Python Hyena Anna Karenina (1935): Dir: Clarence Brown / Cast: Greta Garbo, Fredric March, Basil Rathbone, Maureen O'Sullivan, Freddie Bartholomew: Classic tale of forbidden love that seems current with modern bad decisions with regards to relationships. Anna Karenina is married to a Czarist official and has a son but the marriage seems only as an image to his political agenda. She becomes entangled in a relationship with a military officer and when this becomes public her husband gives her a stern choice. She can either end the relationship or lose her marriage and her son. This is where the film becomes a tad problematic. Can someone really place a price on their own child? Of course, even today these relationships are rushed into and romance becomes but a myth or empty promise. This is a sad conclusion for anyone seeking romantic entertainment. Greta Garbo as Karenina is torn between a rock and a hard place. Frederic March as the military officer is led on by his own delusions of romance and his eventual yearning for military action. Basil Rathbone is terrific as Karenina's husband whose dominant position is tested until he retaliates. Maureen O'Sullivan steals scenes as Kitty who was originally smitten with March until her attention is turned. Freddie Bartholomew plays her son whom she is isolated from. Well made classic about the scars of bad relationships. Score: 8 / 10

kgnycnonsport I recorded a broadcast of this movie off of TCM and finally got around to watching it last night. The cast has many of the big names you associate with films from this era of Hollywood and while a technically proficient movie it left a lot to be desired. Garbo doesn't do much for me and casting her in the role of Anna is a bit of a stretch as I find it hard to believe she could win the attention of a dashing member of the Royal Guards. March isn't much better as her lover, as he looks very bloated. He's a lot more dashing in Anthony Adverse. Basil Rathbone gives a very strong performance as Anna's husband and comes across as both a good father, but a distant and unsympathetic husband. While I understand this movie is based on a famous novel, it surprises me that MGM would make such a depressing movie considering what was going on in the world at this time, Hollywood was definitely more upbeat during the 1930's. At the end of this movie, I couldn't help but think I was watching one of the many anti-hero movies which came out in the late 60's and 70's. I also found it disturbing that Fredric March's character got off so easy. At the very least he could have been a broken man, but instead he's lounging around with his buddy and having a few drinks.

TheLittleSongbird Tolstoy's novel Anna Karenina is a truly great one, with an interesting story and memorable characters. True, the title character can be selfish and unlikeable(though I have heard and still hear similar criticisms directed towards Scarlett O'Hara from Gone with the Wind), but she is also a moving and interesting one.I have yet to see the Vivien Leigh and the Jaqueline Bisset versions, but while it is very condensed compared to the book, I liked this film. Why do I say it is condensed? Well the film has been described as pretty much paring the plot down to the bone, something which I have to agree with. And there are subplots that are completely eliminated here. Despite me saying this, that is not really one of the reasons why I didn't give Anna Karenina a perfect score.One reason is that I feel the film is too short and a tad rushed as well. If they had slowed the pace down and made it longer, the more interesting parts of the story that were left out could have been incorporated without that much of a problem. My other problem is to do with one casting choice. Sadly that choice is Fredric March as Vronsky. Now I am not dismissing March as a bad actor, on the contrary, I thought he was outstanding in the title role of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. However, his Vronsky left me cold, while he was dashing in terms of looks I found him rather stiff and ill-suited to the role, not to mention Vronsky is very Americanised here.However, Anna Karenina is gorgeous to watch. The cinematography, stunning. The scenery, breathtaking. The costumes, colourful and ravishing. Anna Karenina also has the benefit of being richly scored and the music is very pleasant and memorable and does give some dramatic weight. The direction is solid, and the script is intelligent and sophisticated. Aside from March, everyone else in the cast is very good. Greta Garbo has been considered by many as the definitive Anna Karenina, although I have to see other interpretations before I agree with or dispute this opinion, I cannot deny she is wonderful in the role. Very passionate and moving. Freddie Bartholomew is also surprisingly effective as Sergei, but the acting honours actually go to Basil Rathbone who is just superb and truly magnetic as Karenin- this role could have been clichéd but Rathbone adeptly gives it some depth and multi-layers. And I have to give a nod to the final station scene thanks to Garbo and the camera work that scene had a real dynamic sheen to it and is incredibly poignant.All in all, definitely worth watching and very solid. 8/10 Bethany Cox

PADRAEG SULLIVAN Garbo is great, March awful, but O'Sullivan is best, and s/h reversed roles with Garbo... Pity how such mismatches occur. I think Garbo is truly great. Just not sufficiently great to carry over the charm of O'Sullivan. I'd welcome any ideas how to fix this. Also, why not just get the casting right, then they don't have to remake every ten years. Similar occurs is all the other remakes. Perhaps best is the Russian production. Why does this system compress my simple comments to so few lines. It is important for Anna to maintain force, but with a weakling like this Vronsky, maybe O'Sullivan may actually have been too much. But that does not reduce my comment that O'Sullivan is the best actor in this whole movie, which i feel i wasted so much time and effort watching, studying and reviewing...