User Score
6.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 116 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 79 out of 116
  2. Negative: 16 out of 116

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Aug 20, 2014
    1
    Leo Tolstoy would be quite sick if he saw this boring version of his masterpiece, which many critics believe could be one of the greatest novels ever written. If ever there was a case-book example of how to completely miss the boat in making a film out of novel, this would be it. It is regrettable that so much effort in overly lavish scenery and costumes was made around such an eccentric, off-key, virtually incomprehensible version of Tolstoy's marvelous novel. Expand
  2. Sep 3, 2013
    0
    This was just unwatchable for me. Took me 15 minutes before giving up on this play/movie.Not many movies I don`t finish, but this one is added to the list. It`s was all over the place. Maybe they wanted an award for most ridicules movie.
  3. Mar 12, 2013
    4
    It doesn't have the same feel as many of the other Joe Wright films, which is really disappointing. It follows the messy path of an imperfect adaptation focusing more on visuals than a smooth moving plot. Compared to must or all of Wright's films, Anna Karenina is a mess.
  4. Feb 17, 2013
    4
    At the opening, I was thrilled with the visual complexity of the stage play conceit, but all that could not lift the tedium. Why were all the actors spouting their lines in a bizarrely rushed and completely passionless manner? Barely a sense of humanity in there, and no one to like. Just some overly self-conscious, blatantly modern styling without a grip of the material.
  5. Feb 12, 2013
    1
    Over stylized the story is lost in a vain directors journey into his own egotistical journey. Art for arts sake, Tolstoy would turn in his grave. There is no chemistry between the actors, Kiera knightly is much better than this movie.
  6. Feb 4, 2013
    3
    Im very sorry for not only the screenplay but also and specially for keira's performance. It was over done sometimes and on the rest it was flat, just like her chemistry with her lover. A train rack!
  7. Feb 3, 2013
    3
    I am russian. I read 'Anna Karenina'. And you know what this film left mixed impression. Everything is according to Tolstoy, the actors are brilliant, however the director afforded himself to add a thing of his own to the film every scene of the film was a scene in a theatre! That is nonsense, Tolstoy didn't write that... And only this director-made 'feature' made of the film almost a total bull***t. Whithout that 'feature' the film would be great. Expand
  8. Jan 23, 2013
    4
    Walking out of this film, I wrote a single line at the end of my notes for my review:
  9. Dec 3, 2012
    4
    The costumes by Jacqueline Durran are sumptuous , the production design by Sarah Greenwood head spinning and the original music by Dario Marianelli is at times as frantic as the editing is and at other times very operatic. The camera loves Keira Knightley, as Anna Karenina, just as much as Keira Knightley loves the camera. Jude Law, as her cuckolded husband, gives the best performance in the film and 20 years ago would have played her lover, Vronsky, bringing more fire, looks and chemistry to the role than does Aaron Taylor-Johnson.

    Whether it is the concept of the screenplay by the world famous playwright Tom Stoppard and/or the director Joe Wright, based on the even more famous novel by Leo Tolstoy, the novelty of staging it as a play, using every nook and cranny of a theatre, very quickly falls flat and takes you out of the story just as Wright goes outside the theatre too many times. At times it seems like an opera, operetta or musical theatre without songs being sung. At times you find yourself counting the costume changes by Anna and Vronsky trying to see who accomplishes the most and there are a lot. In some scenes costume changes are stylistic which is intriguing at first but then, sadly, like the movie, becomes boring.

    There are many roles in the film but the more prominent are Matthew Macfadyen as Anna
    Expand
  10. Nov 25, 2012
    3
    Really difficult to sit through. Plodding and wandering. Took awhile to figure out the supporting characters. Keira Knightly is lovely to look at but there is no chemistry or passion or anything to grab onto with her lover. The story is so convoluted that I was tempted to walk out after 30 min., but i stuck it out.
  11. Nov 24, 2012
    3
    A Beautiful Beast.

    I'm referring to the film, not to its Anna. Knightly's portrayal isn't worthy of such strong descriptive words. Admittedly, she wan't bad...until she opened her mouth. In truth, the film would've been much richer had it been a silent one. Wright never fails visually. There is no doubting that this adaptation is ambitious and imaginative, but, in the physical world,
    one's ambitions are nearly always unmet. I found myself cringing during dialogue. Tom Stoppard is an extraordinary writer, but neither him nor Wright were good conductors of Tolstoy's ideas. The script seemed unaware of the vision, and the vision of the words. I felt as if I was listening to a high school literature teacher, finger on the fast-forward button, struggle to hit all the major plot points of a book-on-tape. The dialogue only served to make the story feel rushed and the viewer spoon-fed. Setting it in a theatre was brilliant, but the too-literalness of this literary classic was not. Collapse
Metascore
63

Generally favorable reviews - based on 41 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 28 out of 41
  2. Negative: 1 out of 41
  1. Reviewed by: Mike Scott
    Nov 30, 2012
    60
    That storytelling, however, is uneven, ranging from something approaching tedium to moments that are downright wonderful (such as the sweetest of scenes, involving two young lovers -- played by and Alicia Vikander and Domhnall Gleeson -- and a stack of children's blocks).
  2. Reviewed by: Lawrence Toppman
    Nov 29, 2012
    50
    The arc of the 800-page novel, crammed into 130 minutes, becomes a line as flat as the heart monitor of a dead patient. A story that ought to possess the mad grandeur of an opera acquires the tedious regularity of soap opera.
  3. Reviewed by: Connie Ogle
    Nov 29, 2012
    75
    Wright's film is visually stimulating to be sure, but he never loses sight of the raw human emotions that make Anna Karenina a classic.