War and Peace (1956)

With all its flaws is a decent movie, i first watched as a teenager around the early 90s, if not for the soundtrack so fashionable in the 50s Hollywood movies i would have thought it was perfect, but now like 25 years later and after reading the book, and watching the different adaptations i find out it wasn't just the soundtrack it suffers from the silliness of 50s Hollywood movies, characters had to explain why do they do what they do when it is so obvious, over the top soundtrack and for moments seems that the movie wanted to be a musical Audrey Hepburn was cast because she was the Hollywood´s Barbie doll, she doesn't convince me she is a teenagerHenry Fonda could have been great if he was 30 years younger, Many complain about Mel Ferrer, but I like him, he was handsome enough, prince Bolkonski is not a very demanding role, handsome, stiff, serious but he melts for Natacha, and his love for Natacha looked real because he wasn't acting. Depite silly dialogs that are not in the book and some terrible bad lines, it is not that bad, not that it us as good as any of the following adaptations

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.

WAR AND PEACE is an attempt to turn the sprawling epic of the Tolstoy novel into something approaching movie length, although at over three hours this is a long slog. I haven't read the original novel, but speaking to somebody who has, this adaptation misses out plenty.And yet, despite the lengthy running time, this is a movie which feels surprisingly hollow and empty in places. The moral complexity and character depth of the novel is missing, leaving in its place one-dimensional characters who are carried through sweeping panoramas and tumultuous events. Case in point: Audrey Hepburn's character, reduced to a vacuous airhead for much of the running time.There are pluses here, of course, not least Henry Fonda and Mel Ferrer, two dependable and entertaining characters - even if they are miscast! The film is also well shot, and the various battle sequences have an epic feel to them, even though the tactics are non-existent. It's hard to dislike a film featuring Herbert Lom as Napoleon, either. However, as an adaptation, WAR AND PEACE is far from definitive.

"War and Peace" (1956) was directed by King Vidor and is based, of course, on the novel by Leo Tolstoy.Tolstoy's novel takes place during the Napoleonic wars in Russia. Interwoven with the grand march of armies are the personal stories of aristocratic men and women who lived through these times. The movie takes a parallel course. There are immense battle scenes intermingled with private scenes of romance, happiness, and heartbreak.When the film was released, Paramount emphasized the battle scenes--their authenticity, the accuracy of the costumes, and the immense resources required to mount and record these images. (Remember, this was 1956. No computer-generated images. You saw on the screen what the camera saw at the moment of filming.) I thought that the "war" aspect of the movie was very effective. Even more effective were the scenes of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. You could almost feel the cold, the hunger, and the mud.Paramount and Vidor wanted an all-star cast, and that is what they got. Anita Ekberg is Helene Kuragina, called "La Belle Helene." She's the most beautiful--and most ruthless-- woman in Russia. Henry Fonda is miscast as Pierre Bezukhov, the husband of La Belle Helene. Although rich, Pierre is supposed to be inept and clueless. Before a duel, he has to be taught how to fire a pistol. (I felt like stopping the DVD to say, "Mr. Vidor--that's Henry Fonda. He was in "Fort Apache." He played Frank James. He knows how to fire a pistol!")On the other hand, Mel Ferrer is cast perfectly as Prince Andrei Bolkonsky. Ferrer was handsome and aristocratic in appearance and bearing. You accept him as a proud, brave, but somewhat cold hero.Audrey Hepburn was born to play Natasha Rostova. Her appearance matches what Tolstoy tells us about Natasha--large bright eyes, long slender neck, luminous skin. And of course, she could act! She and Ferrer had married shortly before the movie was made, and the chemistry shows. (Incidentally, they must have been the most attractive couple in Hollywood in the 1950's.)I thought the film was well made, and a good adaptation of the novel. The weaknesses in the film are what I perceive as the weaknesses in the novel. With one exception, all the main and supporting characters are wealthy aristocrats. The poor appear only as soldiers, troika drivers, and servants. Also, people who have read the novel know that Natasha makes a ghastly error of judgment. She's Tolstoy's creation, and it represents hubris to second guess him about his own characters. However, I still don't think she would have done it."War and Peace" carries an abysmal 6.7 IMDb weighted average. Why? You have Hepburn, Ferrer, glittering gowns, cavalry charges, and the French retreat from Moscow. Aren't those alone worth an eight or a nine?Seeing the movie on DVD was successful enough. However, it was made for the wide screen. If it ever plays at a theater, don't miss it. Until it plays at a theater, watch it on DVD.