Doctor Zhivago (2002)

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this. I haven't read the book, and only remember fleeting glimpses of Shariff and Christie in the original. It does have a distinct "TV-film" feel to it, but the pace, script and acting are good, the sets look reasonably authentic, and there is good use of archive film where appropriate and the management of crowd scenes with minimal extras is cleverly done. Hans Matheson is excellent as Yuri, and Kris Marshall does a good job as Pasha. The stand-out performance for me is Alexandra Maria Lara as Tonya, who affects an understated Russian accent very well. Sam Neill turns in a fair performance as the evil (rather smug) Viktor, but the disappointment is Knightley, who gives the standard performance of Keira Knightley saying someone else's words that we've all become very familiar with. I do feel that the film fails a little in that it seems to want to show the story in all its glory, but without shocking *too* much ... so we have people dying in battle and skirmishes, with bloody wounds, but rather sanitised. The possible exception is in the 3rd episode, where a recent amputee is shown, but even then, we are spared the worst, which dilutes the impact for me, of what is a powerful story set in barbaric and inhumane times. It is a similar story with the bedroom scenes, which are an odd mixture of explicit sexual content with virtually no nudity to speak of. I admire the intent of the film(s) - the spreading of the story over three episodes, each over an hour long - which allows the characters to develop over time as I'm sure they must do in the book. With a little more willingness to shock for added realism, and a more convincing performance from Knightley, this would have been quite wonderful.

I have seen both screen versions of the Russian classic novel. Both are admirable though we are comparing apples and oranges as one was released in 1965 almost 40 years previous to the 2002 version. Different technologies, different social values, and different censor standards produced different films. However, the viewer who has seen both cannot escape comparisons. Like watching your favourite stage musical with a new set of actors it takes time for familiarity and loyalty to old actors from the first version to diminish and the new production seen for its own merits! The new actors have their merits. The new Zhivago has spirit and some charisma but I preferred Shariff's Zhivago. I have never forgotten the pain registered in Shariff's eyes and on his face in the original as he struggles with internal battles of conscience. No words were required to see his pain! The younger Zhivago has his moments but comes up a bit short in this regard. The portrayal of Lara by Julie Christie and Kierra Knightly are two contrasting styles somewhat due to age differences. Knightly has the freshness and innocence of a 17 year old but once in a awhile the attraction seems forced and awkward between her and her lover (Zhivago) Christie, who was in her twenties when the film was made, was riveting throughout and could steal a scene with a facial dagger such as the scene where she is leaving the makeshift hospital after working with Zhivago for several months only to hear a negative comment made by the Bolshevik. Christie's deadly cold glare towards him denouncing the comment has stayed with me for over 35 years. Christie's and Shariff's first encounter at the library where the cinematography with the sunlight spotlighting her eyes only, is a riveting scene and outdoes the newer version similar take on Lara (Knightly) meeting Zhivago again. Rod Steiger's Kamarovsky is vastly superior acting to Sam Neil's effort. Steiger's monologues characterizing his deceit,conceit, venom and condescending views make Neill's version pale in comparison. As well, Tom Courtenay is a superior Pasha and Stralnikov. Ralph Richardson's crusty, anal member of the upper class is also superior to the new actor's version. That aside the new DVD has many merits and more of an edge regarding the horrors of the revolution and its indirect consequences. The ending was unsatisfying in the new version in my opinion. Not because it was an unhappy ending which is more realistic. Rather, the complacency shown by Lara (Knightly) as she was driven away watching her young son being sent by her to run away under the guise of playing a game was hard to accept that she could do so without portraying any regret or emotion! Sometimes the release of topical films coincide with waves of societal change, in this case the sexual revolution in western societies in the late 1960's. I wonder how many adulterous affairs were sparked and justified by men in the '60's and beyond after watching and wanting to identify with Shariff's Zhivago? I wonder how many girls born in the late 60's were named after Lara. I would wager that there were many who fit both aforementioned scenarios. Wonderful films both are. After some reflection I'll admit I still prefer the former over the latter.

I saw Dr. Zhivago many years ago with Omar Sharif and enjoyed the story and acting. However, when I inadvertently viewed the later movie last night on Channel 13, it was so enthralling and the acting so real, one could forget they were acting. The actress who played Lara, and the actor who played the doctor were so intense in their love affair, you could just feel the passion! It was a wonderful mini-series and would watch it again. Kudos to the other actors of course, (Sam Neil etc.)as they also brought the story to life. The horrors of the war were all too real and graphic. Unfortunately, these acts of "depravity" exist today. In any case, I loved the movie and all the actors played their characters so well. After reading some of the other comments, I had the same question someone else asked; what happened to Lara's son Yuri (and her daughter?) Just before she was arrested, Lara told Yuri to run! Where was he running and to whom? How could a little boy survive alone? I wonder if the book answers that question and would really like to know.

Having seen the older rendition with Shivago played by Omar Sharif I couldn't help but comparing Hans Matheson with his predecessor and gradually they seemed to become more alike. Especially in the final scenes with all the despair about the choices in life that had brought him to the end of it. A deeply moving story. It surprised me at first they had cast Keira Knigthley for this great epic, her being so young at the time, to carry such drama. But her performance is exceptional with a natural refreshing lightness. It's hard for a young woman to moan, so Lara makes the best of it despite her ordeal of having to cope with three men who all afflict her in such different ways and Keira neatly strikes a balance in showing us Lara's mixed emotions. Spoiled by a mogul played by Sam Neill, unhappily married to the revolutionary Pasha a.k.a. fearsome Strelnikov and finally seduced by our romantically inclined but still adulterate Doctor Shivago, Lara is not bound for a happy life and she pays dearly at the end which is so intentionally dreadful still solidly performed. Intertwined with this great love story is the background of the great revolution, which this work was written as a charge against, for many years the book had been banned so the story itself justifies it being told and retold. To sit it out is once again an experience that leaves you with a lasting impression about the relentless force of passion and the ever so harsh nature of man.