Spondonman Of the handful of astounding or classic books I've read in my life Voltaire's Candide is top - and is apparently unfilmable. Tolstoy's Anna Karenina is another - and has been filmed many times but none of them coming anywhere near to doing the novel justice. This MGM Clarence Brown effort remains my favourite attempt, although at 92 minutes long it's still like seeing simplified and edited snapshots of the masterwork. Of the ones I've seen the 1948 UK version had a lot going for it but was just as edited, not as plush but if watched with the MGM can augment the experience; the 1967 Russian version was nearly 150 minutes long but almost laughable in it's hamminess and with dodgy English subtitles; the BBC 10 parter from 1977 was done on a low snoozy Sunday afternoon TV budget and it showed. I wonder if the 2012 entry is a cgi cartoon?Anna Karenin has a loveless marriage but dotes on her young son; dashing Count Vronsky a cavalry officer falls in love with her and vice versa – her husband disowns her leaving her to a life of shame and regret. It's expertly handled and amidst sumptuous Cedric Gibbons sets gives the viewer the gist of the simple perfection and satisfying elegance of the story. Only…here the big problem was they got Basil Rathbone as Karenin and Fredric March as Vronsky the wrong way round - Rathbone got the sympathy but also cut a far more interesting figure than March. Veronica Lake might have cast a witches spell on Greta Garbo to get her to fancy March! A lesser problem to me because understandable was that Levin and Kitty's tales were almost completely jettisoned, including the final part of the book for a rather lame and unnecessary mini-addendum by March and Reginald Owensky. And so what if Garbo occasionally over-acted, she was as usual suitably enigmatic. A truly valiant effort to film the book, and the one I recommend over the other versions to date.

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.

writers_reign While Garbo was inspired casting as the doomed Romantic that of Frederic March as Vronsky was idiotic. What was needed was a William Powell, a Melvyn Douglas (who played opposite Garbo in Ninotchka), even a Tyrone Power, Douglas Fairbanks, David Niven, anyone, in fact, with an ounce of VITALITY, a scintilla of CHARM, a hint of PASSION, rather than the inanimate Giant Redwood that is March. Apart from this Clarence Brown gives us some nice visuals and interesting Camera angles beginning, of course, with our first magical glimpse of Garbo, emerging, fully-formed, out of the steam like Venus out of the sea. Basil Rathbone brings his usual reliability to the thankless role of dull husband but Maureen O'Sullivan is woefully short of gravitas as Kitty. It remains a great vehicle for a great actress and that's what we take away from it, a face in the misty light, a Laura ahead of her time.

kirksworks This is definitely worth seeing, but I prefer "Queen Christina" and "Ninotchka." I've seen many other versions of "Anna Karenina," and this, like the others, was rich with atmosphere, and in that regard this version surpasses them, but I'm not a big fan of Frederick March, who overacts. Garbo was splendid, as usual, but miscasting the lead actor opposite her is a problem that crops up in many of her films. Garbo's style was so romantically intense that few male stars of the time could work a scene with her believably. Her remarkable intensity tended to bring out over acting in her partners, who attempted to match her approach. But Garbo knew just when to turn it on and off, and how to twist a phrase at the end so the moment didn't become maudlin or corny. Her male co-stars just stumbled over themselves trying to reach her emotional peaks. Robert Taylor had that problem in "Camille," as did Ramon Novarro in "Mata Hari" to name two. John Gilbert, her co-star from many silent films, understood how she worked, and Melvyn Douglas, who took her on in "Ninotchka" managed to maintain his own low key acting style which was nicely offset against her specific qualities. Unfortunately, in "Anna" March is stiff and obvious, possessing none of the subtlety that Garbo managed to create in scene after scene, movie after movie. To condense this massive story down to an hour and a half is a crime. The Vivian Leigh version also cut many of Tolstoy's side plots and entire characters, but somehow it seemed less rushed. A much longer mini series has a weak Anna, but does have the entire story and all the characters. It's a massive book with many characters and to do it proper justice, a mini-series or long epic film is really necessary. Yet Garbo is always worth watching, even if the scenes she has with March don't have the power they should. The ending train scene is effective, and though it's been done better in other versions, none of the other versions have those expressive Garbo eyes that reach to the extreme depths of her soul. What a face! As one of MGM's glossy period dramas, the magnificent sets and costumes, cinematography and art direction all contribute to a splendid recreation of an era, but like most MGM dramas based on the classics, it's very Americanized. And with the Hayes Code in place by 1935, the sheer abandon of the actual love story between Anna and Vronsky had to be toned down considerably. This may have contributed to March's over-zealous acting style, attempting to make up for what they couldn't show on screen - but on the other hand, knowing March's acting style from many other films, I doubt it. Years ago I saw "Love," the silent version of "Anna Karenina" with John Gilbert and Garbo, which was my first experience of that story on film. Though the ending was shamefully changed from the book, I remember being impressed with how believably passionate Garbo was, and how much emotion powered her love scenes with John Gilbert. I'd like to see it again, but I've read that the TMC version Warners is selling has a horrible music track, recorded live with an audience laughing at inappropriate places. MGM's version of "Anna Karenina" is from Greta Garbo's prime, and for that it is well worth seeing. She's beautiful and says more with a single glance than most novelists achieve with ten chapters.