ShangLuda Admirable film.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

JohnnyLee1 Lacks authentic Russian feel. Needed a Selznick to direct this vast canvas on the scale of Gone With The Wind. Fonda miscast but Hepburn and Brett are better. Voice-over scenes are most touching! Fade-outs between scenes a mistake. Some scenes too long., others hardly exist. Rota score underwhelming. Worst line: "Moscow's on fire! How terrible!" (Sonia). Best lines: "He (Andre's father) was the first person in the whole world to disapprove of me. I suppose you're not really grown up till that happens to you" (Natasha). Trivia: In real life, Audrey Hepburn's partner at the time of her death became partner of Henry Fonda's widow.

Leofwine_draca WAR AND PEACE is an attempt to turn the sprawling epic of the Tolstoy novel into something approaching movie length, although at over three hours this is a long slog. I haven't read the original novel, but speaking to somebody who has, this adaptation misses out plenty.And yet, despite the lengthy running time, this is a movie which feels surprisingly hollow and empty in places. The moral complexity and character depth of the novel is missing, leaving in its place one-dimensional characters who are carried through sweeping panoramas and tumultuous events. Case in point: Audrey Hepburn's character, reduced to a vacuous airhead for much of the running time.There are pluses here, of course, not least Henry Fonda and Mel Ferrer, two dependable and entertaining characters - even if they are miscast! The film is also well shot, and the various battle sequences have an epic feel to them, even though the tactics are non-existent. It's hard to dislike a film featuring Herbert Lom as Napoleon, either. However, as an adaptation, WAR AND PEACE is far from definitive.

museumofdave While no film could probably catch the epic reach and philosophical tone of Tolstoy's great novel, the 1968 Russian version comes close, with almost an hour alone dedicated to the chaotic, mad battlefield at Borodino; there is also a 15 hour version starring Anthony Hopkins that comes very close to matching the complex plotting of the book, but it lacks the spectacle that film can provide.This Hollywood version fails on several levels, starting with central miscasting: Henry Fonda, so brilliant as quintessential Americans Tom Joad and Abraham Lincoln, simply looks confused as the often oafish would-be philosopher Pierre, and while Audrey Hepburn is doubtless stunning in various gowns, the role of Natasha is an elusive one, and old-school director King Vidor doesn't do much to alter her Sabrina-like mannerisms: she is striking to look at and does her best. And the less said about stolid Mel Ferrer, the better. So what's left? The battlefield scenes are massive, neat-and-tidy, and seldom more than predictable--the Russian version directed by Sergei Bondarchuk boggles the mind with it's truly spectacular vistas and warlike chaos, challenges the viewer, and plunging the viewer into the heat of battle. One of the positives of the Vidor version, on the other hand, is the casting of Oskar Homolka as Russian General Kutuzov who offers career-defining performance, and Herbert Lom, who nicely captures the difficult role of a petulant Napoleon.The basic plot of the novel is well-followed in the Hollywood version, but this is no Lawrence of Arabia, not even El Cid; worth watching if you don't want to sit through the hours and hours of the Russian version and don't care much about War and Peace. Simply put--this is not a very exciting film.

moonspinner55 Tolstoy's mammoth Russian novel "Voyna i mir" cannot be summed up in a few mere sentences...however, King Vidor's movie-adaptation certainly can, and therein lies a telling difference between the two. An alarming amount of Hollywood generalities have been incorporated into this script (apparently worked on by numerous writers at different intervals), turning a war story into a star-crossed lovers saga. Grand costume spectacle mixes peculiarly with battlefield drama, just as the location footage mixes uneasily with the studio work. In 1800 Russia, as Napoleon is taking over Europe but finding resistance in Russia and England, a virginal, somewhat boy-happy Countess can't decide to whom her heart belongs: a family friend who initially supports Napoleon or a dashing Prince. The Prince soon becomes a Colonel in the war against the French as Napoleon's army advances, leading to the one spectacular, engrossing sequence wherein Henry Fonda (in dress clothes and spectacles), on a jaunt through the countryside, inadvertently finds himself in the middle of battle. Of the large, international cast, only Herbert Lom as Napoleon seems suitable. Audrey Hepburn wears a succession of lovely outfits, yet always seems to be looking out the window or standing on a balcony, speaking to the skies (at one point she speaks to herself in voice-over, as does Prince Mel Ferrer, and you think the producers have to be kidding!). Henry Fonda looks very handsome, but can't seem to get a grasp on his character; his old-chums relationship with Ferrer is scuttled by Ferrer's fearsome non-acting, and the love-triangle asides involving the Countess are piqued, at best. Director Vidor received an Academy Award nomination for his work, but only the battle scenes excel--the rest is a tad clumsy. ** from ****