Film review: ANNA KARENINA (Joe Wright, 2012)

Adultery. It’s always made for some of the most delicious film, TV and book storylines. Indeed, between 1873 to 1877, Leo Tolstoy used it as the basis of his novel, which he published in eight parts. Joe Wright, always one for a literary classic (Pride & Prejudice, and to a lesser extent depending on how much you rate McEwan, Atonement), adapted this 19th century Russian lit classic to the big-screen. 

After scouting across the continent for filming locations, he finally settled for the unusual, somewhat Dogville-esque of having the vast majority of the film filmed on a stage. 

The big difference between Anna Karenina and Dogville however, though, is where the latter barely had any set at all, with the locations and props chalked into the wooden floorboard, the set of Anna Karenina, whilst discernibly all a stage, is vast and opulent, with moving backdrops and richly designed interiors aplenty. 

The purpose of Wright choosing to having the movie filmed on a stage was because he said that Anna felt like her entire life was “on a stage”, and, indeed, the scenes where she faces society and stylistic touches are added (such as dancing couples freezing into a tableau whilst she dances with Count Vronsky) are certainly very effective indeed.

Burn After Watching.

Have just gotten back from the cinema, where I saw Burn After Reading, a film I'd been quite anticipating - for the crazy looking trailer, the cast and crew involved, and the Oscar buzz already being generated. Most importantly, however, the film posters, which are a throwback to the work of legendry movie poster designer Saul Bass ( 1 // 2), are bunging wonderful. Even though my cinema ticket cost the equivalent of £1.42 and a half pence (Orange Wednesdays bb), I was not impressed in the slightest. It was a load of turd.

- The cast were AWFUL; living proof that you can bung as many talented performers as you want into a movie, but they’ve actually got to, you know, bother acting. Frances McDormand epitomized irritation, Brad Pitt did nothing apart from hang about looking like he was missing a few up there, John Malkovich swore a bit, George Clooney looked beardy and confused, and Tilda Swinton worked the asexual cold bitch shtick that is like, beyond passé. The guy that played Juno’s dad in Juno was OK enough, but eh. And no-one needs to know what George Clooney and Tilda Swinton bunging sounds like.



- The plot was just ridiculously poor. Don’t get me wrong, I love fun and frenzy as much as the next guy – District 13 is bloody marvellous – but one got the distinct impression that the Coen brothers had no idea what to do with this movie, created a bunch of characters and threw in a sex toy for good measure. Er, no.

- Speaking of the Coen brothers, those Oscars for Direction & Best Film they picked up earlier this year must have really gone to their head, and instilled them with the belief that they can fob their fans off with just a bunch of crazy shit that doesn’t make much sense. Whilst it’s paid its dividends in the past – The Hudsucker Proxy & Intolerable Cruelty were good fun – Burn After Reading lacked the heart and soul that those movies had, and a result, just looked lost. As for the SPOILER killing off of Brad Pitt's character /SPOILER, it was irritating when you did it with Josh Brolin in No Country for Old Men; don't try and pull that same stuff twice in two years, please. You're not as clever as you think you are; your viewers do actually have memories.


f
- Furthermore, um, Working Title and Focus, what the 4-x were you thinking? If it wasn’t for the likes of Atonement and Pride & Prejudice that these two production companies have collaborated on, I would be pretty unimpressed with the pair of them. How is it possible that the producers did not step back, look at their excuse of a film, and feel ashamed?

- Lastly, was this meant to be a comedy? I laughed a little at the start (due to wanting to larf at a Coen brothers' movie more than anything), but as the movie went on, the laughs wore thinner and thinner. Brad Pitt repeating "Osbourne Cox" over and over again does not a funny scene make. The main lulz I got from this movie was in how terrible it was.

All in all, I’d quite like my time and money back. I’m deeply, deeply disappointed in the Coen brothers for wasting my time with this, and feel that everyone involved in this should hang their heads in shame. If this gets anywhere near Oscar nominations, then there is something seriously wrong with the world.