Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

vincentlynch-moonoi The first thing you have to do with a film that lasts 208 minutes is to decide if you are willing to commit to spending that much time watching the film. I hesitated, particularly during the first half hour, but I am glad I stuck with it, because I have never had the desire to read the historical novel, but thought that watching a film of the novel might be worthwhile. I do have to say that my impression is that perhaps this novel is too "big" to be translated successfully into film.The biggest problem for me with this film is that I think Henry Fonda was totally wrong for the character of Pierre. And I say that as a person who usually respects Fonda's film roles. But this one didn't work for me at all.Another problem with the film is that some of the actors were not American speakers, and clearly the mouths don't move properly with the words. Obviously there was some dubbing here, and I always find that distracting.There are a number of performances I did enjoy watching. Audrey Hepburn was great as Audrey Hepburn. But it worked. Mel Ferrer does nicely here, although as I watched the film it occurred to me how few films with him I have seen. Oskar Homolka's performance is interesting...not necessarily good, but interesting...and he looked the stereotype of a Russian general. I didn't realize one of the actors was John Mills, but once I did realize it, I found it interesting (not a big part).I can't make up my mind about Herbert Lom as Napoleon Bonaparte. I do think he is an under-appreciated actor, but I don't know enough about Napoleon to decide if the portrayal is good.In terms of the title of my review, in many places the film is rather lavish. In other places some scenes seem incredibly cheap. A few early battle scenes look cheap, but the main battle scenes are rather impressive. There's one scene where Fonda's character goes to the front at night, and it so cheap looking -- you see his and Ferrer's shadow on what was obviously a painting of trees.Was it worth nearly 3 and a half hours? Well...yes...I guess so, but I would have no desire to watch it again.

Filipe Neto Anyone who has read, as I read, the entire book "War and Peace", has a clear idea of ​​the enormous work that must have done to make this film. Its probably one of the most complex war dramas ever written and the largest dramatic book I have ever read. It's not my bedside book, but it's certainly one of my favorites when it comes to Russian literature. Directed by King Vidor (who transformed this film into his greatest masterpiece), he has Audrey Hepburn (in the role of Natasha), Henry Fonda (as Pierre) and Mel Ferrer (as Prince Andrei).The script is very faithful to the book and seeks to make a legitimate adaptation. However, its very slow, giving too much emphasis and spending too much time on certain scenes without need, and it lacks emotions and strength, being unable to thrill or grab our attention. Perhaps the complexity of the original material has caused so many difficulties for the writing team that they have not been able to handle it in the best way. As for the actors, I liked Audrey Hepburn, she knew how to give life and joy to her character, but I expected more from Mel Ferrer, he did not understand his character. I hated Henry Fonda... he had one of the most psychologically rich characters in the novel and simply was unable to deal with it. It was a clear casting error.The film has excellent war scenes and portrays very well the armies but always without emotion or danger, in a very warm manner. The costumes and scenarios fill my expectations and have taken great attention with detail and realism, which is quite pleasant. Cinematography is quite pleasant, although it exaggerates in brightness sometimes. Nino Rota is responsible for the soundtrack and did a good job. Anyway, as this movie has the worst sound effects I've heard in movies, I will not criticize the soundtrack.

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 ****