War and Peace

A truly breathtaking epic and not just for the immense scale (seeing literally thousands of extras on screen is something to behold) but also because of how well the movie captures the characters and their shifting perspectives.

A Bondarchuk Soviet masterpiece. Faithful to the book, it is splendid in its representation of both the interactions and movements of the Tzarist aristocracy - as well as the epic, unrepeatable battle scenes with over 10.000 Red Army extra's. Only the soft-spoken Russian can convey the drama's romanticism, that contraposes Tolstoys contemporary realism and history-critical position.

Astounding in scope. Powerful narrators' thoughts - especially on death. Trivializes 99% of industry's output.

Epic. I saw this because it was recommended by a Stanford professor who said it was his favorite movie since it was the most accurate depiction of war. HR McMaster also recommended it, so I gave it a shot and was not disappointed. Amazing cinematography and faithful to the novel. Really a first class production that is most likely the finest quality film made in Russia. It was on HBO and youtube.

A truly breathtaking epic and not just for the immense scale (seeing literally thousands of extras on screen is something to behold) but also because of how well the movie captures the characters and their shifting perspectives.

10% rating. This film is painfully long and excruciatingly boring

This is a stunning bit of filmmaking. The battle scenes have to be seen to be believed.

Part intimate drama, part unrelenting war showcase, one can't make the argument that Bondarchuk and his massive cast and crew don't deliver. Particularly revelatory is Lyudmila Saveleva as heroine Natasha Rostova, the part popularly played by Audrey Hepburn in the King Vidor version. Saveleva's Hepburn resemblance is pronounced, it's true. But even so, the character becomes her own as she literally ages into young womanhood on screen. Vyacheslav Tikhonov plays the chronically unfortunate Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, the third part of the troubled love triangle (though aren't they all?) that Rostova throws into chaos thanks to her girlish romanticism. Even when War and Peace is a soap opera, there's nothing small about it. There's seemingly no end to the list of things worth admiring about this Biggest Of All Movies. And yet, it's somehow strangely hard to get inspired to truly wax eloquently about War and Peace. That is, except to say that it is a sensuously spinning, whirling, fixating, exploding ongoing panoply of grandiosity that simply will not be denied.

This is one of the great films of all time. Hollywood could never do such a film. It draws you in with its lavish sets, its cast of many thousands, and its long scenes, totally out of keeping with today's short-attention-span Facebook culture: * Andrei's near-death scene at Austerlitz, where - assuming he was dying - he relishes the experience of pondering the beauty of the sky, which he hadn't noticed earlier in the day. * Napoleon pacing the floor of the palace in Moscow, after taking the evacuated city populated only by the ill and infirm left behind, gradually getting angrier and angrier, as he realizes that he spent tens of thousands of lives for a "win" that suddenly means nothing at all. Several minutes of pacing, with no dialogue, and yet oh-so-powerful! Having seen at least 2000 films over the years, this is one of perhaps ten that I can watch again and again (when I have an entire day to spare!). I introduced my millennial kids to the film over Father's Day weekend, offering them several chances to bail if they were bored; to my delight, they insisted on watching the whole thing, and just adored it. My son compared it favorably with the patient scenes of Game of Thrones, his favorite saga of all time. If you can possibly take the time, watch the original version - 8 1/2 hours - because some of the patient pacing is lost in the Americanized 6 hour version. It's similar to binge-watching your favorite mini-series, only infinitely more atmospheric, while better humanizing the people in the film than any modern series.

I watched this movie in four parts, over two consecutive Saturdays, at the Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archives (BAMPFA). I mention that because it's hard to find screenings for this movie, but I highly recommend seeing it on a large screen. This is the epic to end all epics. They DO make movies like this today, but they contain massive CGI and marauding orcs. This remains the most expensive Russian film ever made, but the actual expenditure is a heavily disputed number. That's the how, now what about the end product? It's mixed, but overwhelming. The movie mostly transitions between the Russian court scene of the early 1800s, and battles against the French. Austerlitz, a huge French victory against the Austrians, British and Russians in 1805, is the focus of the first part, following the introduction of all the key characters. The Russians felt humiliated, despite having marched cheerily to war. Military honor has been besmirched. The second part of the film is pure soap opera involving Natasha Rostova, a yound ward of a Count, who wavers between two suitors, both in the army. It ends on the brink of the French invasion of Russia in 1812, another optimistic march to glory. Part three is all about the Russian response to the French invasion, culminating in the Battle of Borodino. You can be excused for wondering what the actual outcome of that battle is, based on this film. It's proclaimed to be a Russian moral victory, but while the battle ended with no clear winner, it paved the way for Napoleon to march into Moscow. Finally, part four is the French occupation of Moscow, and their retreat therefrom. Some of the four parts were filmed in sequence. That's clear when you see Natasha grow from an excitable teen being introduced to society, to a young woman enchanting men in parts 3 and 4. In addition, I felt that the director's sophistication improved as well, although that's probably just an illusion. Austerlitz and Borodino shooting was only separated by months. The interior scenes look like Zhivago from the beginning, with a soft focus, but there's a lack of refinement in general, especially during the Austerlitz scenes. The buildup is massive, with huge columns of soldiers marching, meandering, and eventually fighting, but the "action" doesn't justify the scale. The battle is barely that. The focus in on a few small areas and characters, like the director doesn't know how to show a big engagement. By part four, the action is extraordinary. Napoleon's forces are first shown to be decent, with one of them trying to strike up a friendship with Count Pierre Bezukhov, a central character played by director Sergei Bondarchuk, who saved the French captain from being shot by a drunkard. Shortly afterward, the Grand Armee has resorted to savagery, burning Moscow. And man does it burn. Without CGI, all those flames and airborne ash and cinders are real. They burned the hell out of something in Moscow to make this movie. I was frequently dumbfounded. There are certain signature images that will always stay with me. There are zipline shots, used first above a fancy ball scene in part two, and again over the Borodino battle. That shot was astonishing, with camera zooming through flames and explosions - I felt like I was flying. The charging cavalry columns were amazing, and clearly detrimental to many real horses. There are ways you expect things to look when you mostly watch American films - certain ways to film a ball, how characters move off and on screen, how the camera is focused, and this film subverts many of them. Bondarchuk got quite artistic in part four, even switching to black and white for dramatic emphasis around character deaths, and showing ghostly images as one Prince passes away, representing everyone he knew in life. At the same time, there's still some ridiculous melodrama at the end, with women shrieking to the heavens in grief. There's quite an ironic ending, if you're aware of how Soviet forces acted as they swept west toward Berlin in World War II. Russian Field Marshal Kutuzov rescues a fleeing, starting French soldier, and explains how merciful the Russian army is in victory. Right. Some of the acting is laughably bad. I didn't want to see any more of Natasha after part two, and particularly after I noticed that she never blinks. It's an unsettling effect. Her acting never improves. But others do, like Count Bezukhov, who leaves the luxurious sidelines when Napoleon is lurching toward Moscow, and his friend Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, who introduces the bastard Count to society when his father dies and he unexpectedly inherits everything in part one. The Prince is portrayed as an excellent officer and gallant fighter, until you realize that you almost never see him fight. Any film made today would have him slaughtering French soldiers with his sword, then his jujitsu, and finally using the Force. If you have the chance, it's really a once-in-a-lifetime film to watch.