With this masterpiece, Joe Wright further establishes himself as one of the best and bravest directors of his generation. The film is centered on a major creative decision: just as the cast of rich and powerful characters lead their lives as if they were on a stage, each acting out a role defined by social division, much of the film is staged within a grand, yet derelict theatre. Scenes set outside the capital, where a person can breathe and exist unchained by expectation, are when real locations are utilized. This is not a filmed play, however. The camera moves throughout each gilded set, guiding the viewer through this elegant and strange vision of the urban space (the proletariat live above the stage, crowded amidst cobwebs). Not just a riveting experience which enhances the storyline and themes, it is also an experiment in turning the conventions of the costume drama on their head and a perfect rendering of the aristocratic experience as numerous great novelists have described it: comfortable and even magical on the surface, yet at its core restrained and dangerous to navigate. Where most adaptations of this novel focus just on the title heroine and her tragic romance, this film also finds time for its more uplifting counterpart and various other characters, played by a top-notch cast. Best in show may be a stern, yet touching Jude Law, who inhabits one of literature's most famous betrayed husbands and bureaucrats with surprising care and understanding. People forget the novel's depth of vision and its interest not just in one love and one suicide, but in a nation and its complex web of people, places, and ideas; this film is a dramatic and stylish reminder.

A

I find it interesting so many reviews are criticizing Aaron Taylor-Johnson's performance. He is solid. It is not the film's best performance, but he captures the character: beautiful, dashing, flawed, romantic, vain. Neither a "good man" nor a cruel, womanizing, life destroying monster, but existing in-between those poles. I sense people, Awards Daily types, have decided to hate him because he can seem a bit of a pompous ass in interviews and is involved with a much older woman (an unusual Hollywood pairing). He is a capable actor and shines here.

I haven't seen or read his interviews, I like him in Kick-Ass and I don't really care about his private life in any way. But his Vronsky was incredibly bland, making Anna's fascination with him not palpable at all.

Visually stunning, and Keira Knightley is great here. But I didn't find it particularly interesting and the whole 'stage' concept kind of wears out its welcome by the end. I'm not too familiar with the source material but I found both lead characters incredibly unlikable as well. Also Aaron Johnson was awful - so dull and lifeless. B-

Oh man. This is bad. Keira Knightley further cements her standing as one of the worst actresses working today.

But I didn't hate it so much as felt nothing towards it. It's just very forgettable.

Yes, David, we know. You love skinny white English girls.

Beside the point. Keira has proven herself in a number of films, most notably Pride & Prejudice, Never Let Me Go, and this picture.

I'm not the world's biggest Keira Knightley fan but I think it's absurd to call her one of the worst actresses working today. She's done terrific work in a number of past movies, notably Pride & Prejudice.

Keira's a great actress, and is great in this too. The movie's flaws are certainly not her fault.

Visually it's one of the most inventive films of the year. Too bad they really just gloss over the story. Felt like they covered nothing in 138 minutes.

She was good in London Boulevard. Everything else she's done has been terrible. I agree with trixster.

Oh my! Are you part racist because of this? SHOCK HORROR

Wow, this film has to be really bad: it didn't even get the red movie-star from TV Movie - Europas härteste Filmredaktion.

Oh, no!

I thought a lot of the film looked gorgeous and some of the transitions in the first half are lovely but overall the film didn't do much for me sadly, and I'm usually a fan of Wright's work.

Anna Karenina

This was my first viewing of a Tolstoy story, and the first time I've seen any of Keira's period films. Anna Karenina is an ambitious film in one respect, but a total bore in another. I admire the attempt at trying something different. But the changing sets mid-scene were really awkward.

The Good: Production design was good. Matthew Macfadyen was brilliant. I enjoyed Konstatin and Kitty's storyline much more than the Anna affair. Jude Law played his role well but I wasn't particularly interested in it. I enjoyed some of the shots, so the cinematography deserves a mention in both 'good' and 'bad', because I didn't like the set design changes. I liked how Anna got looked down upon for being a whore, and then she killed herself. I will praise it on being the only movie to feature a real kiss (with tongue) and not just a cop-out stage kiss with lip-only action.

The Bad: I felt the music could have been more modern. I'm not a fan of this constant viola/violin music. The story wasn't really my thing either. It's all pomp and ceremony, and affairs and marriages, and I didn't like how Anna fell in love with the count after meeting him just once, and vice versa. Aaron Taylor-Johnson didn't fit the role, in my opinion, regardless of how much they tried to make him "look the part". All I could see was Kick-Ass acting like a snob, and a bland one at that. The film has a very depressing mood, and I felt quite claustrophobic throughout. The film was very boring. Overall, it just wasn't very interesting. Not my type of film.

The Ugly: Keira Knightley, and the costume design.

Despite this 'cross' on the Knightley checklist, I have Atonement on my list to see as everyone raved about that some time ago.

D+

Ah, too bad. It is cool you gave it a chance, though. Though he may phrase it with a tad more eloquence, ha, Tolstoy might not disagree with your assessment of Anna. He definitely favors the character of Levin and Levin's ideas of fidelity and romance, despite the fact many adaptations do not see fit to even include Levin, at least not as more than a peripheral, brief character. Tolstoy sympathizes with Anna, but also punishes her for her transgression.

You may enjoy Atonement more. It is a war picture in part and a tad more "modern."

Are you a big Tolstoy fan? It's the sort of author that when people quote or reference, I stand there in utter silence because I have no idea about it. I look like the idiot.

Only if I enjoy Atonement will I bother to watch Pride & Prejudice. In terms of Wright movies, I want to watch Hanna. Any good?

I am not a huge fan (not as much as I am a fan, say, of Dickens and the Brontë sisters), but I have read Anna Karenina and most of War and Peace. I am a literature major.

And if you are going to love any Wright film, it will be Hanna. It is a contemporary action/suspense film scored by the Chemical Brothers.

Hmm, I realized I have never put down my thoughts. I won't go much into it, but suffice to say, I didn't like the film.

The craft is good. Art direction, cinematography, score, yes. No complaints there. The idea of setting it all on a stage is VERY interesting and it might have even worked...if they actually had kept it throughout the film. But after the first 15-20 minutes, the innovative approach seems almost to disappear.

But on the whole, I simply didn't think it was a good adaptation of Tolstoy's work. Really not.

The stage conceit never vanishes from the film. The audience just becomes used to it over the course of the film, so the impact is more subtle. Only a select few scenes are shot on location and outside, and the thread connecting them is clear (each features a character escaping from the expectations and rules of society, including Anna and Vronsky's stolen moments in the countryside and Levin farming).

This is set for release on Blu-ray later this month. I cannot wait to watch it a fourth time. Then a fifth, then a sixth, etc.

You know, one of the first (or the first?) scenes with Matthew MacFayden, changing his costume on stage during the scene, when it looks REALLY stagey? It is not like that later on. Just isn't.