criterionforum.org

Curious that there is no thread for this film. Watched it tonight and quite enjoyed it. Helen Mirren, as usual, is extraordinary and really steals every scene she is in. Plummer is good as Tolstoy, and James McAvoy was exceptional in support, much more understated than I've previously seen him. I can't say that the story was terribly riveting or anything, but it looks great, and the comedy tended to work better than the drama. When we start to approach the final act, things obviously get more somber, but it all works quite well. They just don't make many films like this anymore. My only real qualm is a standard one: why on earth when making a film about Russians do American filmmakers make everyone English - even the Americans? It drives me crazy, and is ridiculous in assuming that any accent will do...giving Paul Giammati an English Accent while he's playing a Russian is patently ludicrous, but also part of a long tradition of pandering to the American inability to handle anything too 'foreign'. it is, in a word, stupid.

More to the point of starting the thread, however, I was hoping to hear from our more literary minded members on the veracity of the story as it is told and their thoughts on the portrayal of Leo and his wife. I admit to never having finished War and Peace, and although my wife has read it and Anna Karenina multiple times, I have not. But he's always fascinated me as a person. Wasn't it based on a novel? How fictionalized is it? And of course, did anyone else like it?

HistoryProf wrote: it is, in a word, stupid.

What really killed me was that, despite all that you describe, the signs in the town were all in Russian, as was IIRC Tolstoy's diary. And I'm thinking, so THAT is where the filmmakers decided to channel their attention to detail?

I really kind of hated the film. I thought the McAvoy character was excruciatingly dull, and I was puzzled as to why he was the central character of the film. He was a terrible audience surrogate in The Last King of Scotland, and I don't know why someone would give him more or less the same role to play here. His character has no insight, no integrity, and doesn't even play a role in anything that happens. Even his love-story subplot was inconsequential and generic. And to top it all off, he has an annoying nervous tic, the last desperate refuge of writers and actors.

It's as if Hoffman said, "“Gee, Tolstoy sure is an intriguing guy. Let’s make a movie about some random idiot who knew him!” Why not just make a movie about Tolstoy? Perhaps the film would be more meaningful to someone who knows a lot more about Tolstoy than me, but I had no idea what the movie was trying to say about the man, his life, his times, or his work.

Also, I thought that Plummer and Mirren were awful, but then their roles weren't really written to be much other than them screaming at each other. Plummer is someone who's annoying to me generally, however, so perhaps that's just me. And the score was overbearing and intrusive. Basically, I thought it was a total disaster.

Brian C wrote:Plummer is someone who's annoying to me generally, however, so perhaps that's just me.

It is you. Plummer was, as usual, brilliant. I can't wait to see him as Prospero at Stratford in a couple weeks.