john-jan War and Peace (1967/Russian version) is the most accurately represented film of Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace novel. Since I read the novel in order to make a report on it, I was able to get the "provenance" of the entire setting in the 1967 movie. The 2007 version actually seemed to be a generic "period play" being passed off to unsuspecting viewers of the real import of the movie and it comes across only as a lighthearted attempt to portray two lovers trying to "get it together". It was sort of like watching Gone with the Wind in Russia. The "acting out" of the two main characters in their attempt to give it a "modern interpretive twist" to each of the major characters' behaviour failed to reflect the mindset of the individuals they portrayed as well as accurately reveal the worldview of a culture in the throes of a historic drama. While the 2007 cast members were enjoyable to watch (they were excellent actors), I found it somewhat ridiculous to see Natasha and Andre pulling out each other's tongue in the kissing scene, even though it was titillating to watch. An intelligent understanding of the complexity of the royal class mindset of that time prohibited such a reaction between two people who barely knew each other (especially when the male was twice the female's age and they each belonged to a different class structure) and who were about to be "betrothed" in the anachronistic sense of the word that was a characteristic of that society and one with which we are unable to relate to.I would suggest that anyone wanting to see a well-developed thematic presentation of Tolstoy's War and Peace would do themselves a favor by watching the film version that was made in 1967. While you would find some of it confusing-i.e., their conversation, their dialogue with themselves, their viewpoints within that society, which were distinctively Russian, you would come to the conclusion that the director of the Russian version with the Russian actors did indeed depict accurately how the Russian aristocracy behaved in their attempts to mimic the French within their own parameters, making them appear somewhat boorish as well as comical as they tried to live their lives in that era of Russian society. You would see their frustration in their everyday lives as well as their consternation over the dilemma of keeping Napoleon out of their country and their eventual failure to do so. However, you are elated when you see how their Tsar-appointed General commands the respect and loyalty of the Russian troops, leading them to an ultimate victory and watching the French flee Russia in disgrace. Which is really what the book is all about.

Alex Un Frankly, I have watched only two short extracts of Part 1 as I could not bear to watch the whole part. In the 1st extract I was surprised to see that Natasha Rostova was a blue-eyed blonde, below medium height (according to the book, Natasha was a tall brunette). And Pierre Bezukhov was a thin man! (a 'massive', overweight man - according to the book). In the 2nd extract (I guess, it was the end of Part 1), I was shocked to see Bolkonsky and Rostova waltzing to the music which was composed by A.Khachaturian in 1940's (i.e. about 150 years after the events described in the book!!!). I doubt if the movie-makers ever read the book. The movie may be alright only for the American audience :-)

JakeGuzik Sometimes I wonder how it is possible that movies like these (free of any inspiration) find a producer. Either do it for real or just leave it. But please stop serving these half baked cookies with far too much icing. To me the movie looks almost like a persiflage. The directing is a clear disgrace of the book. Obviously the director had no idea how to handle this fantastic story. The cast acts like they all have swallowed sticks. The living dead upper class in 19th century Russia - awful. Somewhere in between there is some Army stuff but it is neither close to anything like Austerlitz or Borodino. Tolstoi has deserved something else then a cheap costume soap Opera. And the people who watch it have deserved better too....an absolute waste of time!

petra_ste It's difficult to adapt one of the greatest books ever written.Exhibit A: this miniseries. As far as adaptations go, this one at least doesn't desecrate the classic story it tells - but it doesn't do it justice either.There is a bit in the novel when Natasha talks about colors he associates with people's personalities and describes a man he doesn't like as "grey". That's, in a nutshell, the problem with this adaptation: it's not awful or despicable, but it's banal, mediocre, forgettable. In a word, grey.Casting is a major issue. Alessio Boni is flat and doesn't convey the steely charisma and the stern moral strength of prince Andrej: the character is softened to the point he loses any edge, so he comes across as a wimp. Alexandr Beyer as Pierre is better but still dour, without the pleasant naiveté, the simple-minded bonhomie and the inner fire the part needs. Clemence Poesy is pretty, but to express Natasha's charm and joy to live she resorts to perpetual smirking. Sorry miss, but I knew Audrey Hepburn, and you are no Audrey Hepburn.Secondary players fare a bit better, like Andrea Giordana as the decent count, Valentina Cervi as shy princess Mary, Elodie Frenck as frail Lise, Dmitri Isayev as Natasha's likable brother Nikolaj. Violante Placido is fetching as the shallow Helene, and, although she isn't particularly good, she is maybe the only character who lacks depth, so Placido's performance doesn't do much damage. Malcolm McDowell plays Andrej's unsympathetic father and, while he is fine when the prince is required to be bitter and unpleasant, he VISIBLY does not get the character's few softer moments, which granted him depth.Direction is lackluster: emotional scenes are either overdone or trivialized; there are clumsy narrative crutches such as abrupt voice-overs.See the 1956 version instead, with the delightful Audrey Hepburn as Nathasha, Henry Fonda as Pierre and Mel Ferrer as Andrej. It's not perfect, but it definitely beats this one.4/10