War and Peace

The movie was exactly what I expected it would be. I don't like the movie at all, I wasn't the one who purchased it, my grandmother did using my account and her card. I didn't think the movie was even remotely interesting, but watched it because my grandmother wanted to watch it with someone. I would recommend the movie to anyone who likes the slow-paced, historical documentary style movie, although I think this movie was still a work of fiction so would be considered historical fiction rather than a documentary. I actually did find a couple of the characters interesting, most notably the French princess-whose name I can't think of at the moment, and the narrator character also whose name I can't think of, but I've never been good with names. The narrator of the story is the illegitimate son of a wealthy lord in Russia, and he ends up inheriting all of his father's estate for some reason that they never go into detail with during the course of the movie, which could really be split into four 90 minute or so movies since each section is about a different character, except the first which is a sort of overview of all the characters. The princess in question is at the beginning of the movie at some party that someone is throwing, and from that point on you can tell that she will somewhat of an emotion driven character, with commitment issues, but she is one of the most tasteful characters developed in the movie in my opinion since only her, the narrator, and the Eldest son of the Russian ruler really even have a character development theme. I'm no expert though. overall since the movie did spend time on each of the three major characters later on in the movie and tried to develop them and actually did a fairly decent job on them and one or two others, and the amount of effort that had to have been put into the movie, I think the movie was okay, I don't like that the movie jumps around so that you can't really follow it, and I don't like that the movie is sooo long(nearly seven hours). I know the movie is based of a book, but I never read that book and was not interested in reading it, I only learned about it in history class, once upon a time(unless that was the movie they were teaching about) so if it's based off a book I can't use that as an indicator as to rate the movie for how well it follows the book, but since the movie is very nearly impossible to follow completely since it's so long and broken into so many parts, unless the book version(if there is one) is broken up the same way, I would say that the movie probably does not follow the book, if the book is broken up the same way then the movie may or may not follow it, most movies don't follow their book counterparts, at least not well, just as a guideline, they are usually overall the same story.

This may be the best Russian film ever made. It is considered by many to be the best film version of Leo Nikoleyevich Tolstoy's 1869 novel "War and Peace." This Soviet-era film was released in four parts from 1965 and 1967. This DVD set presents each of the four parts on a separate DVD. A fifth DVD is included in this set that contains bonus materials. Sergei Bondarchuk directed the film, co-wrote the screenplay and also acted in the lead role.In short, this is a movie about Russian aristocrats during Napoleon's invasion of Russia in the early 1800s. The story follows the main characters as they change (and sometimes die) over the course of the war. Everything about this production is first rate: casting, costumes, settings, and action. This film conveys far deeper thoughts and emotion than the two other productions of War and Peace I have seen (i.e., the King Vidor film from 1956 and the BBC series from 1972).Thanks to my e-book reader, I read War and Peace just a few years ago (the Maude translation). After reading the book, I watched the (20-part, 15-hour-long) BBC series from 1972. The BBC series was extremely well done for the budget. At 15 hours long, the BBC version admirably includes nearly every scene from the novel. However, I was disappointed at the some of the poor casting choices. I was also annoyed by the deviations from Tolstoy's novel.While the BBC series was very good, this Russian version of War and Peace is better. Obviously, at half the length of the BBC series, the Russian version is forced to omit many of the events from novel. However, the Russian version more than makes up for this abridgement by creating a dramatization that is this more faithful (to the novel), vivid, and visually interesting. The casting choices in the Russian version are much truer to the characters in Tolstoy's novel than the BBC series.The Russian version of War and Peace has got to be the most expensive movie ever made. By "expensive," I do not mean in terms of (inflation-adjusted) U. S. dollars spent. Instead, it was most expensive in terms of person-hours spent. For example, some 100,000 members of the Red Army took to the field for the battle scenes as unpaid extras. Now one might create 100,000 Napoleon-era French and Russian soldiers using CGI, but there is no way any Hollywood movie studio could afford so many extras. The costumes in this drama are impressively authentic. Many of the scenes were shot inside of extremely expensive settings - - - for free. This movie could only have been made in the former old Soviet Union - - - with government control of everything.If you loved War and Peace (the novel), then you should watch this film. If you do not like subtitles, then check out the BBC miniseries from 1972 (it is also pretty good).

I first saw this magnificent production at a 2-night 70mm showing in Birmingham (UK), circa 1970. I was blown away by the spectacle, and despite its length was totally enthralled by the story, acting, and cinematic values. I had already seen the 1956 King Vidor version as a child which I enjoyed very much as a glossy adventure story, only to be eclipsed by Bondarchuk’s superior treatment made just a decade later. Coincidentally, shortly after seeing this Russian version I attended a 70mm presentation of the 1956 film at the same cinema, looking very clean, sharp and bright; but it was offered in a 2.20:1 aspect ratio blow-up instead of remaining in its intended 1.85:1 VistaVision format, managing to chop off heads and feet at the same time despite the loss of only 16% frame height! At least the 70mm version of the 1.37:1 “Gone with the Wind” sensibly employed tilt-and-scan.In recent times I’ve been looking forward to the prospect of a Blu-Ray issue of the Russian version restored from the original 70mm negatives, but alas that hasn’t appeared yet, and may never happen if the rumours about its unlikelihood are correct. So I have settled for a DVD (PAL) issue from 2003 as the next best option. It’s the 5-disc collector’s edition with the main film presented on four of the discs in approximately a 2.30:1 aspect ratio (slightly inconsistent between discs), stated to be enhanced for widescreen TVs – which I interpret to mean anamorphic rather than letterbox. The running time is said to be 403 minutes, but whether that refers to the original cinema speed of 24 fps or television replay at 25 fps is difficult to tell, but it’s quite possibly longer than the subtitled version I saw in the cinema.I invested in an “as new” pre-used copy as I wanted something to treasure, and brand-new ones in 2017 don’t come cheap. I was delighted with the package’s physical condition but, although the discs were entirely free of glitches, I found the picture quality of the main film little better than appalling. At first I thought that I’d ended up with a rogue copy, but as the introductory pages on the same discs are very acceptably sharp and clean, even for DVD, I concluded that it would be unlikely – that is, until I watched the bonus extras on Disc 5 in which several extracts from the film are illustrated. One of the documentaries does contain similar flaws in the clips it shows, but examples of the same scenes in others I thought looked significantly more presentable. So does my package perhaps contain an early transfer of the main film whose visuals subsequently went through some sort of restoration and were later re-issued? It would require a side-by-side comparison to check this possibility out, and my observations may yet be proven as illusory, but it’s an interesting thought.Therefore prospective purchasers of the same version I have should expect to find the main film looking very 16mm-ish, although almost certainly sourced from a 35mm print (judging by the narrowness of the occasional pos. scratches). The images are very contrasty, containing varying amounts of luminance instability within shots, and swathes of dark artifacts looking like a cross between starling murmurations and the Aurora Borealis which are almost always present to some degree, very likely traceable to deteriorating film stock; also there is often a bluish bias on the left side of frame. I recall that in the cinema many shots were dramatically dark, especially in battlefield scenes, quaintly resembling old master paintings, but on this DVD the blacks can be so dense that at times it’s difficult to make out details. Areas of imagery frequently quiver, looking like ill-executed matte work, but caused almost certainly by print shrinkage as it’s most noticeable when the camera is static; since the film was originally shot in 70mm, mattes derived from it would be very unlikely to jump out of register that much. The already poor definition is compounded by someone’s decision to shrink the frame area slightly to create a pillarbox presentation of the main film, reminiscent of historic attempts to compromise widescreen images for standard 4x3 television screens before full frame 16x9 became the norm. On my 40" TV that means a loss of 2½ inches from the screen’s available width – I could have done without that forfeit. Otherwise, menu pages are full screen 16x9, and the documentary features are full height 4x3.In contrast, the sound quality (I have played only the 5.1 version) is absolutely amazing. Dialogue is crisp and clear, although for virtually all interior situations a flutter echo seems to have been incorporated, presumably to replicate the live acoustics of cavernous mansions. I vaguely recall this phenomenon in the cinema, but in the relatively dead acoustics of a softly furnished living room, it comes over more of a distraction than an asset, particularly as it never seems to vary in character relative to film set sizes. For outdoor scenes it disappears, unless there are buildings or trees nearby to reflect from. Another strange effect that takes a bit of getting used to is that in many scenes prime dialogue comes from whichever direction is appropriate to the camera position, so people who walk in or out of shot whilst speaking carry their sound with them, and out-of-shot persons converse with on-screen subjects from behind one’s viewing station. Potentially a nice, natural touch, except that nowadays we’ve got used to hearing virtually all dialogue coming from the front centre channel only. Some of the foley effects are irritatingly erratic, and post-syncing sloppy, but generally the soundscapes are very complex and involving, especially during battle and crowd scenes, and the music is full-bodied and gorgeous without being intrusive. If only the intelligibility of the pictures could have matched the brilliance of the audio!Of a retro note, one must remember that back in the 1960s it was artistically fashionable to incorporate the likes of split screens, overlapping action, and vignettes. Bondarchuk’s “War and Peace” has plenty of those, and a seemingly endless supply of real people make up the crowd and battle scenes, horses and artillery too. CGI didn’t exist then, so what you see is what was there – acres and acres of it, intricately orchestrated “live”. And instead of Steadycam or Dronecam, the 70mm mobile camerawork was all done to great effect by crane suspensions, very lengthy dolly tracks, and primitive hand-held cinéma-vérité (even using roller skates to get around the ballroom). Wonderful stuff! The whole vista has a spherical, wide angular look, reminiscent of Cinerama and other processes designed to engulf the audience within a deeply curved cinema screen, but confined to even a big 16x9 display everything looks frustratingly miniaturised.The many extra features are a real education, mostly in far superior quality than what is allowed to be seen of the film itself as presented in this DVD package. Sadly, despite its flaws, this transfer of the film may well be as good looking as you are likely to get – perhaps for all time. So, whatever one’s tastes, surely it would be puerile to dismiss the historical value of this production as anything but a landmark experience, and that’s why I haven’t the heart to down rate my 5-star judgement of it to a more realistic 3.

This is a review of Sergei Bondarchuk's 1960s interpretation of Tolstoy's `War & Peace', arguably the greatest novel ever written. The film, in four parts, is spread over the first four discs, whilst the final disc contains extras.I have the version starring Henry Fonda, as well as the BBC series starring Anthony Hopkins, but have yet to watch them. Consequently I cannot comment on whether these are better than Bondarchuk's Soviet version. Having said that, there is no overt class agenda put forward in this film, unless it is the failure to include any reference to Bezukhov's allegiance to freemasonry. The film, then, is true to the spirit of Tolstoy, and since the great writer is so revered in Russia, perhaps it could not be otherwise. If there is one clear reference to the 1960s, it is with some of the hair styles.Bondarchuk's four parts are based around specific characters or events: thus, 1. Andrei Bolkonsky (which takes us to about halfway through Book Two of the novel); 2. Natasha Rostova (from the meeting between the emperors at Tilsit, from whence we speed forward two years to Natasha's first grand ball, and ends with the fallout following Anatole and Natasha's attempted elopement); 3. 1812 (here the Battle of Borodino takes centre stage); and 4. Pierre Bezukhov (from the evacuation of Moscow onwards).Even at over six hours long, the film leaves much out. For example, from Book One we do not see Nicholas's baptism of fire at the Enns Bridge, nor do we witness Prince Vasili's son Anatole being turned down by Princess Mary, daughter of Prince Bolkonsky. This lack of a full appreciation of each of the secondary characters means that later, when Anatole returns to elope with Natasha, those who do not know the novel are not fully aware that Anatole is Pierre's brother-in-law. Another example is young Petya in the final part: because we have not come to know him very well in the film, his tragic death means we feel little.Part of the novel's greatness is that it is as much about thoughts and motivations as it is about actions and events. Tolstoy's precise and deeply insightful words about a character's psychology and intentions, the inner turmoils, the confusions and emptiness within are difficult to portray in film. Characters are thus not really given enough time to develop in this medium, or at least within the time-scales that a movie encompasses. I can thus imagine that the film might appear to disjointed to someone who had not read the book. What builds up over several pages is here over in ten seconds.The film is certainly on an epic scale and is always a visual feast. I was going to write that such a film could not be done convincingly today, but CGI can now create visually battles on large enough scales. But we have in Bondarchuk's creation not only immense numbers of soldiers (supplied by the Red Army), but grand balls, grand houses, wide vistas, antique theatres, the destruction of towns, and the panic of whole populations.I guess the film is therefore best seen on the biggest screen available. In the battle scenes Bondarchuk portrays the confusion and brutality of war, and employs aerial shots of infantry clashing, artillery shooting, and cavalry charging that he would later use in his film `Waterloo'. Indeed, Bondarchuk opens his film from the very start with a high aerial shot travelling over a broad landscape below that is often obscured by clouds that act as if they are smoke rising from a huge battle taking place below.Bondarchuk appears to have specifically used pastel colours: even blue-skies have an autumnal feel to them. There is often a dream-like atmosphere with some 1960s psychedelic touches to express the more mystical philosophies of Tolstoy. Bondarchuk, through his DoP Anatoly Petritsky, employs quite innovative camerawork such as split-screen filming, the use of various filters, and playing with the focus. An occasional sound of dripping water foretells the later films of Tarkovsky, and the music of Vyacheslav Ovchinnikov is worthy of the epic nature of the film throughout.The visual quality of the film is fine, but sometimes it is in clear need of (further?) restoration. All the same, it is watchable. There are, however, problems with the dialogue when using the Dolby 2.1 option: the voices are a little out-of-synch with the lip movements. Even though this is perhaps only a second out, it was enough to force me to return to the normal sound. In addition, some of the subtitling is a little confusing, especially in scenes where more than two people are speaking.The extras include filmographies and a whole host of notes on Russia and its political and social life in the times of Napoleon and of Tolstoy. The set sketches provided are beautiful works of art in themselves. I felt like cutting them out of the TV screen and framing them. On the final disc there is a fifteen-minute but undated appreciation of Bondarchuk, as well as a good fifteen minutes of behind-the-scenes shooting.The fifth disc also has the following interviews (all in Russian with subtitles): 1. Vyacheslav Ovchinnikov (composer, 33 mins) in which he talks about his film music in general, i.e. not just `War & Peace'; 2. Irina Skobtseva (actress, 5 mins); 3. Anatoly Petritsky (DOP, 30 mins), talking of the film's restoration as well as its original shooting; 4. Vassily Lanovoy (actor, 9 mins); and 5. Karen Shakhnararov (of Mosfilm, 20 mins), about the reason for the restoration.This last disc of extras lasts for well over two hours, but twice during the interviews I thought I saw shots that did not appear on the DVD I had just seen, so I am not entirely sure that we have the complete film in this version.

This is an excellent piece of work. A classic. You will not be disappointed if you enjoy history.

I first saw this film broadcast on BBC TV in (I think) 1977 when I was a teenager and it had a tremendous impact on me. Not only did I fall desperately in love with the noble, tragic Prince Andrei as portrayed by Vyacheslav Tikhonov, I was carried away by the enchantment of Russia - glittering mazurkas and endless steppes - which the film was able to convey as an extra dimension to Tolstoy's rather matter-of-fact prose.So I was delighted to find this film had been released on DVD and arranged to get it for a Christmas present. In many ways it matches my memories, but am I going mad or what? I could have sworn that there were many more scenes in the version I saw in 1977 than have made it to the DVD. The blurb says it's complete but also mentions the difficulties RusCiCo had in finding a usable print - have some parts simply gone missing? There was much more about the Rostov family and about Nikolai's romance with Sonya. The gambling scene between Nikolai and Dolohov was in, I thought, as was Anatole Kuragin's abortive courtship of Princess Marya. With none of these scenes included it would have been almost impossible for anyone who hadn't read the book to follow the story - I hadn't read the book when I first saw it, but I did follow the story. There's one shot I particularly remember in the Battle of Austerlitz sequence, of French soldiers marching slantwise down a hill in the fog, under fire, to a teenage drummer-boy's beat. That too was nowhere to be seen. Please could anyone else who has memories of this film come to my help? If I'm right, I dearly hope that the missing scenes will be recovered one day to enhance this film's deserved reputation of being the definitive version of War and Peace.

Some stories seem to have the power to confer the aura of greatness on every attempt to tell them .. the Arthurian myth is one, and War and Peace seems to be another. This film is frankly terrible, yet goes on garnering plaudits nonetheless.The cinematography has dated badly, quite apart from the muddy, washed out print. Sixties cliches like superimposed images or vaseline on the lens look comic. There are shots repeated over and over and over ... big room, let's put everyone in the middle distance so they look wee, emphasise the scale of the architecture, now, let's either have someone walk out of shot right past the camera, or into shot right past the camera, to create a sort of stereoscopic fake sense of depth ... you can almost hear the actors muttering 'I'm fed up being the one to walk into shot right past the camera. I did it three times today. You do it.' And then occasionally there are moments of brilliance.The sheer scale of the thing is awe-inspiring. Austerlitz and Borodino are spectacular, though the burning of Moscow, which borrows heavily from the burning of Atlanta in Gone with the Wind, is less impressive. But the fact is that the film simply doesn't hold the sprawling mass together. The exposition is wooden in the extreme. Key themes are laboured ('We're all going to die!') and performances are flat. Natasha is little more than a half-wit, and the men who contest her are inert. If a thing is worth saying it's worth saying three times, to the point where the film is often ludicrous. To some degree this is because the film doesn't use a conventional western language ... it doesn't tell the story on the cut, and frequently the cuts seem almost random ... if you read them as you would in western film, you draw conclusions that are simply wrong. It repeatedly draws the horse, then writes 'horse' underneath. It draws the same horse, and writes 'horse' underneath several times over. Economy? What's economy? But these principles are not all modern filmic conventions, some of them are basic unities that were there before Aristotle's Poetics.Halfway in, and Napoleon's invasion of 1812 finally begins. By that time we had the bit between our teeth and we were going to see this thing through to the end. By the end of film three we were biting down on a stick to try and stifle the pain, but we battled on. Depressed, exhausted, and feeling in need of a medal, or at least a hot drink and a space blanket, we emerged from film four. 'It's over'. Spring had come to the great oak, the oak that is emblematic of all Russia.Save yourself the money, and save yourself the grief.