Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

JohnHowardReid Producer: David O. Selznick. A Clarence Brown Production. Copyright 20 August 1935 by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corporation. New York opening at the Capitol: 30 August 1935. London opening: 19 October 1935. U.K. general release: 4 January 1936. Australian release: 6 November 1935. 9 reels. 95 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Russian noblewoman deserts her husband and child for a dashing cavalry officer.NOTES: Although not nominated for any Academy Awards, Anna Karenina was voted Best Foreign Film of 1935 at the Venice Film Festival, and Greta Garbo was named Best Actress of the year by the New York Film Critics' Circle. A remake of Love (1927), photographed by William Daniels and directed by Edmund Goulding from an adaptation by Frances Marion. John Gilbert played Vronsky, Brandon Hurst was Karenin, and Garbo of course played Anna Karenina. COMMENT: Clarence Brown's masterpiece and my choice as one of the greatest films of all time. Back in 1967, when I wrote a detailed account of Anna Karenina for a well-known film magazine, I described Brown's "Shall we go in for dinner?" opening crane shot at the banqueting table as the most famous and most daring single shot in all film history. No-one dared to challenged this assertion at the time and I still believe it is true today. I also pointed out that, although most critics were only too eager to draw attention to this particular camera feat, they tended to under-rate Brown's achievements in the rest of the film. In point of fact, the same skills, the same inventiveness, the same artistry are evident throughout. Who could forget some of the effectively symbolic sequences like our first glimpse of Garbo as, disembarking from the train, she suddenly emerges through a cloud of steam? Or the scenes of Garbo and March, on their return journey to St Petersburg, silhouetted against the windows of the speeding train as it traversed a series of bleak plains with the sun setting low over distant hills? Purists will argue that the movie has simplified the book by concentrating all our attention on the Garbo-March romance and neglecting other elements. While this is true to some extent, it's really an inevitable part of the process of translating a sprawling two-volume novel to the screen. Oddly, the main condensation is one of change rather than elimination. All the major players in the novel are presented in the film, but the character of Karenin has been demonized. In the novel, he is a far more complex person: lonely, well-meaning, exasperating, vacillating, pompous, frightened, almost amiable. The movie portrait homes in on his pompous mannerisms and presents him as a cold, unloving and unlovable person. Ideal casting for Basil Rathbone, in fact, who relishes such lines as his advice to his young son: "Unhasting and unresting is my motto. It should be your motto too." And his statement to Garbo: "I am concerned only with appearances." When Anna Karenina was re-issued in the late 1950s, a lot of the critical buzz centered around Phoebe Foster and Sir Gyles Isham, both of whom give mighty impressive performances, the former as Dolly, the latter as Levin, the impressive Tolstoy-like figure who comes into conflict with Vronsky over the flighty Kitty (spiritedly played by Maureen O'Sullivan). Both Foster and Isham had only short careers in the cinema. Both appeared in only eight talkies each. Both made their greatest marks on the stage, Isham at London's West End where he became the talk of the town in Family Affairs, Foster on Broadway. It's said that Garbo herself requested the aristocratic Isham for the role after seeing one of his British films. Be this as it may, Anna Karenina proved to be the high point in his film career. Foster's too. (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer executives were also impressed with Isham, and offered him a five-year contract. He declined because he felt he was needed back in England to help his father, Sir Vere Isham, who had never recovered from a serious motor accident and was almost an invalid. The only other film in which we can currently see Isham is Victor Saville's The Iron Duke in which he has a small role as Castlereagh. It would be nice to see one of Gyles' starring British films, particularly his first, Anne One Hundred (1933), a Paramount picture in which he co-starred opposite the lovely Betty Stockfeld). Every critic also has a good word for the superb cinematography of Garbo's hand-picked cameraman, William Daniels. But not so many take time to praise the background music composed by Herbert Stothart. They take it for granted (which is itself a compliment). I love Stothart's tinkling bells effect when the chandeliers are being lit. Also most effective is the dramatic combination of music and sound effects as the train gathers speed at the conclusion. Best of all is his underscoring of the quarrel scene between March and Garbo. As his martial music fades into the bitter-sweet Anna theme, Garbo exclaims softly, "I face the truth."-"What truth?" asks Vronsky.-"That one day I shall find myself alone."

jarrodmcdonald-1 In many ways, this first sound version of Anna Karenina looks to be a success. What it has: a huge MGM budget; Garbo in her prime; excellent cinematography; and some fine supporting actors like May Robson, Freddie Bartholomew, and Basil Rathbone. What it does not have: fidelity to Tolstoy's classic story; a willingness to subdue Garbo so that she is playing Anna instead of herself; and a tighter economy of scenes.Producer David Selznick, whom I usually respect, has added a lot of contemporary dialogue about how a man needs his work but should value his wife. There is a clumsy scene with Fredric March and his men at the beginning of the picture instead of focusing immediately on Anna, visiting Moscow by train. There is also a phony epilogue added at the end, after Anna's death. This is not Tolstoy, but it is Tolstoy according to Selznick.Also, Selznick has added scenes that feature Anna and her son, so as to beef up Bartholomew's part. This is in direct opposition to Tolstoy's story that takes pains to show just how restricted Anna is in getting to see her son one last time. But what does it matter, since Garbo has not really given herself to the part? It is merely an expensive exercise in vanity, instead of presenting the author's tragic heroine the way she was originally envisioned: a woman haunted by choice, consequence and fate.

Robert J. Maxwell Not a bad constringed version of Tolstoy's novel, given a grand Hollywood treatment. Garbo is Anna Karenina, married to an orgulous husband (Rathbone) and devoted to her young boy (Bartholemew). Everything in her rather orthodox life goes askew when she meets the Army officer Count Vronsky (March) and they fecklessly fall in love. She makes a public spectacle of her adoration of the sexy, dashing March, and when her affair becomes obvious to Rathbone it imperils his honor, his career, and the future of their son, so he throws her out to wander the world.March is in hot water too. Warned to cut out the adultery business, he resigns and joins Garbo in Venice for a lengthy and thoroughly disrespectable honeymoon.Garbo doesn't mind leaving her husband but the guilt over her willing separation from her son gnaws at her. She begins to snap at March. She accuses him of wanting to get back into the Guards and fight in the Turkish-Serbian War, which in fact he DOES want, but not if it means leaving her. In the end, sufficiently provoked, he joins his friends in the regiment and takes off for the war, intending to return.This leaves Garbo alone in Petersberg. She broods, becomes depressed, and throws herself under a train.Garbo is okay. I never found her as beguiling as the paparazzi did. And March is always a competent actor but I never thought of him as having much in the way of dash. (He'd have made a better Karenin.) Freddy Bartholemew does a fine impression of the stiff, cold, slightly cadaverous, but honorable Basil Rathbone character.It's Rathbone himself who gives the most memorable performance. We've seen him as many villains -- crossing swords with Errol Flynn, as Mr. Murdstone whipping Freddie Bartholemew, the kind of stern autocrat who brings pleasure whenever he goes. We've also seen him as at least a few heroes -- most notably Sherlock Holmes -- but here his character is complex, as complex as his Commanding Officer in "Dawn Patrol", and he carries it off nicely.

Daniel Kincaid "Anna Karenina" is based on a novel by Leo Tolstoy. I have not read Tolstoy's novel, but it is apparent from the thickness of the novel and the length of this film that this adaptation is heavily abridged. The story is simple; Anna Karenina is married to Karenin but has an affair with Vronsky.The film features impressive sets and costumes. There are depictions of upper-class Russian rituals such as drinking games, dancing and a stage production. These are for the most part well-done, although the stage production seemed drawn out.Greta Garbo as Anna, Fredric March as Vronsky and Basil Rathbone as Karenin lead the cast. It is an impressive roster, and all of them give solid performances, especially Rathbone and Garbo, but the characters they played were not exceptionally interesting. Freddie Bartholomew is notable as Sergei, Anna's astute young scientist of a child that has some touching scenes with Garbo.This film is watchable and has a number of decent scenes, but never gains much momentum beyond a basic love story. Sadly I didn't form any strong attachments to the characters such that I was even indifferent to Anna's final fate at the end of the story. I'm not sure how other adaptations of the novel compare, but this one is somewhat flat despite having three accomplished performers in the lead parts.