eziovantaggiato This new version of Doctor Zhivago cannot be considered a remake of David Lean's previous film. You cannot make comparisons: they are both beautiful movies, interpreted and directed very well, with beautiful scenery and music. In this version Campiotti goes more in detail, is more faithful to Pasternak's novel, and at the same time provides a new very original interpretation. It's a moving film, a film about love that prevails over the adversities of destiny.. The performances of Keira Knighteley (Lara), Hans Matheson (Yuri) and Sam Neill (Komarof) are excellent, but the other actors are really good too. The direction is very careful and precise. The ending has been changed to give hope to those who see the film. It is hope in a better future, written by the poet Zhivago, aka Pasternak. It deserves an Oscar.

hugh-mackinnon I have seen both screen versions of the Russian classic novel. Both are admirable though we are comparing apples and oranges as one was released in 1965 almost 40 years previous to the 2002 version. Different technologies, different social values, and different censor standards produced different films. However, the viewer who has seen both cannot escape comparisons. Like watching your favourite stage musical with a new set of actors it takes time for familiarity and loyalty to old actors from the first version to diminish and the new production seen for its own merits! The new actors have their merits. The new Zhivago has spirit and some charisma but I preferred Shariff's Zhivago. I have never forgotten the pain registered in Shariff's eyes and on his face in the original as he struggles with internal battles of conscience. No words were required to see his pain! The younger Zhivago has his moments but comes up a bit short in this regard. The portrayal of Lara by Julie Christie and Kierra Knightly are two contrasting styles somewhat due to age differences. Knightly has the freshness and innocence of a 17 year old but once in a awhile the attraction seems forced and awkward between her and her lover (Zhivago) Christie, who was in her twenties when the film was made, was riveting throughout and could steal a scene with a facial dagger such as the scene where she is leaving the makeshift hospital after working with Zhivago for several months only to hear a negative comment made by the Bolshevik. Christie's deadly cold glare towards him denouncing the comment has stayed with me for over 35 years. Christie's and Shariff's first encounter at the library where the cinematography with the sunlight spotlighting her eyes only, is a riveting scene and outdoes the newer version similar take on Lara (Knightly) meeting Zhivago again. Rod Steiger's Kamarovsky is vastly superior acting to Sam Neil's effort. Steiger's monologues characterizing his deceit,conceit, venom and condescending views make Neill's version pale in comparison. As well, Tom Courtenay is a superior Pasha and Stralnikov. Ralph Richardson's crusty, anal member of the upper class is also superior to the new actor's version. That aside the new DVD has many merits and more of an edge regarding the horrors of the revolution and its indirect consequences. The ending was unsatisfying in the new version in my opinion. Not because it was an unhappy ending which is more realistic. Rather, the complacency shown by Lara (Knightly) as she was driven away watching her young son being sent by her to run away under the guise of playing a game was hard to accept that she could do so without portraying any regret or emotion! Sometimes the release of topical films coincide with waves of societal change, in this case the sexual revolution in western societies in the late 1960's. I wonder how many adulterous affairs were sparked and justified by men in the '60's and beyond after watching and wanting to identify with Shariff's Zhivago? I wonder how many girls born in the late 60's were named after Lara. I would wager that there were many who fit both aforementioned scenarios. Wonderful films both are. After some reflection I'll admit I still prefer the former over the latter.

emmalouise262 I don't understand why people say that the attraction between Yury and Lara in this version is not as obvious as in the original. The chemistry between them is undeniable, Keira is beautiful and tragic and portrays a real need to be saved which i think would completely appeal to Yury. Alexandra Maria Lara, while pretty, does not possess the same obvious beauty as Keira and i think she does a brilliant job of playing the needy, average housewife. Lara and Yury have a deep connection, which even as they travel along separate paths, still brings them together throughout their lives. The end scene where Yury sees Lara for the last time is incredible. The look in Hans Mathesons eyes as he watches her walk past the window is so poignant that i don't believe anyone watching it could fail to be moved. So magnificent was the acting between these two throughout i had to remind myself at times that they were only actors. Keira is strong and weak all at the same time, she is suitably seduced yet repulsed by victor and i think this is important as she does not just appear as a victim which adds a new dimension to their relationship and almost makes the story slightly more sordid and less pure. The one problem i had as a viewer with the original was that Julie Christie's performance made Lara appear as a innocent victim rather than a strong woman who survives through one of the most turbulent times of Russian history whilst constantly fighting against the manipulative Victor.

de_niro_2001 This version is a lot more faithful to Pasternak's book than David Lean's version. It is great. It doesn't have to compete with the David lean version. It stands up very well on its own. Ludovico Einaudi's score is every bit as good as Maurice Jarre's. I also think that Keira Knightley is better as Lara than Julie Christie was. I also think she's better than Andrea Corr would have been and I'm a dyed in the wool Corrs fan. It was sensible casting young actors who are the age the characters are meant to be at the outset of the story and then ageing them via makeup. One is a bit incredulous when one sees David Lean's version and Pasha says Lara is 17. Julie Christie looks the age she was when the film was made, namely mid-20s. Each actor puts a different interpretation on his or her character from the 1965 version. Bill Paterson makes Monsieur Gromyko less pompous than Ralph Richardson did. He's also quite charming where he pretends a knotted handkerchief is a rat for the children at the beginning. Sam Neill makes Monsieur Komarovsky more menacing and sinister than Rod Steiger did. He also doesn't have the paternalistic streak that Rod Steiger had. Mr Neill has also given older guys carte blanche to wax lyrical about Keira Knightley. He's done scenes with her and he's about 40 years older than her. Kris Marshall doesn't portray Pasha Antipov as Tom Courtenay's angry young man. He's shown to be quite a fun guy when he swings about ringing church bells which are standing in frames in the street to amuse Lara and her classmates. But he still becomes just as psychotic and unfeeling as Tom Courtenay's interpretation. But, as in the 1965 version, Zhivago is portrayed as a throroughly decent guy who starts off very well in life and his life ends sadly. This version also shows some grim aspects of the revolution such as mutilation, children being murdered and cannibalism, which of course was referred to by Alec Guinness in the 1965 version. This is a very good adaptation which I would recommend to fans of the 1965 version and even more so to fans of the book.