Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Timbuktu5 There are innumerable reasons why this version pales in insignificance to David Lean's 1965 classic. To begin with, not a single actor in this 2002 version can come close to competing with his or her equivalent. Sam Neill trying to compete with legendary Rod Steiger as Victor Komarovsky?! Oh, please. Worse, Kris Marshall challenging Academy Award Winner, Tom Courntenay. Just painful.For budget-reducing purposes, this newer version includes quality-reducing period black-and-white footage in scenes that necessitate large crowd scenes.The newer version also includes unnecessary filler scenes such as the respective wedding ceremonies of Yuri and Tonya and Lara and Pasha. What purpose is served by these boring, meaningless film footages? The worst scene is reserved for the story's finale. Lara is about to be captured by the secret police. With her is her son (by Yuri) who looks incredibly like Yuri when he was a little boy. Well, he SHOULD look like the father because it's the same child actor who we see in the beginning of the film! The audience cannot help feel as if the child has been transported by a time machine to the present.Nevertheless, Lara, just before being captured by the authorities, tells her son to run for his life. As she is driven away in the back of the police car, she sees her little boy running desperately down the street in the middle of post-war Moscow. Despite the fact that her vulnerable son's chances of survival in such a forbidding environment are next to zero AND her own fate destined for a concentration camp, Lara, undaunted, breaks out in a huge smile of satisfaction and contentment! Anyone who has not seen David Lean's version is truly short-changing their viewing pleasure.

PudgyPandaMan I have never understood people's fascination and love of tortured love stories? Like this one, "Thornbirds" and others like them? Yury is married to a beautiful and sweet woman. They have great history together. And yet he can't resist the temptation of Lara. I think its a pity that adultery gets glamorized by Hollywood and we all buy it as some great love story. It is just cheap lust that is repackaged as star-crossed lovers meant to be together.I for one don't buy it and see it for the garbage it is, no matter how beautiful the scenery, the landscapes, the soundtrack music etc. Wake up people!

de_niro_2001 This version is a lot more faithful to Pasternak's book than David Lean's version. It is great. It doesn't have to compete with the David lean version. It stands up very well on its own. Ludovico Einaudi's score is every bit as good as Maurice Jarre's. I also think that Keira Knightley is better as Lara than Julie Christie was. I also think she's better than Andrea Corr would have been and I'm a dyed in the wool Corrs fan. It was sensible casting young actors who are the age the characters are meant to be at the outset of the story and then ageing them via makeup. One is a bit incredulous when one sees David Lean's version and Pasha says Lara is 17. Julie Christie looks the age she was when the film was made, namely mid-20s. Each actor puts a different interpretation on his or her character from the 1965 version. Bill Paterson makes Monsieur Gromyko less pompous than Ralph Richardson did. He's also quite charming where he pretends a knotted handkerchief is a rat for the children at the beginning. Sam Neill makes Monsieur Komarovsky more menacing and sinister than Rod Steiger did. He also doesn't have the paternalistic streak that Rod Steiger had. Mr Neill has also given older guys carte blanche to wax lyrical about Keira Knightley. He's done scenes with her and he's about 40 years older than her. Kris Marshall doesn't portray Pasha Antipov as Tom Courtenay's angry young man. He's shown to be quite a fun guy when he swings about ringing church bells which are standing in frames in the street to amuse Lara and her classmates. But he still becomes just as psychotic and unfeeling as Tom Courtenay's interpretation. But, as in the 1965 version, Zhivago is portrayed as a throroughly decent guy who starts off very well in life and his life ends sadly. This version also shows some grim aspects of the revolution such as mutilation, children being murdered and cannibalism, which of course was referred to by Alec Guinness in the 1965 version. This is a very good adaptation which I would recommend to fans of the 1965 version and even more so to fans of the book.

stoyan_bg89 This is my favorite movie. Believe me I have read the book and I am telling you that this version of the film is better than the book because it is more dynamic and has some additional very good scenes that contribute to the whole effect the movie has when watched. The leading actors are actually perfect. I am a huge fan of Hans Matheson and Keira knightly. I have watched most of Keira's movies and I can honestly say that this is her best. It is the most dramatic story I have ever heard of because the story develops in the background of the bolshevik revolution in Russia and tells about the controversial fates of two people who in spite of the fact that have families and kids fell in love with each other.Their love is thwarted by the social hardship of the time and by their responsibilities to family and country but lives through it all and survives.