| 3D Screening: |  |
| Subtitled: | |
| Performance Passed: | |
| No Free Tickets: | FLS |
Win amazing goodie packs in association with 20th Century Fox!
Gifts and tickets to win to celebrate the release of The Great Gatsby!
Red Bull short films. Be sure to get to your seat early to see all the action.
Selected Cultural events screened live on the big screen at the cinema
Details of all current offers, and news from your chosen cinema!
Gift Cards now available in all cinemas
A selection of the year's best films, in case you missed it the first time...
Orange Wednesdays
241 for Orange
Mobile Users
Anna Karenina
DETAILS:
Director:
Joe Wright
Screenplay:
Tom Stoppard
Novel:
Leo Tolstoy
Cast:
Keira Knightley
Jude Law
Aaron Johnson
Kelly Macdonald
Matthew Macfadyen
Running Time:
145 minutes
DESCRIPTION:
The third collaboration of Academy Award nominee Keira Knightley with director Joe Wright, following the award-winning box office successes “Pride & Prejudice” and “Atonement,” is the epic love story “Anna Karenina,” adapted from Leo Tolstoy’s classic novel by Academy Award winner Tom Stoppard (“Shakespeare in Love”). The story unfolds in its original late-19th-century Russia high-society setting and powerfully explores the capacity for love that surges through the human heart, from the passion between adulterers to the bond between a mother and her children. As Anna questions her happiness, change comes to her family, friends, and community.
YOUR REVIEWS:
A spectacle to watch but did it live up to the hype?
There are so many things that I could say about this film but I fear I could not put them all into the adequate words - I shall try my best however!
This film is an odd one. It is an epic romance, an art-house film as well as having a noir-thriller quality that spirals into bizarreness by the end. But that isn’t to say that it isn’t very good! As I stepped out the cinema I knew I liked it but that I was more than a little confused about what exactly I had seen. Thankfully it wasn’t confusion of the Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy variety but confusion nonetheless. It has been said to be pretentious which could be used to describe how clever - perhaps overly so - it is. It ducks and weaves between plot and metaphor, skimming over characters, and instead displaying vividly stunning settings, locations and costumes which every know and then struck me with awe.
The theatre and the barren fields were both treated with beauty and respect and the whole film glowed with opulence. It’s just a shame I didn’t like Anna herself much. She never quite clicked for me unfortunately, which I believe is really down to Keira Knightley. While I loved her in Atonement and Pride & Prejudice (among other films) - both directed by Joe Wright who was behind Karenina - the role of Anna had a complexity to her which unfortunately felt a little out of reach.
The film also felt a bit long, not helped by the complex metaphors weaved into the plot (which as I think further about the film, I see even more of!) and so I get the feeling that perhaps it thought it was more than it actually was.
It’s a romp of sorts, with Baz Luhrmann style cinematography. That is what I absolutely enjoyed the most about the film and made it such a pleasure to watch; without which I would not nearly have enjoyed it as much as I did. The theatre was a metaphor for the contrast between princesses, counts and countesses etc and the workers on the fields. It’s all staged and fake and only outside the theatre is the ‘real’ Russia. This followed through with the bedrooms being ‘off stage’ and the poorer inhabitants of Moscow being up above the stage looking down upon the rich and powerful centre stage. Anna went up there when she was an outsider and even went below stage at one point and it was such an interesting way to use the set as an integral part of the story-telling. The first 20-30 minutes or so of the film I noticed how the camera continuously followed characters through the theatre as the sets changed around them; almost as if it were one take. I instantly loved this use of camera movement and thought it such an ingenious way of emphasising the falseness of it and how the ‘theatre’ is so easily interchangeable. This method came into it’s own during the horse race in the theatre as the audience watched them race by - one of my favourite scenes of the film.
It was definitely a spectacle to watch (and one to see in the cinema) - it’s just a shame I didn’t warm to the characters or plot quite as much.
An epic spectacle but does it quite live up to the hype?
There are so many things that I could say about this film but I fear I could not put them all into adequate words - I shall try my best however!
This film is an odd one. It is an epic romance, an art-house film as well as having noir thriller quality that spiral into bizarreness. But that isn’t to say it isn’t very good. As I stepped out the cinema I knew I liked it but that I was more than a little confused about what exactly I had seen. Thankfully it wasn’t confusion of the Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy variety but confusion nonetheless. It has been said to be pretentious which could be used to describe how clever - perhaps overly so - it is. It ducks and weaves between plot and metaphor, skimming over characters and instead displaying vividly stunning settings, locations and costumes which were so striking struck me with awe every other scene. The theatre and the barren fields a like were treated with beauty and respect and the whole filmed glowed with opulence. It’s just a shame I didn’t like Anna much herself. She never quite clicked for me unfortunately which I believe is really down to Keira Knightley. While I loved her in Atonement and Pride & prejudice (among other films) - both directed by Joe Cornish, along with Karenina itself - the role of Anna had a complexity to her which unfortunately felt a little out of reach.
The film also felt a bit long, not helped by the complex metaphors weaved into the plot (which as I think further about the film, I see even more of!) and so I get the feeling that perhaps it thought it was more than it actually was. It’s a romp of sorts, which Baz Luhrmann style cinematography. This is what I enjoyed the absolute most about the film and made it such a pleasure to watch; without which I would not nearly have enjoyed as much as I did. The theatre was a metaphor for the contrast between princesses, counts and countesses etc and the workers on the fields. It’s all staged and fake and only outside the theatre is the ‘real’ Russia. This followed through with the bedrooms being ‘off stage’ and the poorer inhabitants of Moscow being up above the stage looking down upon the rich and powerful centre stage. Anna went up there when she was an outsider and even went below stage at one point and it was such an interesting way to use the set as an integral part of the story-telling. The first 20-30 minutes or so of the film I noticed how the camera continuously followed characters through the theatre as the sets changed around them; almost as if it were one take. I instantly loved this use of camera movement and thought it such an ingenious way of emphasising the falseness of it and how the ‘theatre’ is so easily interchangeable. This method came into it’s own during the horse race in the theatre as the audience watched them race by - a fantastic scene to watch.
It was definitely a spectacle to watch - it’s just a shame I didn’t warm to the characters or plot quite as much.
Theatrical - but maybe that's it's saving grace
I haven't read the book so don't know how closely the plot is followed but I quite enjoyed this basic love story. But if it weren't for the unique direction I'm not sure it would have been as entertaining. The scenery being wheeled away behind the actors instead of the characters having to move from room to room is very clever and easily takes your mind off of Knightlys portrayal of the love torn Anna...
Posted by Sazzles at 18:56, 16 Sep 2012