Jackson Booth-Millard I didn't know anything about what this movie was about, only one or two of its stars, and I knew the critics gave it slightly low ratings, but I was prepared to give it a chance, directed by Michael Hoffman (One Fine Day). Basically set in the year 1910, the last year in the life famous Russian author Leo Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer), regarded as one of the greatest writers of all time. Tolstoy was thought of as a saint or a prophet, with many followers known as "disciples", his most famous works are probably War and Peace, and Anna Karenina. The story sees Tolstoy's disciples, led by Vladimir Chertkov (Paul Giamatti), trying to get control of his legacy and the copyright of his works, after he dies, from his wife Sofya (Dame Helen Mirren). The main setting is Tolstoy's country estate of Yasnaya Polyana, Tolstoy and his wife have had a long, passionate marriage, she mothered his fifteen children, but they are at odds with her more aristocratic and conventionally religious views. The manoeuvring of the copyrights is seen through the eyes of Tolstoy's new secretary, Valentin Bulgakov (James McAvoy), who is inbetween both sides, he also has a love affair with Masha (Kerry Condon), one of the Tolstoians. Ultimately, Tolstoy signs the new will and travels to an undisclosed location (the last station of the title), to continue his work undisturbed, after his departure, Sofya unsuccessfully attempts to commit suicide, trying to drown herself in the lake. During his journey, Tolstoy falls ill, it ends with his near death at the Astapovo train station, daughter Sasha (Anne-Marie Duff) allows her to see him moments before his death, it is revealed that five years later the Russian senate reverted the copyrights of Tolstoy's work to Sofya. Also starring John Sessions as Dushan, Patrick Kennedy as Sergeyenko and Tomas Spencer as Andrey. Plummer looks the part with the big white hair and beard, Mirren is interesting as his wife, it was perhaps a mistake to have McAvoy be more focused on rather than the sparks flying between Plummer and Mirren, the story lacked flair, but there were a few interesting moments, overall it was a slightly below average period biographical drama. Okay!

ursulahemard An adaptation of a biographical 'novel' inspired by Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy's (September 9, 1828 – November 20, 1910) final months, and therefore some scenes and dialogs a tad over-dramatized. But it does no harm, as biographical and historical events are depicted accurately. Beautifully filmed, capturing the lights and atmosphere of 1910s Russian country side south of Moscow; costumes and props impeccable. We learn about the power-struggle between Tolstoy's editor and wife and how the great writer couldn't make up his mind to whom he will leave his legacy and the copyright of his works. Paul Giamatti portrays an excellent hypocritical, opportunist and self-interested Vladimir Chertkov and Christopher Plummer a very believable Tolstoy indeed. Even though James McAvoy as Valentin Bulgakov, Tolstoy's very young last secretary, is a very gifted and touching young actor, I thought the subplot did not fully catch on, but I blame it on the directing. But the entire movie is a magnificent vehicle for Hellen Mirren's immaculate acting talents as Sofya, Tolstoy's wife! BRAVO, she did deserve her awards. I empathized, loved and suffered with her through the entire movie.Despite a tiny, but tastefully filmed, sex-scene, the movie is watchable for the interested Teenager. Even if you don't know much about Tolstoy, but you are into brilliantly acted period-drama, this is a very good movie.p.s. In reality, Countess Sofya bore Tolstoy 13 children and copied out six drafts of his novel "War and Peace" - by hand!!!!!!

zachcjohn Much of the criticism I have been reading about 'The Last Station' is specious, and I felt compelled to write this article because I believe that most of the negative reaction might be eliminated if the film were more adequately illuminated.You don't have to love (or even know anything about) Tolstoy to enjoy this film. You do, however, have to have a taste for love, because this movie is a wonderfully full (if occasionally saccharine) tour de force of love- in fact, the director informs the audience so, right away, in the opening quote. So the viewer ought to approach this work with the mindset that the story is about the love that occurs to various degrees with each of the different characters.It would be a grave mistake to believe that, since this is a film about Tolstoy, the film itself echoes some of the characteristics of Tolstoy's work. In fact, it echoes practically none of Tolstoy's work. I do not, however, find fault in this, and any movie-goer who is expecting to experience War and Peace ought to just go read War and Peace because War and Peace's literary excellence is just that: literary. To find fault in The Last Station because it does not address the problem of the Russian Aristocracy's exorbitant habits, and their relationship to the struggling peasant class, is like condemning the movie for not discovering who was responsible for the murder on the Orient Express, or insufficiently detailing the party life of Holly Golightly- that is to say, the two are entirely unrelated.Although the content of the story concerns the aging Leo Tolstoy and his wife, Sofya, the protagonist of the movie is Valentin Bulgakov (played by James McAvoy), and so, the principle conflict is, in fact, about his personal devotion to the Tolsotyian doctrines, and how his personal goals and values change as a result of his employment under Tolstoy. So, any stigma attached to Tolstoy comes directly from Bulgakov's personal devotion to Tolstoy the Diety, and this dynamic is the only thing which plays on any viewers' preconceived notions of Tolstoy.The story is not really about Tolstoy, per se, but is instead about Bulgakov's navigating between the celibacy and strictness of the Tolstoy Dogma, (as embodied through Chertkov, portrayed by Paul Giammati) and the passionate and sometimes inexplicable nature of human interactions (as embodied through Sofya, portrayed by Helen Mirren in an incredible, forget-where-you-are performance). So, take heart, the viewer is not taken on a journey with Tolsoty where-in we aim to discover how to solve the enormous question of the class conflict in Russia. Instead, the question is: how has Bulgakov's first hand experience of Tolstoy, Sofya, Chertkov, and Telyatinki in general, affected his beliefs, and will those beliefs confirm his position as a disciplined Tolstoyian, or will they facilitate his rejection of the doctrine? So, you see, criticism about Sofya's "weird behavior", or about the lack of Tolstoyian erudition really comes down to a misunderstanding. The Tolstoyian scholastic plays a frivolous and superficial role, and does so intentionally. The film is not actually about Tolstoy, or his works, and we need only process the interactions that occur, and the characters for that matter, through Bulgakov's experience and frame of mind.When the viewer understands this, I think they will understand why the film is so delightful.

psyran-1 Rather than present at least a GLIMPSE of Tolstoy's brilliance, Christopher Plummer depicts him as a one-dimensional, gruff, lovable old coot. He hardly has any lines throughout the movie, and the other characters are equally devoid of any depth. Helen Mirren's character is supposed to be self-centered and calculating, but even she breaks down into saccharine lightness at the end. The entire film is a descent into maudlin, pretentious sentimentality, and is only atmospheric, not substantive. Instead of being an accurate portrayal of early 1900's Russia, we are given "Russia-lite." We don't have a clue about Tolstoy's inner thoughts and motivations, because we see only an affable geezer. This was a squandered opportunity to reveal the mind of a complicated, social visionary. The director chose cute over interesting.