SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Jemima It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

SnoopyStyle It's the start of the 19th century. Napoleon's forces are marching across Europe. Moscow remains well beyond his reach. Pierre Bezukhov (Henry Fonda) parties the nights away. He's the bastard son of a rich Count. He admires Napoleon and is disillusioned with the patriotic militaristic fervor. His estranged father dies leaving him a vast fortune as the new Count. His friend Nikolai Rostov eagerly goes off to war. Nikolai's young sister Natasha Rostova (Audrey Hepburn) is adoring. Pierre's best friend Prince Andrei Bolkonsky (Mel Ferrer) is sincere and respectful. He's in the army and taken prisoner at Austerlitz. Pierre marries gold digging cousin Helene Kuragina (Anita Ekberg). Andrei is released home only to have his wife die in childbirth. Pierre's marriage does not go much better.It's a thick book to condense into three and a half hours. Hepburn is enchanting but a little old to play a teenager. Fonda doesn't strike me as the party boy but his star power is certainly capable of maintaining the leading screen presence. He may be a better fit as Andrei. Neither of which are big flaws. The major flaw remains the human drama from the book struggling to be more than the stilted highlights on the screen.This international production tries its best to encompass the vast epic. There are certainly big battles and large campaigns. The climatic battle has a cast of thousands stretching from one side of the screen to the other. Most of the war epic is impressive. The human story needs a concentrated effort. The simplifications may not be enough to focus the movie. This has its flaws although it may fill one's needs for an old Hollywood epic with big shining stars.

TheLittleSongbird Anybody who even as much attempts to adapt Leo Tolstoy's magnum opus War and Peace deserves at least a pat on the back for trying, regardless of how successful it is in doing so or not. The novel is one of the greatest there is, but because of the enormous length (one of the longest novels I've ever read, and it was admittedly not the easiest to immediately get gripped), very rich story and dialogues, and complex characterisations and themes it is also one of the most difficult to adapt.While this 1956 film adaptation of War and Peace may not quite work (one of the most problematic War and Peace adaptations), it is a valiant effort and still has a lot of merits. The costumes and settings, while not as evocative of Russia as it could have been, are incredibly lavish, the colours are bold and opulent and the cinematography is very handsome, spectacle-wise War and Peace is hugely impressive. Also incredible is Nino Rota's music score, it's gorgeously lush in an unmistakably Nino Rota sort of way and it really stirs the emotions, not one of my favourite scores of his (seeing as he wrote so many great ones) but hearing how effectively it works in the film and how well it works as a work on its own it is clear why Rota and his music are so highly regarded. King Vidor directs very thoughtfully, with an eye for spectacle and addresses as many of Tolstoy's themes as possible.The war scenes are powerful and moving, with the French army's retreat from Russia resonating especially strongly. The performances are mostly odd, though reasonably odd on paper for some. Audrey Hepburn was simply born for Natasha, she portrays her with a real charm and touching dignity, and the camera simply adores her in some to-die-for shots. John Mills is similarly excellent, giving the film some telling optimism without taking one out of the situation. Napoleon could easily have been written and performed as a hammy buffoon, but not only is Herbert Lom delightfully pompous and imposingly tyrannical but he also brings some truly affecting humanity to the role. Anita Ekberg is luminous and emotive, and Okskar Homolka is ideal casting as well.However, the sound quality is agreed very poorly done here, while the voices sounded echoey the surrounding sound is artificial (this is including the war scenes) and like it was recorded on near-silent and the dialogue sounded canned. The script is thought-provoking and literate, but while the themes and events are present the impact and the substance they should have aren't so much, a lot of it too on-the-surface. With the story, the simplification didn't bother me, seeing as it was only a nearly three-and-a-half-hour length (whereas a 10-12 part mini-series is much more likely to do this massive story complete justice), but the rather sluggish pacing, on-the-surface writing and that some of the drama scenes were needlessly stretched to the point of near-tedium did. Two performances didn't come over so well either. Mel Ferrer is very wooden and stiff, with his performance often lacking in expression. More problematic is a badly miscast Henry Fonda in a rare 'bad' performance, didn't have the 'he was physically wrong' problem like a lot did but it was more to do with that he made little if any attempt to look and sound Russian, it was more Henry Fonda playing himself, while looking and sounding bored, but he just looked so disengaged and clumsy. Ferrer at least looked the part, so whatever the large shortcomings there were in his performance he did acquit himself a little better than Fonda.Overall, doesn't quite work but is a valiant effort adapting a classic but very difficult book. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Tim Kidner I refer to the oft running joke about the time it (apparently) takes to read the full Tolstoy novel. The width refers to the slight flabbiness of its storytelling and obvious cuts and constricts to allow for its stellar Anglo/American cast.My DVD was a Korean release, which you need to go into the menu to turn off their subtitles and set it to 'none'. It does seem strange that such a famous and widely respected and loved epic, in probably its most popular 'Hollywood' format just doesn't seem to be more widely available.I'm also probably the only person to have seen, in its five disc entirety, the 1967 Russian Oscar Winner, directed by Sergei Bondarchuk before this far more accessible one. I'm no literary expert but this one here is easier to follow (the subtitles on the Russian one are impossible at times and some of the dialogue is in French but not subtitled!) and the narrative jumps about confusingly.It's always great to see our favourite actors - when we are not sure or enjoying the story less, we can savour and immerse ourselves in their familiarity and in this case, Audrey Hepburn and Henry Fonda are two of mine and many others' all-time favourites.Whilst the legendary Jack Cardiff takes the reigns with the cameras here and his Technicolor is deep, sumptuous and rich, for once, even he is vastly overshadowed by the Russian epic, which has three chief cinematographers! and has some of the most beautiful, majestic and uplifting images ever recorded, including the legendary hiring of the actual Red Army as extras for the awe-inspiring battle scenes.Back to this King Vidor adaptation - for my fairly ignorant eyes and palate, it is more measured and the dialogue less 'free', almost monosyllabic and starchy. The costumes are regal and splendid of course and the period detail of a impeccable standard one would expect.All in all, I find much of this War and Peace a bit flat-footed and without the spirit of the 8 hour epic. The mixture of accents don't always help either but the story does get told, clearly and concisely, which is the main thing, I suppose.

Red-125 "War and Peace" (1956) was directed by King Vidor and is based, of course, on the novel by Leo Tolstoy.Tolstoy's novel takes place during the Napoleonic wars in Russia. Interwoven with the grand march of armies are the personal stories of aristocratic men and women who lived through these times. The movie takes a parallel course. There are immense battle scenes intermingled with private scenes of romance, happiness, and heartbreak.When the film was released, Paramount emphasized the battle scenes--their authenticity, the accuracy of the costumes, and the immense resources required to mount and record these images. (Remember, this was 1956. No computer-generated images. You saw on the screen what the camera saw at the moment of filming.) I thought that the "war" aspect of the movie was very effective. Even more effective were the scenes of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. You could almost feel the cold, the hunger, and the mud.Paramount and Vidor wanted an all-star cast, and that is what they got. Anita Ekberg is Helene Kuragina, called "La Belle Helene." She's the most beautiful--and most ruthless-- woman in Russia. Henry Fonda is miscast as Pierre Bezukhov, the husband of La Belle Helene. Although rich, Pierre is supposed to be inept and clueless. Before a duel, he has to be taught how to fire a pistol. (I felt like stopping the DVD to say, "Mr. Vidor--that's Henry Fonda. He was in "Fort Apache." He played Frank James. He knows how to fire a pistol!")On the other hand, Mel Ferrer is cast perfectly as Prince Andrei Bolkonsky. Ferrer was handsome and aristocratic in appearance and bearing. You accept him as a proud, brave, but somewhat cold hero.Audrey Hepburn was born to play Natasha Rostova. Her appearance matches what Tolstoy tells us about Natasha--large bright eyes, long slender neck, luminous skin. And of course, she could act! She and Ferrer had married shortly before the movie was made, and the chemistry shows. (Incidentally, they must have been the most attractive couple in Hollywood in the 1950's.)I thought the film was well made, and a good adaptation of the novel. The weaknesses in the film are what I perceive as the weaknesses in the novel. With one exception, all the main and supporting characters are wealthy aristocrats. The poor appear only as soldiers, troika drivers, and servants. Also, people who have read the novel know that Natasha makes a ghastly error of judgment. She's Tolstoy's creation, and it represents hubris to second guess him about his own characters. However, I still don't think she would have done it."War and Peace" carries an abysmal 6.7 IMDb weighted average. Why? You have Hepburn, Ferrer, glittering gowns, cavalry charges, and the French retreat from Moscow. Aren't those alone worth an eight or a nine?Seeing the movie on DVD was successful enough. However, it was made for the wide screen. If it ever plays at a theater, don't miss it. Until it plays at a theater, watch it on DVD.