Movie Review: Anna Karenina (2012)

Unlike the novel I definitely had expectations about the 2012 film version of Anna Karenina. Those expectations were met and exceeded in my opinion by the writer, cinematographer, and actors. I was aware beforehand of the writer of this film Tom Stoppard because I read his very funny play Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead and I think he did a fantastic job cutting Anna Karenina into a film adaptation. The most impressive part of the film was the scene transitions the first third of the movie. I assume they cut out the transitions for the rest of the film due to the time constraints, but when it was on screen it was something. Also impressive was the set where they filmed the movie, which was a theatre stage. It’s hard to explain the transitions and the stage, but trust me when I say that it’s unique in a good way. I’ll break down the actors and the important characters individually.

Keira Knightley’s portrayal and look of Anna Karenina was exactly how I pictured the character. I probably cheated a little before I read the book because I knew she was playing her, but Keira added a certain depth I never pictured before. Keira’s Anna was a lot funnier than I imagined in the book. She has perfected this period character that is soaked in the divine comedy. The character of Anna is very overdramatic, but I like how Keira toned it down to a more realistic version of Anna. I’d give Keira and the writer Stoppard an A+ for matching and exceeding my expectations for Anna.

Jude Law played the sour victim Karenin, which I’m still murky about. The character is very bland and lacks passion so it’s hard to say that Jude Law played the character great when the character is dry to begin. With that said Jude Law matched the book character perfectly so I’ll give him an A, but not an A+ because he didn’t add anything new to the character.

Aaron Taylor-Johnson played the character Vronsky, which I think would be the hardest character to portray. I was shocked when I found out after the movie that Aaron was the same guy in the movie Kick-Ass. Aaron in Kick-Ass looked nothing like Vronsky so I’ll give the make-up people in Kick-Ass a lot of credit or the make-up people in Anna Karenina credit for the transformation. Aaron did give Vronsky some personality that I thought lacked in the book, but Aaron’s look was a lot more boyish than I had pictured. In the book I was a little confused about how Vronsky moved on from Kitty to Anna so fast, but Aaron’s portrayal answered that question for me perfectly without words. I wouldn’t say Aaron met my expectations, but he gave me a different scope to see the character of Vronsky. In the end, I have no complaints on his portrayal of a hard character so I’ll give him an A+ for giving a solid performance.

Anna Karenina

Kick-Ass

The character of Levin I thought would be the easiest to portray because he suffers with a lot of internal conflict and he doesn’t really show his emotions. I’m sorry to say that I was sort of disappointed in Domhnall Gleeson’s portrayal of Levin. Domhnall’s Levin was so wimpy compared to what I had pictured in my head. I know Levin had some sort of social anxiety, but Levin is stubborn and Domhnall was portraying a man who wears his emotions on his sleeves. I think Domhnall was just a victim of the cuts in the screenplay because Levin’s storyline was not filled with as much tension and drama than Anna’s. I would have to give Domhnall’s portrayal a solid C because I don’t think justice was given to Levin’s character.

Gleeson

My favorite character in the book was Stepan (Oblonsky/Stiva) and I’ll gladly give actor Matthew Macfadyen and A+ for just filling in the blanks to an already easy/funny character.

Macfadyen

Kitty (Alicia Vikander) and Dolly (Kelly MacDonald) were portrayed fairly to the point where I can’t really think of anything to complain about. In the film both characters really weren’t featured enough to give the actors much room to practice their craft. All other characters really weren’t featured enough to give me something to write about.

I will admit that I’m not a really creative person; therefore the action in my mind while reading the book was very tedious. The first half of this film was pure brilliance because it brought life to the story and it was hitting every important plot point. Obviously the director couldn’t put in every scene in the book into the movie, but they gambled and kept the film true to the book for the first half. I’m not going to break down the plot, but just comment on what I thought was important. They cut out some long parts of the book that I was okay with like Kitty in Germany, Anna/Vronsky in Italy, and Anna/Vronsky living on the country estate. There were some parts they included in the movie that I think they could have shot better. For example, I thought Kitty caring after Levin’s brother was a big scene in the development of the character in the book, but in the film it was shot like a montage. That upset me a little bit because it wasn’t giving Kitty the credit I thought she deserved.

Kitty

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I did not remember any reusable condoms in the book version. In the film, Karenin pulling out a reusable condom before bed symbolized his lack of passion when juxtaposed to Vronsky who has passionate sex with Anna in the movie. I thought that was pretty funny because when he pulled it out for the first time in the movie I was like “what the hell is that? It can’t be a condom because it looks like its jewel incrusted.”

Of course in the movie version Anna meets the same fate, but Anna is portrayed more positively in the film version. I don’t know if this was because they cut out the scenes that portray Anna negatively or if this was deliberate. In the book, Anna’s treatment of Dolly at the estate, her lack of mothering with the daughter, and her views on Levin gave Anna some antagonist traits. This could also be because those scenes were in the second half of the book and the film didn’t invest heavily in the second half.

When the horseracing scene was coming up I was very confused to how they were going to pull it off because as I said earlier they shot the scene in a theater. Surprisingly the scene was great and they pulled it off. In the book the horse race was long distance and the stage is obviously too short, so the dark backstage was set as the part of the race the audience couldn’t see. The tension in the book was going to be hard to match, but they matched it.

After Anna’s demise the film wrapped up pretty quickly just like the book. We didn’t see Vronsky going to war, but we did see a little of Levin. It seems that the ending scenes of Levin were just leftover cuts, because unless you read the book the scenes were out of context. I believe they should have ended the film after Anna’s demise instead of limping to the finish line with Levin’s ending. I think it would have given the audience a shock to the system. Instead we were left with Karenin caring after Anna’s children in a meadow.

My overall review of the film is positive one because the beginning makes up for the weak finish of the movie. I hope in the extended DVD version they have those awesome scene transitions throughout, because it made a huge difference in me liking the film. If I were giving advise, I would say to watch the movie first then read the book to help fill in the gaps. Although if one does do that be prepared to read a lot and have patience. GRADE: 8.5/10

I'm officially done with the Anna Karenina franchise. Look for my book summary and book review if you want to read more.