Reviews

Jul 12, 2005
Oct 30, 2002
Jul 26, 2002
You're better off reading the Cliff's Notes.
Apr 12, 2002
Feb 21, 2001
Only die-hard romantics are likely not to come away disappointed.
Jan 1, 2000
Like its opening, Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina is half-successful.
Jan 1, 2000
Marceau and Bean have no chemistry, which is essential to a film like this.
Jan 1, 2000
Doesn't build strong relationships between the characters, relying instead on overheated words and performances to generate false intensity.
Jan 1, 2000
Sumptuous cinematography, glorious sets and costumes dominate throughout the film.
Jan 1, 2000
When [Anna and Vronsky] first lay eyes on each other at the train station in St. Petersburg, the only steam between them comes from the engine.
Jan 1, 2000
Bloodless and shallow adaptation.
Jan 1, 2000
This version manages to be both the most pretentious and anaemic yet.
Jan 1, 2000
A copy of the paperback book should cost about as much as a movie ticket, and will provide a more lasting and worthwhile investment.
Jan 1, 2000
This sleek, Cliffs Notes version of a masterpiece is ... glossy and picture perfect on the surface and hollow at the core.
Jan 1, 2000
[Rose's] screenplay is a ragbag, nothing like a tragedy in which the nemesis is Time. And his casting!
Jan 1, 2000
Provided you have a burning interest in pretty visuals and less regard for the whys and wherefores of human behavior, this latest adaptation of Tolstoy's classic is a pleasant watch.
Jan 1, 2000
Jan 1, 2000
In Sophie Marceau ... [Rose] has a fine young Anna.
Jan 1, 2000