Vlad B. Anna Karenina is my all-time favorite book, and having watched a number of Russian and English-language adaptations, including the 2012 Joe Wright film with Keira Knightly, I consider this 2000 Masterpiece Theater version the most faithful and watchable of them all. While Helen McRory may not be as conventionally pretty as many other actresses who played Anna, her acting is spot on, and she's closer to the character as envisioned and described by Tolstoy. The other characters are cast very well, and few liberties are taken with the plot. Aside from the now-dated 1977 BBC miniseries, this is the version which spends the most time on the Levin-Kitty storyline, as it should be. The main reason I deduct 2 points is that parts of the series inevitably felt like a breeze-through the book's themes - as no adaptation can truly capture the depth of the original novel.

museumofdave If you're craving an adaptation of Tolstoy's psychological and social masterpiece, this version comes the closest to an overall assessment, simply because it has the time to cover the all-important story of the earthy Levin and his beloved Kitty; as in the book, Anna takes the focus purely because she is the embodiment of a scandal, living totally for her feelings, and living selfishly.Having just finished the book, and then watched four different versions of the Russian epic, I do not doubt this version comes closest to the spirit of the book, even though Helen McCrory as Anna completely lacks the mesmerizing attraction of say, Garbo or Leigh--but both their films are Masterplot editions, and studio bound, although each have their own strengths--the MGM team to recreate lavish set pieces, and in the latter case, Vivien Leigh sparring with Sir Ralph Richardson, as a mannered, pompous, easily rattled husband.In this 2000 Masterpiece Theatre version, David Henshall is a standout as Levin, drawing the viewer into the intensely introverted, thoughtful landowner, Tolstoy's cover for himself. When it comes down to it, the novel cannot be translated to the screen, even less so than War And Peace, but the director of this one did his best, even if his chosen leads are less than stellar.

sp_rose2005 I've seen almost all the versions of Anna Karenina, and I'm trying to compare them with the book. So far, this version is the most true one to Tolsty's novel. It is very detailed which helps to express the true feelings of the characters the way Tolstoy created them. I didn't like the actors much, especially Anna, she's not attractive enough to play Anna. The perfect actors for Anna Karenina are in the 1997 version. Sophie Marceau made an excellent Anna, with her beautiful young flirtatious look, and the confidence with which she carries herself even when she's in despair.Helen McCrory just looks ill all the time, even in the beginning, she just doesn't have that presence that Tolstoy's Anna does. If the actors and settings of this movie were substituted with the ones from 1997 version, this movie would be absolutely perfect! Although it doesn't give the whole picture of 19th century Russia the way Tolstoy pictured it and the way the 1997 version does, this is still the most accurate version, and expresses the true meaning of the novel. Definitely recommended for people who haven't read the book, as well as those who have!

heather_m1986 This Masterpiece Theatre production gives life to Tolstoy vast and ambitious masterpiece. It's a formidable task considering that Tolstoy was often a deeply psychological writer and spent hours probing the souls of his characters. That being said, the cast in this adaptation do a marvelous job in conveying their character's profound and often misguided humanity.Tolstoy co-protagonists, Anna Karenina and Constantine Levin are both idealists searching for love and meaning. Helen McCrory is not an obvious choice for Anna but the character has suffered from being played by picture perfect actresses who have trouble conveying Anna's passion. Helen McCrory's is believable as a mature woman who is seemingly very comfortable in her skin and has the grace and power to make men fall easily in love with her.Douglas Hensall plays Levin with gentleness as a sensitive, conflicted man plagued by doubt and his own inadequacies.He romance with Kitty is sweet and understated. His Scottish accent, beard, and awkward manners lend to his rusticism. However, as with any adaptation of Anna Karenina, much of Levin struggles with his own conflicted personal morality and faith are left out.The best performance comes from Stephen Dillane as Anna's dour, principled husband. A man who believes in keeping his emotions in check, Dillane's Karenin is a man who's suffering his wife's betrayal and is conflicted between the desire to punish her and his love for her. In the novel Karenin is a homely man in his fifties, but here he is far handsomer and about 10 years younger which is helpful because it prevents viewers from believing that Anna deserts old, ugly husband simply because he is old and ugly.Also of note is Mark Strong as Anna's bon vivant brother, Stiva, who, as in the book, remains likable despite being irresponsible and faithless to his wife, Dolly. Paloma Baeza, Amanda Root and Kevin McKidd also turn in fine performances and Levin's sweetheart, Dolly and Anna's lover, respectively.The film's use hand-held cameras, quick cuts, and odd angles were at times interesting and at times, very distracting. Admittedly,it was nice to see a period film not shot in the very staid and static fashion of most period films. This production is full of movement: train chug by, people run upstairs, skirts billow, couples argue violently.It has been said that readers should take Anna Karenina as a "piece of life" and this adaptation has an accessibility and realism and lacks that daunting glossy "period film" sheen. These people are people who could live in our time or any time