  Boasting from strong performances, a powerful story of love, a score that will immerse you even in the slowest parts of the film, and set pieces that will actually place you into the 19th century, "Anna Karenina" is a well-made period piece, with nothing else special to… More
  Boasting from strong performances, a powerful story of love, a score that will immerse you even in the slowest parts of the film, and set pieces that will actually place you into the 19th century, "Anna Karenina" is a well-made period piece, with nothing else special to bring to the table. I enjoy watching the actors do their thing on screen, and seeing as these actors have never worked together before, it felt very fresh. Still, the writing is not the greatest and the film drags on a bit too long for my liking, but it's very well directed and I admired that. "Anna Karenina" deserves props for the crew department and logistical, but really nothing else. You can kick back and enjoy a nice romantic 19th century tale without any faults.

• Emil K

  
  What director Joe Wright is clearly trying to do here is somekind of a experimental version of Leo Tolstoy's classic story. Instead bringing it alive with a fresh touch he wrecks any possibility to make this nothing more than a artificial disaster. Cinematography by Seamus… More
  What director Joe Wright is clearly trying to do here is somekind of a experimental version of Leo Tolstoy's classic story. Instead bringing it alive with a fresh touch he wrecks any possibility to make this nothing more than a artificial disaster. Cinematography by Seamus McGarvey is bombastic and restless. Dario Marinelli's score gets terribly annoying after twenty minutes into film and Sarah Greenwood's ambitious production is just a show off and waste of money. For me there was no redeeming elements to be found here. It might be that some costume designers might get something out of this extremely hollow film but that does not make it any better for rest of us. Tom Stoppard's screenplay is full of horribly written corny dialogue. Things are not helped by awful acting and Wright's pretentious filming style. Actors like Keira Knightley, Jude Law or Matthew MacFadyen cannot make their characters alive and especially Knightley has tendency to go way over the top with her manical fits. To see this kind of disaster from a director like Wright is quite a surprise. After all this same man made fantastic Hanna and devastating Atonement which both were well made films. Hanna especilly showed some true potential which Wright really has when he has the right material to work from. This Tolstoy classic is not for him and ends up being as his biggest misfire so far. Anna Karenina is mechanical, hollow, calculated and over the top film adaptation that is artistically bankrupt on every level.

• Julian L

  
  "A bit too cold, a bit too rushed, but nonetheless gripping and inventive. The result is a different stage on a staged cinema." Any two hours adaptation will not be able to properly articulate the story of Anna Karenina. Not even Joe Wright's endearing skills as a… More
  "A bit too cold, a bit too rushed, but nonetheless gripping and inventive. The result is a different stage on a staged cinema." Any two hours adaptation will not be able to properly articulate the story of Anna Karenina. Not even Joe Wright's endearing skills as a director could have lifted this story from under Tolstoy's palms. Taking in mind that this would not be just an adaptation but also a stylized slice of russian cuisine, I reminded myself to not go into this film with many expectations. Fortunately the film feels like an interesting mosaic for me. Wright's half-innovative decision to stage this film as a theater set-piece added not only more class to the film but also a subtle homage to the russian theater. What it also gave is a better excuse for a somehow distant and hurried script by Tom Stoppard. The story itself is not the issue here considering the small length of the film but the way it occasionally jumped through time felt a bit out of control. Like they couldn't hold the reindeers in place. Either from excitement or the pure thrill of adventure, I felt they left all the story transitions sinking in their own painful echoes in a very spacious and dusty cellar while they were polishing the production. Anna Karenina is THE story of a troubled woman, ready to give away everything for true love. It's the Bible of women in love and it should have been treated like a parent would treat his own children: with kindness, love, and appreciation. The love is absent. It isn't absent from the story as a theme but it is not involved in providing a strong emotional core. The film feels so cold and stagnates inside our hearts that we're only left with appreciation for performances, music and technical design. The story doesn't hit, doesn't impress, doesn't change, and for it sure doesn't provoke. It doesn't create an atmosphere and it gets lost after the ball scene. I have much sympathy for the ball scene because it's the catalyst for everything that happens afterwards and it surely feels like Wright put a lot of emphasis on that piece. I like how he plays with intimacy and how he gives it a special shadow each time something intimate happens on screen. I like the aura he gives to each character and how well that embodies the actors' performances. You can instantly discover the goofiness, the stoicisim, the arrogance, the passion, or the diffidence in each character before you get to meet them and see how they behave. Performances definitely help even though Keira Knightley's performance could have been a bit more dynamic than it feels. She's great but there's something there that's missing and I'm trying to figure out if it's her or if it's the direction and even the story that pulls me back a bit from fully enjoying her work. Jude Law does a wonderful job as the imposing and portly Karenin, as well as Aaron Taylor-Johnson as the suave and cunning Vronsky, Matthew MacFadyen as the comical Oblonski or Ruth Wilson as the warm and tenacious Princess Betsy Tverskoy. Levin (Domhnall Gleeson) and Kitty (Alicia Vikander) also develop a believable relationship that goes from innocent ignorance to honest maturity. Where Anna Karenina succeeds the most is in it's magnetic theatrical staging of it's scenes. It's ravashing to watch and while dizzy at first, it becomes a great trick to slip these characters and their stories through your veins. Seamus McGarvey, Wright's trustful cinematographer, lands some great shots but they could have tweaked down the bloom and the blur a bit and increase the contrast to give the film a more glossy and crisp look. I hope the BluRay will look much better than the film did in theater because this one has plenty of colors to show and it would be a pity if the quality would be as foggy as it is in the theater. Other than that the production is great on all levels: costumes, set design, make-up, you name it. Dario Marianelli also doesn't miss the chance to put his stamp on this film and creates a beautiful score that mixes both the russian and french musical culture. A combination that plays smoothly since the russian aristocracy is portrayed as people that borrow the french social climate into their own world to make things more interesting and exciting. Wright's adaptation of Tolstoy's novel is not a mistake in any way. It's a bold film that tries to tell a story known by millions of people in a different way than we are used to imagine it. It works, it's intuitive, it's bohemic, but also a bit vapid when using the original material and lacks continuity between some of the most important scenes. Anyone has the right to challenge the purpose of creating such a film if it's known from the very start that a two hours adaptation has small chances of making justice to this literature heavyweight. I'd argue that doing that is also both childish and cinical. Wright did it because he believed in it, he believed that it will resonate with someone. Nobody would be able to pour so much detail in a half filled glass if total devotion and love wouldn't be involved. After all, the result is not just a decent film. The result is a different stage on a staged cinema. Story: 7.0 Acting: 9.0 Technical Execution: 9.2 Replay Value: 8.0 =================== OVERALL: 8.1

• danny d

  
  wonderful art direction and solid stylistic choices by wright, but the film feels a bit stuffed (and why wouldnt it considering such a long novel is crammed into a 2 hour film). the film never seems to breathe, and the characters were at times difficult to connect with on a simply… More
  wonderful art direction and solid stylistic choices by wright, but the film feels a bit stuffed (and why wouldnt it considering such a long novel is crammed into a 2 hour film). the film never seems to breathe, and the characters were at times difficult to connect with on a simply human level. the ethics were clear, and lines were drawn well between purity and debauchery, but im not sure this complex story will ever fully succeed outside of a mini-series format.

• Nate Z

  
  I've never read a Russian novel before, mostly because I don't need to read 900 pages of bleakness and repressed happiness. With that said, I knew very little going into Anna Karenina (the very title sounds too heavy in syllables, like you're stuttering). What… More
  I've never read a Russian novel before, mostly because I don't need to read 900 pages of bleakness and repressed happiness. With that said, I knew very little going into Anna Karenina (the very title sounds too heavy in syllables, like you're stuttering). What didn't help matters was director Joe Wright's edict to set the story as if it was being performed on a living stage. This bizarre visual concept is interesting for a little while until you realize that it never goes further than the obvious note that the lives of the elites were played out in public for cruel judgment. The staging also gave me many periods of confusion where it felt like a character fantasy was taking place. The peculiar staging seems superfluous and the real draw for the film, not the relatively fine performances or Tom Stoppard's (Shakespeare in Love) adaptation. I don't think it works as a movie because, much like Wright's Atonement, it feels too self-satisfied in its own mannered artifice. It's an overload on style and the film neglects to give me a reason to care about the story and the characters. Keira Knightley as the titular heroine is hard to embrace, Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Savages) seems miscast as her dashing lover, and Jude Law (Hugo) comes across as unreasonably tolerable of his wife's flights of fancy, so much so it makes it hard to sympathize with her downward spiral. It's a pretty movie and I applaud its attempt to do something different, but Wright's Anna Karenina feels too fanciful to come across as tragic. Nate's Grade: B-

• Mark H

  
  Anna Karenina is a cinematic feast. Director Joe Wright's re-envisioning of the cherished novel treats the material with the reverence it deserves, but represents the production in a hyper-realized theatrical treatment that beautifully befits the story. Wright does a masterful… More
  Anna Karenina is a cinematic feast. Director Joe Wright's re-envisioning of the cherished novel treats the material with the reverence it deserves, but represents the production in a hyper-realized theatrical treatment that beautifully befits the story. Wright does a masterful job at condensing Tolstoy's 800 page monolith into a manageable 2 hour feature. He expertly juggles a large cast of characters giving each the time they're due without taking away from the central plot at hand. I was completely wrapped up in Anna's story. And the way he renders the narrative, is genius. It is a sumptuous sight to behold that embraces the super-stylized construction of a play. Office workers stamp papers in staccato unison to the music like percussion, and then uniformly stand and sit in succession. When Count Vronsky and Anna first waltz on the dance floor of an elegant ballroom, the resulting movement is a meticulously choreographed ballet. The dancing couples remain frozen then move when Anna and Vronsky pass by them. Its conceptual style may not enrapture some, but the cinephile in me was entranced. I enjoyed every shrouded whisper, every conspicuous glare, and every angry declaration. Anna Karenina is a celebration of the medium. It is the very reason why one escapes into the fantasy of a movie and out of the reality of everyday life. fastfilmreviews.wordpress.com

• Bathsheba M

  
  I love the idea of making the story sort of a play. I thought it kept the story from getting too melodramatic, which the novel tends towards. After a certain point, --this is more a criticism of the novel, not the screenplay--Anna's whining gets tedious and I cheer when she… More
  I love the idea of making the story sort of a play. I thought it kept the story from getting too melodramatic, which the novel tends towards. After a certain point, --this is more a criticism of the novel, not the screenplay--Anna's whining gets tedious and I cheer when she ends it. That nitpick aside, this movie is gorgeous. Keira Knightly is perfect as Anna and Jude Law is wonderful as her government-official husband. It's wonderful the way tragedy seems to soften Jude Law's character and I would say his is the standout performance. The sets, needless to say, are beautiful and wondrous--I especially like the ending scene with Jude Law and his children in a field of wildflowers and the wildflowers--you can see when the camera pulls back--cover the audience, the costumes are sumptuous and all the acting was laudable. And it's no easy feat to convey a novel with the scope of Anna Karenina into film, but this attempt more than covered it. Great screenplay by Tom Stoppard.

• Josh M

  
  A K is like a pretty, intricate and clever music box, providing a visually stunning but somewhat superficial version of one of literature's great wonders. The excellent Stoppard script is a economical encapsulation of Tolstoy's doorstop sized book. The stand out aspect… More
  A K is like a pretty, intricate and clever music box, providing a visually stunning but somewhat superficial version of one of literature's great wonders. The excellent Stoppard script is a economical encapsulation of Tolstoy's doorstop sized book. The stand out aspect of Wright's vision is the artificially staged and stylized backstage theater sets. I don't think it quite succeeded, though it's engaging aesthetically and a feast for the eye. Some scenes are choreographed like the musical 'Annie' or 'Hairspray' and everything is staged 'tableau' style. But Wright contradicts his own concept, filming on real exteriors on Levin's estate, making the idea even more puzzling. I get it, St. Petersburg society's is a incestuous, gossipy snake pit like a theater. Levin's estate is free and clean and real. Hmm. To me, Karenina and all Tolstoy novels should be very real, gritty and tangible. I don't think the old guy would have approved. Wright has cast his movie well, in all aspects. Keira Knightly has a hard job to do, as would anyone playing the role of Anna, an enigmatic character who has to win the audience's sympathies with her self absorbed behavior. Keira does win sympathy, at least from me, but on the debit column, to me her passion/sex scenes were strangely unconvincing. Jude Law is excellent as the frumpy Karenin, growing nicely out of pretty boy roles. Law makes the character's stodgy decency interesting. Lover Vronsky played by Nowhere Boy's Aaron Johnson was a bit of a weak link. He did not seem worth all the trouble to me, certainly not worth throwing yourself in front of a train for, but perhaps I'm missing his overwhelming hunkiness. Levin gets a bit more screen time than the character does in the other adaptations, and is played well by Harry Potter alumni Domhnall Gleeson, who now looks like a grown man. I walked out of the theater a few days ago disappointed, but days later, the movie has stuck with me, since it's filled with good things and smart ideas, and is a good 'tasting platter' for those who haven't read the book. I absolutely loved the classically influenced music score by Dario Marianelli, which sparkles and supports the music box concept magically.

• Liam G

  
  There are a number of rushed parts that damage the film's emotional impact and at times the look of the film takes too much of the limelight over the characters, but Joe Wright's take on ''Anna Karenina'' features great performances from its ensemble… More
  There are a number of rushed parts that damage the film's emotional impact and at times the look of the film takes too much of the limelight over the characters, but Joe Wright's take on ''Anna Karenina'' features great performances from its ensemble cast, beautiful cinematograph, terrific production design and mostly interesting characters.

• Dann M

  
  "All the world's a stage..." and director Joe Wright takes that quite literally in his adaptation of the Tolstoy classic Anna Karenina. In an imaginative use of set design the entire film takes place in and around a theatre (minus a few conceits here and there). The… More
  "All the world's a stage..." and director Joe Wright takes that quite literally in his adaptation of the Tolstoy classic Anna Karenina. In an imaginative use of set design the entire film takes place in and around a theatre (minus a few conceits here and there). The tale follows a member of Russian high-society who has an illicit affair with military officer, and is forced to choose between her husband and her lover. Keira Knightley, Jude Law, and Aaron Taylor-Johnson lead the cast; however it's Knightley's performance that carries the emotion and passion of the film. Yet the performances end up being hindered by the directing style, as does the narrative. A visual feat to behold, Anna Karenina is a stunning film, but it suffers from the creativity.

• Walter M

  
  Anna Karenina(Keira Knightley) takes leaves of her husband Alexei(Jude Law) to travel to settle a dispute between her philandering brother Oblonsky(Matthew Macfadyen) and his wife Dolly(Kelly Macdonald). Along the way, Anna shares a compartment with Countess Vronskaya(Olivia… More
  Anna Karenina(Keira Knightley) takes leaves of her husband Alexei(Jude Law) to travel to settle a dispute between her philandering brother Oblonsky(Matthew Macfadyen) and his wife Dolly(Kelly Macdonald). Along the way, Anna shares a compartment with Countess Vronskaya(Olivia Williams), mother to Count Vronsky(Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a dashing young army officer who has drawn the attention of Kitty(Alicia Vikander) away from Konstantin Levin(Domhnall Gleeson). Vronsky also comes to Anna's attention when he performs a spontaneous act of charity after a fatal accident at the train station. Give credit to Joe Wright, as inconsistent as his filmmaking has been to date, he has never been boring.(Well, "Atonement" was damn close, though.) For his latest, "Anna Karenina," with the help of acclaimed playwright Tom Stoppard, he pulls out all the stops, staging Leo Tolstoy's famed story of doomed love amongst the gentry literally on the stage for the most part, almost excluding external shots while including some great moments like a chance meeting and a momentous game of blocks.(Bonus points for including a model train.) While distracting from the story and the talented cast, the unique production design also serves to show how trapped Anna is, while the brisk editing keeps things nicely moving amongst multiple storylines. Speaking of the cast, Keira Knightley fares well but it is Jude Law's quiet performance that takes the movie.

• Glenn G

  
  Joe Wright has a great sense of rhythm. He's one part Stanley Kubrick, one part Brecht, one part period costume master, and about 100 parts percussive genius. I say this, because experiencing his films means to become immersed in his delirious and delicious sense of tone and… More
  Joe Wright has a great sense of rhythm. He's one part Stanley Kubrick, one part Brecht, one part period costume master, and about 100 parts percussive genius. I say this, because experiencing his films means to become immersed in his delirious and delicious sense of tone and staccato sensibility. I noticed it first in ATONEMENT, where he used the pace of the typing keys coupled with those beautiful "Shining"-esque steadicam shots to help us fixate on Saoirse Ronan's obsessive character. He's a bold filmmaker who has managed to transform stuffy period dramas into vital works. Because Tolstoy's ANNA KARENINA has been adapted for the screen many times, it was with great trepidation that I approached this film. Of course, I trusted Joe Wright to approach the material with some measure of originality, otherwise, why would he do this? Love it or hate it, there's no way anyone will say that he didn't take a HUGE chance here. This is abstract, outrageously visual, somewhat maddening, emotionally distancing and pretentious cinema here. Set almost entirely within the confines of a dilapidated theatre, Wright uses the space in infinite ways, sometimes cross-cutting to more realistic settings, while at others sliding sets up, down, across and around to always keep our eyes and brains working. I think perhaps he felt this technique would allow the audience to focus on the emotions of the characters in Tom Stoppard's complex screenplay. Unfortunately, the opposite is true most of the time. While it left me breathless and sustained a feverish tone throughout, I never felt deeply involved with our title character. As good as Keira Knightley is, and she is quite good here, everything feels so hermetically sealed and perfect, that it's hard to get inside. Every gesture, every twirl is so perfectly choreographed, that in those rare instances when things get a little messy, especially during her "mad" phases, you breathe a sigh of relief for those moments of naturalism. It's all strange, since Tolstoy's novel harkened a period of such naturalism in writing. STILL, there are so many moments of sheer brilliance here. Jude Law is wonderfully restrained as her husband, Alexsei Karenin, making him surprisingly sympathetic. Ultimately this is a film about forgiveness, letting go of past transgressions, and Law's character exemplifies that very dignified, very adult trait so beautifully. In a similar vein, the true standout of the film and the breakout star is Domhnall Gleeson, who plays Levin, a parallel character who achingly pines for Kitty (Alicia Vikinder, also naturally lovely). He conveys longing and pain with such a wonderful stillness, that I couldn't help but feel for the character. There's a fantastic, and mostly wordless scene between the two where they communicate solely through letter blocks that has to stand as one of the most original love scenes of the year. Additionally, since his character is outdoors much of the time, there are some breathtaking shots of him atop a haystack or out in the fields. There are countless examples of awe-inspiring imagery here, and yet the sound design stands out even more so. The fluttering a fans, the lockstep percussion of paper being stamped, the rush of cold wind, train whistles, and so much more create such bristling tension, that you almost forget that the film is a bit repetitive and remote. All told, this is a hugely ambitious failure. More concerned with how everything looks and flows instead of how the characters feel, we're kept at arm's length from the film, as fantastically rendered as it is. I don't care. I'd rather watch Joe Wright take chances any day than endure a hack marking time.

• The Movie W

  
  Should Vladimir Putin ever have the misfortune to witness Joe Wright's "Carry On Tolstoy" adaptation of one of Russia's most revered texts, he may have to suppress the urge to nuke Britain off the map. It's a very British take on a very Russian novel. Wright… More
  Should Vladimir Putin ever have the misfortune to witness Joe Wright's "Carry On Tolstoy" adaptation of one of Russia's most revered texts, he may have to suppress the urge to nuke Britain off the map. It's a very British take on a very Russian novel. Wright is of that most horrid breed of film-maker, the vulgarian. I've never read the source text but I'm certain it doesn't contain a farting dog as seen here. The film is about as Russian as a Big Mac. Were it not for the character names you would assume it was set in South-East England. Every cast member speaks as though they were born in Surrey, even the non-English actors. When Robin Hood speaks with an American accent the British climb aboard their cultural high horse and scream blasphemy yet they consistently make films set in foreign lands without so much as an attempt to replicate the local accent. The "Little England" mentality at it's worst. One positive of this is that we aren't subjected to Knightley's horrific Russian accent as heard in "A Dangerous Method". Wright and screenwriter Tom Stoppard conspire to give us a Luhrman-ized version of the story, by way of Lars Von Trier's "Dogville". The sets are constructed around the actors as though we are witnessing a play and most annoyingly of all, a full orchestra walks in and out of screen performing the soundtrack. Oh how quirky! Unfortunately nobody told Wright how ridiculous and pretentious this would look in the finished product. Wright of course is entitled to do what he wants but not when it's someone else's material, someone who can't defend their work from beyond the grave. Sadly Tolstoy has no Kim Novak figure to take out a two page ad in Variety decrying the butchery committed on his tale. Knightley is as bad here as ever but luckily for her the performances all around are a shambles. Everyone acts as though they're on stage in a village production of "Mother Goose". You're constantly waiting for them to burst into song which would have been the only justification for the level of camp self-indulgence. This is cinema at it's very worst, debased, vulgar, the playground bully of the arts. On behalf of what I believe can be the most powerful and poetic of mediums, I apologise. Don't judge cinema by those who shout the loudest, the boorish Wrights and Luhrmanns, there are those who go about their business quietly, confident enough in their voice as not to raise it.

• Dannielle A

  
  Very visual using metaphorical imagery to denote concepts. It's hard to understand at first but once you get into it, it's gripping. How depressing though but very true-to-life. I really love the sets and costumes.

• Jeffrey M

  
  As a fan of period pieces, and a fan especially of Joe Wright, I greatly looked forward to Anna Karenina. On the whole, it would have to be said that it's a rather disappointing showing for Wright. The film does a lot right. The cinematography is well done, the acting is strong,… More
  As a fan of period pieces, and a fan especially of Joe Wright, I greatly looked forward to Anna Karenina. On the whole, it would have to be said that it's a rather disappointing showing for Wright. The film does a lot right. The cinematography is well done, the acting is strong, the world building is impeccable, and the story is compelling. What's lacking, however, is a screenplay that's as smart and engaging as Wright's other work. This film is far too interested in being stylized, and to no real effect. The use of a literal stage, and the gimmicky film devices employed seem to undermine what otherwise should a very intelligent story. This greatly disrupts the tone of Anna Karenina, which alters between an involving drama, a quirky comedy, and sometimes self indulgent melodrama. Overall, it does enough well to make it worth a watch for Wright fans and those who love period pieces, but it certainly represents one of his weaker entries and a lackluster adaptation at best. 3/5 Stars

Read all 20 featured audience ratings