Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

museumofdave There are many good reasons to watch this version of Anna; close fidelity to Tolstoy's masterpiece is not one of them, as in it's day, long adaptations were not the norm, and one cannot expect most of Anna Karenini in 95 minutes. There are numerous other versions out there in Movieland much more complete and detailed--but they lack the main ingredient.I would have paid full price to see this version for two main reasons: One, for the first ten minutes, a spectacular studio-recreation of a never-was military banquet with a dazzling tracking shot that seems to go on forever, studio forces marshaled to produce an extravagant opulence only from MGM! And then there's Garbo! One of the people watching this film with me was hushed and amazed later commenting that she had heard Garbo was beautiful but had no idea she was so incredibly ravishing--and she is, a perfect Anna in so many ways, with her largely blank, gorgeous features allowing other characters and the viewer to project their own fantasies onto her character. No one comes close.Beware the deadly tot actor Bartholomew, who was effective under Cukor's direction in David Copperfield, but here with Clarence Brown is unctuously sticky, a sweet kid Rathbone would have fried for breakfast; the latter is dryly caustic as Anna's inflexible mate, and Fredric March is serviceable as Vronsky. This version is all about Garbo.

kgnycnonsport I recorded a broadcast of this movie off of TCM and finally got around to watching it last night. The cast has many of the big names you associate with films from this era of Hollywood and while a technically proficient movie it left a lot to be desired. Garbo doesn't do much for me and casting her in the role of Anna is a bit of a stretch as I find it hard to believe she could win the attention of a dashing member of the Royal Guards. March isn't much better as her lover, as he looks very bloated. He's a lot more dashing in Anthony Adverse. Basil Rathbone gives a very strong performance as Anna's husband and comes across as both a good father, but a distant and unsympathetic husband. While I understand this movie is based on a famous novel, it surprises me that MGM would make such a depressing movie considering what was going on in the world at this time, Hollywood was definitely more upbeat during the 1930's. At the end of this movie, I couldn't help but think I was watching one of the many anti-hero movies which came out in the late 60's and 70's. I also found it disturbing that Fredric March's character got off so easy. At the very least he could have been a broken man, but instead he's lounging around with his buddy and having a few drinks.

blanche-2 Greta Garbo first tackled Anna Karenina in the film "Love," which she made with John Gilbert. That film, however, did not follow the novel totally. Under Clarence Brown's direction, she now plays the role again opposite Frederic March as Vronsky and Basil Rathbone as Karenin.Having seen the Vivien Leigh version as well, it's hard not to make comparisons. This version certainly moves along better than the Leigh version. Here, the Levin-Kitty (Maureen O'Sullivan) romance is no longer really a subplot, but a very minor part of the film. The production values are tremendous, as they were also in the Leigh Anna Karenina.What the Vivien Leigh version had that this does not is Ralph Richardson's portrayal of Karenin, which is magnificent. Though Basil Rathbone is very good, no one can hold a candle to Richardson in this role, in my opinion. Rathbone is cold and authoritarian; Richardson is cold and authoritarian but pathetic, as a man who cannot love. He is also frightening. The scene where Anna sneaks in to see her child and meets Karenin upon leaving had much more tension in the Leigh film because of Richardson's quiet menace. What Rathbone does with a clipped voice and cold expression, Richardson does internally.Apparently, for some reason, casting an appropriate Vronsky missed in both films. This is a man for whom Anna gives up the most precious thing in her life, her child, and forgoes her reputation. Frederic March, outgoing and charming, isn't quite right. Vronsky is a soldier, but he also has an element of passivity about him. Given Anna's controlling husband, she would be attracted to that. I didn't pick that up with March, and in the Leigh film, Kieron Moore was TOO passive. Also, I think Vronsky should be drop-dead gorgeous. I mean, if you're going to dump your marriage, your child, your reputation, Vronsky really ought to be a dreamboat. Since this is an MGM film, perhaps Robert Taylor would have been better: handsome, strong in voice and appearance, charming, romantic with just a touch of wimp.The production values are magnificent, and Garbo is extremely effective in the role - beautiful, ethereal, and tragic. If she lacks anything, it is perhaps the vulnerability needed for Anna. Freddie Bartholemew is adorable as Anna's son.I was much more involved with the characters in this Anna Karenina than in the Leigh, which was a very detached experience. This film was directed with more warmth. Very good.

PADRAEG SULLIVAN Garbo is great, March awful, but O'Sullivan is best, and s/h reversed roles with Garbo... Pity how such mismatches occur. I think Garbo is truly great. Just not sufficiently great to carry over the charm of O'Sullivan. I'd welcome any ideas how to fix this. Also, why not just get the casting right, then they don't have to remake every ten years. Similar occurs is all the other remakes. Perhaps best is the Russian production. Why does this system compress my simple comments to so few lines. It is important for Anna to maintain force, but with a weakling like this Vronsky, maybe O'Sullivan may actually have been too much. But that does not reduce my comment that O'Sullivan is the best actor in this whole movie, which i feel i wasted so much time and effort watching, studying and reviewing...