p-seed-889-188469 I have seen two and a half movie adaptations of War and peace - this 1966 one directed by Sergei Bondarchuk, the 2007 mini-series version, and half of the 1956 version directed by King Vidor. The first dilemma as a reviewer is on what basis to review it – as a faithful adaptation of an icon of world literature that literary academia has fawned over and prostrated itself to for its place in the evolution of the novel, or as an enjoyable movie for the average viewer. Since I haven't read the book any comment I could make on the former is presumptuous. As an average viewer I would summarize this movie is a spectacular academic success and a spectacular general audience failure. Unless you have read the book, or seen a more compressible movie version, you will have absolutely no idea what is happening in this version. Perhaps this is forgivable for its intended Russian audience who presumably can quote from it chapter and verse, but for the uninitiated it makes for a very long movie. Even if you do know the "story", while the canvas of the Napoleonic Wars is epic, to be brutally honest,the human detail Tolstoy paints against this backdrop is pretty appalling, involving the petty tribulations of a cast of two dimensional cut-out characters drawn from a privileged aristocratic society that is hard to care about. No doubt the characters, and the way in which they are presented, were both accurate and cutting edge in their day, but that day is long gone. The factual material of war is brilliantly and expensively presented, which is fascinating if you want to watch a historical movie. The fictional material of the individual characters is, by modern standards, cringe-worthy. Natasha is an overwrought, vacuous airhead. Pierre is a lumbering buffoon. Andre is, well, who really cares? This would still be true if the actors had been perfectly cast but regrettably the roles of Natasha and Pierre are hopelessly miscast. Why any man would be infatuated by this Natasha is beyond my imagination, she has no inner or outer beauty, and like most of the rest of the characters is an over-emoting cartoon. True, this is difficult to avoid given the flaws of the novel, but other movie versions show that Natasha can at least be mildly interesting and beautiful, if not the dazzling, magnetic personality the plot of the novel requires her to be. In this respect I have to say that far and away the best Natasha of the three I have seen is Audrey Hepburn – she has the charisma, beauty and poise to pull this off and frankly the screenplay she is given is far better than this version. Similarly, Henry Fonda is far and away the most believable Pierre of the three – while he may not be exactly the person Tolstoy intended he is the person who makes the story actually work. Who can actually believe for a second that the dour and dull Pierre of this 1966 version cavorts with a band of gay, devil may care, young Russian military officers, drinks bottles of rum on window sills and ties policemen to bears – please, give me a break. Although regrettably I did not see all of the King Vidor version it seems to me to be the one that in its way is truest to what Tolstoy might have been trying to say. Its screenplay is intelligent, it goes to great pains to make the story and the relationships clear, and although I have really no idea what Tolstoy was trying to say in War and Peace, this, of all the versions tries hardest to give it meaning and provide a third dimension to its characters. The "meaning" of the 2007 version seemed to be "and they all lived happily ever after". The meaning of this 1966 version seems to be "when a bunch of bad guys unite to do bad things, then a group of good guys should get together to stop them". Well, fair enough, but not exactly world shattering, and a poor take away from sitting through 8 hours of dubious footage. I presume there are about 800 pages of the novel that none of these versions attempted to reproduce on film, and I can only presume that the "meat" and meaning of the novel were in those 800 pages. All 3 versions show the events of epiphanies of both Andre and Pierre that indicate that something deep and meaningful is revealed, but none of them communicate with any clarity to the audience what they are. Therefore we are left with a list of set pieces that must be ticked off – Officer on the windowsill drinking rum? Check. Duel scene? Check. Ball scene? Check? Pierre being an idiot at Borodino? Check? Napoleon saying "That is a beautiful death" Check. Wolf hunt? Check. Andre's father at his lathe? Check. But what does it all mean? In summary, there is no doubt that this movie is an achievement and one can always admire an achievement even if one doesn't enjoy it. The battle scenes are models of their kind and spectacular, but what they add to the pace and meaning of the story I don't know. Horses dash this way in the foreground while other horses dash that way in the background. Interesting and expensive but ultimately so what? Are we given any background to the Napoleonic Wars? No. Were the battle scenes accurate or just a lot of noise and fury? Who knows? I suspect that most of the flaws of the movie are simply replications of the flaws of the novel and while fidelity to the novel may be laudable perhaps some concessions to recognize those flaws and make the movie more relevant to modern viewers made have been a better choice. You should probably see this movie for what it is, an epic, an achievement and a monument to a great director.

Juan Ignacio The soviet movies are excellent because have a lot of extras, money and something special. This an epic movie divided into 4 parts of two hours long but two excellent hour if you like or love the Napoleonic era. This movie have all of you want to one movie, love, battle, historical argument and excellent actor (russian). The scenarios are true to life, clothing is very good and the music is impeccable. The Battle of Borodino is important, the scene of a movie with more extras and most expensive of all time (if not still the most expensive but it was at the time). The film is based on the book by Tolstoy. It is anti Napoleonic and it shows in his fallacious criticizes Napoleon, but the film tries to show a more revolutionary France. Do not forget that Russia fought on the side of imperialism against Napoleon and the movie shows very well. The Movie shows both admiring the Emperor Napoleon and those who hated him. The final sample the mistaken conclusion from my point of view but does not remove the special and spotless production.If you love the Napoleonic era this movie is essential and emotional movie. A work of art whose only criticism is his view, their views on the conflict, but assured them that is very objective.

michaelmross I don't see how anyone who has read War and Peace could enjoy this film, no matter how worthy it is. It completely misses the mark in every respect except for "costume drama" and "epic". Tolstoy's writing is so natural, so beautiful, so descriptive, and so illuminating that this adaptation seems sullen and superficial in every respect. The impressions that Tolstoy's writing creates are timeless - completely accessible to modern minds. But this production is weighted down in costumery and baroque frumpery. It starts badly, with a quotation from the epilogue that is meaningless out of its context, and it doesn't get any better from there. The early scenes are anemic representations of Tolstoy's magnificent scene-setting. Even the intimate little scenes, like the Rostov children in the garden, are completely wasted, barely providing any impression of that most impressionistic scene. I just couldn't stand watching this, scene by scene tarnishing every precious jewel that Tolstoy polished to perfection and left to posterity.

D_vd_B 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