Blucher One of the worst movies I've ever seen

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Galina Sergei Bondarchuk, one of the most talented and important Russian filmmakers (he is known as an actor and epic- director) had made many good movies, very interesting technically and artistically. All of them are based on the first-class books (novels, stories, plays, and non-fiction) by the talented writers: Leo Tolstoy, Alexander Pushkin, Anton Chekhov, John Reed, and Mikhail Sholokhov, a Nobel Prize winner for Literature. Sholokhov's authorship of "Quiet Flows the Don" has been questioned lately but the novel is undeniably great.Bondarchuk's finest directing achievement is 7 hours long epic "Voina i Mir" aka "War and Peace" which is a great film, worth of all money and effort spent. "War and Peace" which took over five years to complete is a masterful combination of many genres (just as Leo Tolstoy's greatest novel is). It is an awesome epic, and a lot has been said about the breathtakingly spectacular battle scenes that were shot on the historical locations and involved tens of thousands of extras, horses, explosions, and complex camera moves. The film is also the incredibly accurate period piece, moving romance, family drama, search for meaning of life (as all Leo Tolstoy's works are: "I want only to say that it is always the simplest ideas which lead to the greatest consequences. My idea, in its entirety, is that if vile people unite and constitute a force, then decent people are obliged to do likewise; just that. "). There are so many unforgettable scenes in the film: the first Natasha's ball and her waltz with Andrei Bolkonsky, the death of young Petya Rostov from a stray bullet, the meeting of Natasha and deadly wounded Andrei and their conversation...and many, many more. Sergei Bondarchuk's choice of the actors for the familiar and beloved characters has proved to be mostly successful. Ironically, the least convincing is for me Pierre Bezukhov. Bondarchuk cast himself as one of the most important novel's heroes, Leo Tolstoy's alter ago, and even though he was a very talented actor, I can't forget that he was twice as old as Pierre when he took the role. One of the most memorable performances was given by the veteran screen and stage actor, Anatoly Ktorov as old Prince Nikolai Bolkonsky. Ktorov's aristocratic looks and noble manners along with his talent made him simply perfect for the role of opinionated, proud, sarcastic but frank and absolutely non-sentimental nobleman. Antonina Shuranova shot to fame in 1966 after her stunning film debut opposite Anatoli Ktorov as his daughter and Andrei's sister, Princess Mariya with her "radiant eyes". Bondarchuk took the risk casting young professional ballerina Lyudmila Savelieva in the coveted role of Natasha Rostova, the most beloved female character in the Russian Classical Literature. Savelieva was natural as Natasha whom we see first as a 12 year old restless, spontaneous, gushing girl and in the final scene as a young woman who had lived though mistakes, regrets, and terrible losses.I've seen "Voina i Mir" many times. I was even lucky to see it on the big screen in Moscow. It was originally released in four parts: I: Andrey Bolkonskiy (1965), II: Natasha Rostova (1966), III: 1812 god (1967), and IV: Pierre Bezukhov (1967), and for many years it had been shown in Russia as four films. To see this miracle on the big screen was the experience I will not forget.

pninson I'm probably not giving this movie a fair shake, as I was unable to watch all of it. Perhaps if I'd seen it in a theater, in its original presentation, I might have appreciated it, but it's far too slow-moving for me.I read the book some 25 years ago and the details of the plot have faded from memory. This did not help the film, as it's something less than vivid and clear in its presentation of events.This is really four linked films, or a film in four parts, and was, I believe, intended to be seen over four nights in a theatrical presentation. I found Part I to be enjoyable enough, but it was all I could do to sit through Part II, which drags interminably. Reading Tolstoy's philosophizing is one thing. If you get a good translation or can read it in the original, his brilliant writing far outweighs any issues one might have with the pace of the story. On film, however, it's hard to reproduce without being ponderous.I have other issues with the parts of the film that I saw. It's very splashy, with a lot of hey-ma-look-at-this camera work that calls attention to itself, instead of serving to advance the story.Clearly, I'm missing something, but I just couldn't summon the enthusiasm to crank up parts III and IV.

trochesset War and Peace is a tremendous film, and an undertaking which will never be rivaled. Bondarchuk secures a spot for all time in adapting, directing, and acting in this giant spectacle. Its in my top 50 greatest films of all time, perhaps top 25, and I have had the privilege of seeing many masterpieces.It is a film though, not with out its flaws. I think that War and Peace is a film that any filmmaker should watch and use as a guideline of what to do...and what not to do. First, the flaws: Bondarchuk lingers too much, much of the film is poetry, but one can only take so many shots of trees and the sky, and the battle that is part III is just far too long, when its intention is to show us the chaos of war, as viewed by Pierre-so there is no real development to the battle, its just random chaos carried over the course of 78 minutes-and that equals far too many overhead shots and shots of the legs of horses. The scene is spectacular, but for what it is trying to convey, it could have been done just as effectively in 40. I have no problem with the overall length of the movie, I just wish that more of the length was used to expand on existing characters or add other ones left out from the novel; rather than all of these aerial shots and shots of trees, and people looking off into space. Like Cy Young, even with all of its flaws, this film has twice as many shinning victories. It gets better as it goes on, and parts III and IV are definitely the best and most spectacular parts of the film. The battle from part II is nothing compared to the one in part III, and the burning of Moscow is a candidate for the most spectacular scene ever filmed. Bondarchuk does so much right in this film, I don't know where to start, but one thing I will note is that this is no boring by the letters film. While Bondarchuk would have benefited from a Hollywood cameraman, what he achieves here is simply amazing, and I must thank him for being so experimental. Sure, a lot of the experiments don't work all that well, and have aged a bit, but the ones that work, work marvelously, and it keeps the film fresh. This film would have been much poorer if it were made like "Gettysburg", or in the manner of your standard movie, because with a running time of nearly 7 hours, this film demands innovation and freshness.In the end this film is a monument of the medium. Not the most perfect film, but undeniably one of the greatest, and a must see for every movie lover.

aerovian This is not a commentary on the actual movie, but on the RUSCICO DVD release for North America. I don't know if there have been different releases and updates, but the disks we rented had a 2000 copyright on them, if that means anything. Anyway, the sound mixing on these DVD's was absolutely horrible. The levels often yo-yo-ed up and down; when the scene cut to a battlefield panorama, the orchestral track would thunder so loudly that I didn't know which would blow out first -- my eardrums or my speakers. When it was time for dialog, the volume would usually drop to something barely audible. Occasionally, the orchestra and Foley-work would stay loud while the dialog was superimposed at a much lesser level. My wife and I found that the only way we could watch this movie at all from these DVD's was if one of us kept a hand on the remote to continuously modulate the volume. And, like another user has already commented, when we selected English audio the dialog kept switching back and forth between Russian and English; and occasionally when the characters spoke in French on the native track the dubbing was in Russian, so you're SOL if you understand neither. Ultimately, we gave up watching after the first disk. Before you fork out $50+ for this movie on DVD for your own library, I'd heartily recommend getting your hands on a rental copy to see whether you can really enjoy this epic flick when burdened by such bad sound, particularly if you've never read the book and really want to understand the storyline.