ANNA KARENINA

 Reviewed by Paul Gibbs and Patrick Gibbs

GRADE: F

Keira Knightley, Jude Law, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Matthew McFadyen, Emily Watson and Kelly McDonald

Based on the novel by Leo Tolstoy

Screenplay by Tom Stoppard  

Directed by Joe Wright

We often find ourselves debating with fellow film enthusiasts or filmmakers about the merits of innovation for its own sake. Should a great filmmaker be concerned with always doing something in a new and inventive way? Or should style be dictated by the needs of the story? A marriage of stylistic innovation and good storytelling (such as we got from filmmakers like Alfred Hitchcock,  Orson Welles or Martin Scorsese) is a joy to behold. A story held hostage to a director's need to prove him or herself a stylistic auteur (such as we sometimes get from filmmakers like Zack Snyder or almost anybody working for Jerry Bruckheimer) can be frustrating and impenetrable. Joe Wright's adaptation of Tolstoy's classic Anna Karenina is the most egregious example of the latter in recent memory.

Keira Knightley assumes the title role of Anna, wife of 19^th century Russian government offical Alexei Karenin (Jude) law, who becomes drawn into an affair with the supposedly suave and handsome Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson. ) . Wright has chosen to set his adaptation in a grand opera house, in a surreal style that evokes Baz Luhrman's Moulin Rouge! Except that Luhrman's had a method to its madness. The design and style of the film related directly to both the entertainment based world of the characters and the theme of the delirious feeling of first love. Here, it draws nothing insightful or thematic. It's just, as Moe Syzlak would say, "weird for the sake of weird." And, worse, it acts as such a barrier  to the story that not only is the film incoherent, it's impossible to connect emotionally with a single character or moment of dialogue. We couldn't even muster up heartfelt indifference. This despite a quality cast struggling valiantly in their roles, and a script from the great Tom Stoppard. 

      Most of the attention will likely be on Knightley, as she plays the title role. Kinghtley does fine with what she is given, but it's difficult to judge the performance as the character is so poorly developed. She has no chemistry whatsoever with Taylor-Johnson, who, while having having proved such a strong presence as the title role in Kick Ass, comes across here as Christopher Atkins circa The Blue Lagoon attending a costume party dressed as Timothy Dalton.

What is known as one of the all-time great love stories does not play convincingly as love, romance, lust, or even casual friendship (though, again, we feel we must place the lion's share of the blame on the director rather than the cast). Among the cast, Jude Law fares best. Though we never feel get to know Karenin well enough, Law is srill a powerful prescene who manages to improve the film anytime he's onscreen. Others, such as Emily Watson, are completely wasted in thankless roles. Matthew McFadyen does manage to get a few small chuckles in what seems to be the comic relief role as Prince Stiva.

      The film is a marvel of cinematography and production design. But Joe Wright has committed the most unpardonable sin of directing: he has chosen his need to demonstrate that he is a brilliant auteur over the movie itself at every turn, burying everything in a style so overbearing that sex scenes are staged as almost balletic sequences where in it is difficult to tell which of Knightley and Johnson is which, and where nearly every appearance by a character is marked by frustration at not being able to determine who he or she is supposed to be. It's very difficult to give the film any credit for how visually beautiful it is when the overemphasis on style is so instrumental in making it an abysmal piece of story telling. Ar what should be the most emotional and gripping moments, we are consistently pulled out of the heads and hearts of the characters because the filmmakers are more interested in turning confetti into indoor snow, or making grass grow in theatre seats. There's no denying that this is sometimes a beautiful film to look at if you can stay awake, but it's like trying to admire Denise Richards: no matter how taken you are with the sumptuousness of the body, there's no brain or personality to be found.

        As we were giving our thoughts on the film to the studio representative, the audience member behind us seemed genuinely offended that we referred to the film as "a disaster". "Did you hear that?" she kept repeating to the people accompanying her, "They called it 'a disaster'!". Yes, ma'am, we called it a disaster. And will continue to do so at any opportunity afforded us. Because it is a disaster. In an Oscar season wherein the successes have been triumphant and most of the failures have at least been worthy efforts, Joe Wright has created a candidate for worst film of 2012, ringing more empty and soulless than even the most inane summer blockbusters, and yet will be championed by many as "culture" because its source material is considered a masterpiece.  This emperor has no clothes. He's buck-ass nude. And we are proud to say so.

Anna Karenina is Rated R for sex, though frankly that seems quite harsh, since between the hyperactive editing in the sex scenes and the physical similarities between Knightley and Taylor-Johnson it is quite frankly too hard to tell who or what you are looking in the sex scenes, and though far from subtle, they fall within the range of PG-13 territory.