While I will always love David Lean's 1965 film version of Boris Pasternak's Noble Prize-winning novel, this two-part British miniseries has a lot going for it. First of all, it is more intimate, and includes many smaller characters from the novel that Lean's film did not. And the love story between Lara and Pasha, so lovingly detailed in the novel, also gets its turn to take center stage. Keira Knightely is a beautiful, strong and talented actress, and she had some big shoes to fill, but she more than holds her own. Hans Matheson is gorgeous, although sometimes he seems a bit too broody, and it's a bit hard to understand why he would give up his sweet and lovely wife, Tonya (the luminous Alexandra Maria Lara) for his former nurse/helper. I have to say that Kris Marshall is cute and excellent as Pasha, the young revolutionary, whose love for Lara and jealousy towards the despicable Victor Komarovsky (the appropriately slimy Sam Neill), leads him to join the army and ultimately, become Strelinkov. I especially liked the references to him made by Lara later and the meeting at Varykino between Yuri and Pasha, the two men in Lara's life. Again, this is true to the novel, as is Yuri's childhood friend Misha's (the hot and handsome Daniel Liotti) secret, longing passion for Tonya. The affair between Komarovsky and Lara succeeds in being both fascinating and repulsive and the same time. These love stories, along with the upheaval caused by the revolution and WW1, make for excellent viewing. Of course, people have been complaining about the lack of Russian accents or dialogue, and the brief nude scenes involving Lara and Tonya, since Keira Knightley was still a minor when the movie was shot. Please, it's so brief you'll only notice if you zoom in and pause. It's not as explicit as some movies out there. The only complaint I have is regarding the ending. First of all, Yuri and Lara's child was a girl, not a son, named Tanya, after Yuri's wife. And Tonya was not killed, she moved to Paris with her father and her children, son Sasha and daughter Masha (whom Yuri never meets), and Yuri remarries a woman named Marina. And Komarovsky, who succeeds in possessing Lara again, deliberately leaves little Tanya in a burning street, she is lost, and Lara spends the last part of the novel searching for her. The character of Yevgraf, who was Yuri's half brother, doesn't figure here, but he was an important role in both the novel and the 1965 film. The original film ends with Yevgraf having located the daughter, and learning that she has an instinctive talent for the balalaika (again, important in the novel and in Lean's film, but not mentioned here). And when Yuri sees Lara again, they are both senior citizens, but I guess that can be overlooked. And nothing was quoted from Zhivago's poetry either! But, quibbles aside, it is worth seeing, and get out the Kleenex, and compare with the 1965 version, they are both good in different ways. Enjoy, romantics!
Add a Review
-
Noirdame7911 December 2004
-
margorby26 December 2004I am not going to compare two versions of "Doctor Zhivago". To me they are so different that there is not much grounds for comparison.
I possibly can not share fascination with 1965 movie. It could be viewed as a love story performed by two great actors. But it is anything but Boris Pasternak's story. In Russia they would call it "lubok" - a colorful picture, work of one's imagination. Beautiful but having nothing to do with reality.
2002 version is a story that carries one away not only with its plot but also its truthfulness. And I don't mean just following the events of the book.
Boris Pasternak's book is full of pain - personal and collective. 2002 "Doctor Zhivago" shows true Russia, in so many small details - a woman calling chickens, a library in a church building, hospital beds in a corridor, Russian conversations in the background...And pain.
And it is also full of hope, as no matter how horrible life was, hope never died. And you can see hope in the movie - in Lara's eyes, in Yury's smile.
Thumbs up! -
benbrae7630 August 2006This serialised version of Dr Zhivago was extremely enjoyable with memorable performances from all the cast. I can't comment on how faithful it is to Pasternak's text as I've never read the book, which also leaves me with an unanswered question.
Both David Lean's more poignant movie, and this adaptation left me wondering what happened to Lara's son and daughter, and how they managed to survive alone in the turbulence that was Russia at the time. I suppose I'll have to read the book after all.
Also I thought it rather odd that the serial started narrator-less, yet ended with said son's adult narrative as if he'd been telling the story all along. If he had been, I'm afraid I missed it.
One last point, albeit a little picky...Yuri Zhivago's corpse looked remarkably healthy. Did they have thermostatically controlled coffins in those days or what? However, the ending apart, applause should be given for an excellent production of this Goliath of a story, keeping in mind that David Lean is a hard act to follow. -
jameswj8 December 2002I have never seen the original Doctor Zhivago film, so I can't take any prejudged bias. This mini-series is possibly the best UK mini-series I have ever seen and is a sign that perhaps the UK networks are serious about creating some top qualtiy drama television that HBO have been producing for ages!
The acting is top quality, however, Sam Neill on top form steals every scene he's in, and that's saying something with the quality around him on screen. Keira Knightley and Hans Mathieson are great young stars who would easily make the transisition to big films (although Knightley's already done a Star Wars!). Kris Marshall as Pacha is a welcome revelation, worlds away from the tired "My Family" 'comedy'.
The scene always looks great and you can see the time and effort (not to forget money!) has gone into the creation of this great series. The overall look is very convincing and there is some beautiful theatrical-quality cinematography.
The story however is what makes anything work and here the story is truly great. An epic, tragic romance set against the backdrop of a revolting Russia. The story is handled so well it's a rewarding experience and if you're a bit of a weepie, have your tissues ready!
5/5 -
randb-413 July 2007Never having seen the original version of Dr Zhivago I can't really compare,but for me Keira Knightley just doesn't work in the role of Lara. This is a woman that a previously proper moral man would betray his wife for. That just doesn't ring true. Tonya was sweet,beautiful and loving, why would Yury risk that for this Lara? The chemistry just wasn't there. Am I also the only person that thinks that Keira isn't such a great actress? Lots of pouting and over pronunciation isn't a substitute for fine acting. Sam Neil was suitably menacing,though I didn't feel like he had such a hold over Lara. Kris Marshall, an actor that I really like wasn't convincing as the Pasha/strenlikov character. Hans as Zhivago was adequate, but so nice to look at that I can forgive him any acting shortcoming. My favourite performance was from Alexandra Maria Lara as the betrayed wife. I found myself swallowing hard and blinking back tears when she confronts Lara.All in all not a bad way to pass 4 hours of ironing-considering it was a free gift with the newspaper!
-
DLibrasnow13 December 2004It may be somewhat sacrilegious to admit this, but I actually prefer this production to the David Lean classic. That is an admission however that I do not take lightly, the Lean version having left an indelible impression on my younger life and the beautiful Lara's Theme having haunted me since I first saw the original version on television back in the 1980s. No, when I sat down to watch this 2002 adaptation of the Boris Pasternak epic I was all prepared to be both disappointed and resistant to a newer version of the Omar Sharif/Julie Christie favorite - so what happened? Why am I now sitting here so impressed and involved in what should by all accounts be a poorer step child to the colorful, star-filled 1960s movie. Simply put this movie has the advantage of time. A whole hour longer than the other movie that extra time gives the production of filling in some of the blanks that inhibited to original and more fully exploring the human relationships and interaction between characters. Matheson may not have the acting ability of Sharif but what he does have is the opportunity to more fully realize the character of Zhivago. In this sense this movie is more faithful to the source material and all the better for it. Matheson plays the story of Zhivago, a man brought up in the shadow of tragedy who feels the pull of loyalty to his wife (and childhood friend) Tonya and a deep infatuation for Lara. With the violence of World War I and the Russian Revolution as a backdrop, Zhivago travels through life torn by conflict. Less colorful than the original this mini-series compensates with a strong, well defined script and some star turning performances by Sam Neill and one-time Bond girl Maryam D'Abo (as Lara's mother). Many have also dismissed Keira Knightley in her role as Lara, but I found her both competent and powerful in the role. I found myself both involved in her story and convinced by her portrayal - she was certainly a different Lara than the one depicted by Christie some four decades ago, but one no less realized or compelling. In fact, I would go as far as to say that Knightley's Lara is a more rounded character than Christie's, no doubt due to Knightley's impressive screen presence, but also the longer screen time afforded to her character. One device I found both clever and interesting was real archive footage from the period that is woven into the story in a fascinating manner. Included on this DVD is a text biography of author Boris Pasternak as well as over an hour of interviews with the cast. Prepared to be surprised by this DVD and be prepared to fall in love with a whole new version of the DOCTOR ZHIVAGO story.
-
esteban174714 February 2003The director of this serial did his best, but he did not take into account that Russians behave differently if compared with west Europeans. So the actors and actresses selected, although also they did their best, were far to be real Russians. Some details even were not considered because they were unknown. For example, in cold weather conditions of Russia, moreover in Siberia, no Russian will walk outside without a hat (shapka), and this happened in the serial, Zhivago walking without wearing his shapka. Sex scenes were not necessary in the novel nor in the serial, and the director used it a lot. The version is not bad but for the next one the best would be to have Russian actors and actresses, who are really available in Russia or in Ukraine.
-
songbird288216 March 2006I watched this movie on accident actually, sending someone else to rent "Dr. Zhivago" for me, and he returned with this mini-series, I of course intending the 1967 classic which I love. I gamely watched the re-make anyway and was absolutely thrilled! This version actually had dialog! I hadn't realized how much an actual plot line or character development had been missing from the old one, but I was amazed at how well these characters were developed, lovingly acted and portrayed, and while I have not read the book, it appeared to be a good adaptation. Hans Matheson was a much better Zhivago than Omar Shariff, though I didn't think I would ever find myself saying so, and all the other characters were well-cast. The only disappointment to me was Sam Neill, who is one of my favorite actors. While his performance was solid, I didn't feel that he brought anything extra to Kamarovsky. Even if you love the classic, as I do, give this one a chance.
-
ma-cortes24 December 2022It is a remake to vintage David Lean's Doctor Zhivago (1965) , this (TV) Doctor Zhivago (2002) efficiently directed by Giacomo Campiotti with Hans Matheson as Yury Zhivago , Keira Knightley as Lara Antipova , Bill Paterson as Alexander Gromyko , Sam Neill as Victor Komarovsky and Alexandra Maria Lara as Tonya Gromyko Zhivago . This retelling containing a main and supporting cast frankly excellent and packing colorful cinematography , appropriate production design , nice art design and attractive soundtrack . Sensitive and spectacular mini-series set during Russian revolution and shot in marvelous outdoors. The life of a Russian physician and poet (Hans Matheson , Omar Sharif's character) who, although married to another (Alexandra Maria Lara , formerly acted by Geraldine Chaplin) , falls in love with a political activist's wife, Lara Antipova (Kiera Knightley who previously interpreted Julie Christie). She is the rebel and unfortunate Lara , a young and beautiful girl who is loved by three men: a revolutionary (Kris Marshall , in previous rendition by Tom Courtenay) , a mogul called Kamarovsky (Sam Neill in the role of Rod Steiger). Their lives become intertwined with the drama of Russian revolution . Doctor Zhivago is still married when he meets Lara. Their love story is unfolding against the backdrop of revolution which affects the doctor's career, his family, and his love to Lara.
This is a new version from David Lean's classic who created a real masterpiece , while this one resulting to be an enjoyable television movie - though really inferior- packing emotion , intense drama , love stories and historical events . The film shows the wars between White and Red Armies thoughout the bleak steppes , the desesperation of those on a long , doom-laden journey across the plains of Urals , the last idyll in the mist of snowbound landscapes for Hans Matheson and Kiera Knightley , a charge across the ice and snow-sodden trenches in wartime and guerrilla warriors moving down a group of white-clad youths in a field corn. Impressive production design , glamorous cinematography and emotive as well as evocative musical score , all of them jointed to create an attractive miniseries . The musical score is enticing , though I miss the unforgettable Maurice Jarre's "Lara's Theme" . The high-profile roles are well played by Hans Matheson , Kiera Knightley, and Alexandra Maria Lara . A portentous performance from all-star-cast and notorious support actors help deeply to originate a wonderful film such as Kris Marshall , Daniele Liotti , Anne-Marie Duff , Maryam d'Abo , Sylvia Syms, Celia Imrie , Bill Paterson, Jeremy Clyde, among others . And hundreds of extras were used from Slovakia and Prague, Czech Republic.
The series in two episodes was well directed by Giacomo Campiotti , initially the film failed to make much impact on TV probably due to the critics' lukewarm reception to it and spoiled by the previous succesful Doctor Zhivago (1965) that was the 8th biggest grossing film of all time and after Gone with the wind (1939), the second most profitable film in MGM's history and grossed more than every other film David Lean had directed put together . But gradually, audiences started to pick up, probably due to the increasing popularity of the newcomer actors as Kiera Knightley , Alexandra Maria Lara and Hans Matheson. Rating : 6.5/10 . Decent and acceptable recounting. -
Tom Murray26 November 2003I preferred this to the 1965 film, possibly because of the greater time period since reading the book and possibly because it was Masterpiece Theater not Hollywood and probably because four hours gave it a better chance to be true to the book and realistic acting styles have improved since 1965. The acting was excellent and the story is a classic but I was a little put off with the language; accents included British, Russian and American and, while the central characters spoke English, the background chatter was in Russian, giving the impression that early twentieth century Russia was as Cosmopolitan as Toronto is today.
The film realistically portrays how it is possible for a loving, devoted husband to fall in love with someone else when he is separated from his wife for a long time, knows that he may never see his wife again and is working closely with another, very attractive female. Past films have portrayed this problem, including M*A*S*H in a humorous manner and The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, a serious study. Doctor Zhivago (2002) was the most convincing. It provided a gripping four hours but I will not seek it out again. -
This was an utterly compelling interpretation which really captured the spirit of the Pasternak novel.I appreciated the almost architectural beauty and large landscape of the David Lean film of my generation, yet there was an emotional intensity and a depth of character exploration in this version which was missing from the earlier film. The central characters were complex and believable and not understated icons in an icy landscape. Sam Neill as Komarovsky was a compelling figure and this time you could see why Lara was attracted to him despite the abusive nature of their relationship.Pasternak's central character, Yuri Zhivago,was depicted as a passionate but not bombastic hero. Hans Matheson captured the almost passive poetic romantic whose emotions are torn by the situations in which he finds himself which are reflected in the age of political turmoil that surrounds him.Strong performances by Keira Knightley as Lara and Alexandra Maria Lara as Tanya gave real substance to the tensions he experiences.I had never heard of Keira Knightley when I first saw this production and was amazed at the range which her intelligent acting achieved.Her real age was consistent with that of the young Lara yet she convincingly bridged the gap to the young mother of the later part of the novel. The love scenes were tender, yet passionate and Director Giacomo Campiotti is to be congratulated on his sensitive rendering of these.The relationship between Yuri and Lara truly reflected the sadness of Pasternak's poem,"The Parting."
I only bought the DVD after almost casually coming across this made for TV movie on the box.It's emotional landscape and authentic sets are strong enough to warrant a proper release at the cinema.I suspect Boris Pastenak would have much preferred it to the David Lean film and so did I ! -
mymainbox084 January 2009DR ZHIVAGO is definitely worthwhile viewing for TV fans without the patience or interest to sit through the original film epic on the small screen. Yes, of course the film is a 'classic', however its style and production values are now very old fashioned for a modern audience who expect a fresher feel to what they view on TV, so that's why this new adaptation can sit quite happily in the schedule, because it caters for a different type of market who can't be bothered to watch 'old' films on TV no matter how 'classic' they are. I think it's quite pointless trying to make comparisons between the two works, and this offering should be critiqued on its own merits.
This adaptation has a lot of plus points. The location photography is picturesque and handles the snow scenes admirably. The performance of Hans Matheson playing 'Yury' is compelling - in many ways reminding me of the style of Christian Bale; with that ability to act beneath the skin and to project powerfully through the eyes. He has a strong screen presence. The refined and understated performance of Keira Knightley playing 'Lara' was very pleasing and reminded me of the style of Kate Winslett, in that her acting portrays a very easy grace and gentleness in her delivery and personification of the character; it's a level of subtle sophistication in acting skill that's easy for people not to fully appreciate. The most astounding performance for me, and I'm sure for any British viewer, came from Kris Marshall - in the UK we're very familiar with him on TV as a 'foolish idiot goof' character in a much repeated sitcom and long-running advert spokesman, and he's very much typecast himself in our consciousness via these choices in his career, so to see him in this adaptation barely recognisable playing 'Pasha Antipov/Strelnikov' was very surprising; more surprising still is the fact that he REALLY can act! Kris Marshall turns in a stellar performance, truly suspending disbelief and losing himself in the role to deliver solid convincing work. It would be marvellous now to see him in further challenging roles. Not all the acting was good however. Sam Neill disappoints big time as 'Victor' in a very lacklustre jobbing-actor performance that lacked heart and conviction. My biggest criticism of the production has to be the interior sound recording, which is unforgivably and astonishingly amateur - the echo on the voices was bearable, however many scenes were in rooms with bare wooden floors and even the tiniest foot movement crashed like the clattering hooves of a horse in its trailer - DREADFUL! And surely so EASY for the Director to rectify - if I'd had this problem I'd have glued soft soles, such as a thin piece of foam to the actors' shoes to help silence them if the sound tech couldn't rectify the issue on location . It was the worst interior sound recording of any professional TV production that I can remember and why it was acceptable to the Director I cannot imagine.
Overall, I would certainly recommend this adaptation as worthwhile viewing, especially over the Christmas TV schedule when it was shown in the UK where it fits very appropriately with the season and people have the time to sit back for three hours and watch the full serial epic. -
raterules4 November 2009I can't believe it how many people have rated this film so highly! Don't want to be a troll, but this version is just fake, plastic, hollow. All young good-looking actors with fake beards just can't get to grips with complex personalities of the characters. And everything just looks so clean... even when Zhivago is traveling with partisans. It also doesn't feel connected to Russia or Russians in any way.
I can forgive the 1965 film for these faults, because it's an old Hollywood film, and even there the acting was better.
Can't properly put it into words, but just felt there should be an antidote to the overwhelming majority of strangely positive reviews on this site. All this mini did for me was annoy me at the fakeness of the whole thing. The only thing the film was true to is Keira's pretty face. -
sjm13615 October 2003I've seen David Lean's version, this version and studied (briefly) the life of Pasternak under the Communists. For some reason I can't find a Russian version of this novel - maybe some predjudice still lingers in the FSU. Of all the characters in this novel, Pasternak's favorite isn't Yuri - it's Lara. Maybe Winston Churchchill wasn't talking so much about Mother Russia as he was about her women (there's a reason they call it the Motherland). Russia is an impenetrable mystery, impossible to summarise in a few words and women such as Lara are very difficult to portray for a non-Russian. So don't be surprised if Keira Knightley doesn't seem to have captured the essence of Lara - in fact, she does quite a competent job, probably because of Julie Christie before her. The one quality that Christie had and which is reflected in Knightley is a quiet acceptance of fate (in Russian "sydba"). It's a quality that is very attractive and also the most irritating aspect of Lara. You want to yell at her to kick Komarovsky between the legs but she just soldiers on. Julie Christie , however, captured Lara in one look in David Lean's movie - when Omar Shariff enjoins her to go with Komarovsky and without a word, she looks back at Omar/Yuri with a wordless plea. Knightley's Lara is more forthright, more self assured and in that respect she is faithful to Pasternak's writing. But Christie - and that one look- will always be Lara to me.
-
One wonders why the BBC dared to challenge David Lean's 1965 version of the Boris Pasternak novel with a script by Robert Bolt and a brilliant cast. But the TV series has its virtues -- greater length, allowing for inclusion of more of the novel, and a cast that generally stands well up to comparison with the actors in the film who engraved themselves in our mind's eye as the definitive Zhivago, Lara, Tonya (Zhivago's wife), Komorovsky, and Pasha (afterwards the iron-willed and ruthless Bolshevik general). Although it drags a bit in the first half, the second half of the TV production is exceptionally moving. Keira Knightley (Julie Christie in the film version) exudes sexual attractiveness, of course, but she also captures Lara's initial innocence, her loyalty first to Pasha and then to Zhivago after Pasha disappears, and her emotional depths. Hans Mattheson (Omar Sharif) grows on you as his troubles mount. Alexandra Maria Lara (!) (Geraldine Chaplin in the movie) is splendid both as Zhivago's loving wife and as jilted and martyred lover. Sam Neill (Rod Stieger) is appropriately slimy as Komarovsky, Lara's corrupter and relentless pursuer. Only Kris Marshall (Tom Courtnay) falls especially short; he is unconvincing as the ruthless general. The Alec Guiness character in the movie, General Zhivago, is strangely missing from the TV series, possibly because they were unable to find anyone who could possibly fill Guiness's shoes. Also missing is Lara's theme, the haunting music which many still remember from the movie. I liked the second half of the TV series and am once again impressed by the fact that Keira Knightley is a good deal more than a pretty face. In fact, she is a worthy next-generation successor to the role of ranking female British star.
-
fragglefest13 December 2002Wow - this was fantastic! It really all came together with the last installment and truly broke my heart. I don't see how anyone could not fall madly in love with Hans Matheson as Yury, and Kiera Knightley brought such maturity and worldliness to such a difficult role (amazing at such a young age). Both actors should be commended.
And as for Sam Neill! He was amazing. The screen practically frosted up when he appeared!
I hope that this series is brought out on VHS and DVD so that it can be seen again, and again, and again. In the meantime we will just have to dream of Hans...........! -
johnallard196124 December 2012Overall, 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.
-
khemass10 January 2008I have never read the book or seen the original version of the movie. I bought the DVD because it's on sale and didn't expect much. However, I must say that the film impressed me. It's hard to believe that I can watch something this long and still feel like keep watching it. The movie made me feel as if I am watching someone's life, from the beginning to the end, going through the bitter and the sweet of time. The film is well done. The picture is beautiful. The story is deeply touching. The acting is of quality. Lara and Yuri will stay in my heart forever.
This movie made me think. Great love does not happen to everyone, so if you're lucky to find the other half of your soul, even for a short time in your life, then you must make the best of your time together. It also made me think that if a man I marry found someone he loves so much like this, I will let him go, just like the wife of Yuri did. Although it will hurt, I won't be angry. -
siderite30 September 2018The book is almost impossible to read if you are not into it from the start. A lot of characters, a lot of descriptions and attention to small details, but a complicated narrative structure. I dare say that it is worth watching this adaptation before reading the book just in order to understand who is who and what the hell is going on. However, the book's strength is in the descriptive passages of how people lived and felt, to which the TV adaptation is but a shadow. They removed quite a lot and changed some things just to make it fit into a few hours.
It is also worth noting that Pasternak described all of these lives with a strong love for the people and their perspective and less because of a dislike for a particular system. It was cynical Westerners that used his book to embarrass the Soviets and resulted in much misery, the author's fate similar to the one of some of the characters he wrote.
As Woody Allen summarized a similar Russian work... It's about Russia. -
abbyuk-119 May 2006I completely disagree with the other review on here about this film. This is a remarkable film- it is simply one of the best films I have ever seen. I haven't however, seen the original and when re-makes are done they are inevitably compared to the original. However, even when I do get round to watching the original I know it cannot detract from the brilliance of this version! The performances are absolutely superb all round especially from the two leads (including Kiera Knightly who excels herself in this film I'm not usually too much of a fan of her acting). A truly amazing performance comes from Kris Marshall who plays Strelnikof/ Pasha Antipof- I am in love with this man!! I am now forever a fan. The film is thought-provoking, harrowing and heart-warming in equal measure. Watch this film!
-
LW-0885428 December 2023Starting with the positives first I did really like the costume and production design, I also thought that Sam Neill's acting was brilliant, he totally inhabits his character and brings him to life. The love affair is the best written part of the script. The film is also broadly faithful to the novel and lastly Keira Knightely was an absolute beauty in this adaption.
On the negative side Hans Matheson is not my favourite actor though he is probably well cast here, much better than in Tess of the D'Urbervilles. Kris Marshall all come across as too young and soft to carry the movie, in fact he looks really out of his depth, especially later on in the story. I also didn't like how one boy actor plays two different characters, they also can't seem to decide whether or not they are doing English with English accent or English with a Russian accent. -
goddessofoddness19 February 2006Kiera Knightly is a much better Lara. Julie's Christie was much too pure. Kiera's Lara is complex, and better. Julie Christie never was believable as a young teenager.
Hans Matheson is no Omar Sharif, of course, but he is closer to the appropriate age.
Sam Neill was born to play Komarovsky. So full of cruel, cold ambition and self-absorption.
Tonia is so much better too.
In total, the entire film is broader, and a much more cohesive story. There is no doubt in this film about what drives the characters. There is still no room for the novel's mourning for the death of the individual life, of nobility of spirit, of poetry. But at least here we understand better why Yuri chooses Lara, and why Pasha abandons Lara, and how little Yuri sees his mother vanish. -
akhoya8715 November 2005Led astray from Pasternak's novel and even the original Doctor Zhivago, the movie was perfectly cast with everyone playing the wrong roles. Hans Matheson -- decent actor, but simply isn't suited to play Zhivago. In terms of playing Lara and Tonya, however, Keira Knightley and Alexandra Maria Lara are excellent and superb, matching if not exceeding the performances of their predecessors.
Though I must say, I would have liked to have seen Alexandra Maria Lara play Lara and Keira Knightley play Tonya; but due to Knightley's age, this may have been an impossibility. Both are stunning actresses with remarkable skill and this is reflected in Zhivago.
I am extremely disappointed by the removal of Yevgraf in this version. Some of the plot changes also make the movie implausible; this version disrupts the storyline without filling in the gaps.
If you need to watch a movie to give you an impression of Pasternak's novel, go watch the original. Then watch this. It would be hazardous to do it the other way around. -
vox-sane3 November 2003Pasternak's novel was a love story tucked in an epic set against the turbulent Russian revolution. The novel itself, with its story of illicit love in time of war, was almost the GONE WITH THE WIND of its day. When the time came to make the movie the task fell, quite naturally, to epic film maker David Lean, winner of the Academy Award for his last two pictures (BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA). Lean and screenwriter Robert Bolt (A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, LAWRENCE) did a superb job of distilling the essence of the novel, but left out many characters and events in their 197 minute motion picture (which, until the advent of Lucas and Spielberg, was one of the highest grossing movies ever). Robert Bolt won a deserved Oscar for his work on DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, for his job was formidable. But now that Pasternak's epic sweep was personified by Lean and Bolt, a television version was needed whose focus was Pasternak's (admittedly soap-opera) story without sacrificing any of the other events for time limitations.
The television version that finally appeared was barely an hour longer than Lean's. It would be unfair to compare this version to Lean's, which had a powerhouse cast (Christie, Steiger, Richardson, Courtenay, Guinness), a director with an eye for the cinematic, and a superb script. However, when some of the same sorts of scenes appear, the new version seems like a hollow echo.
This new version also truncates the novel. The dialog is pedestrian. In the old days British television would make adaptations of novels this size that went on for months (ZHIVAGO could sustain it). The interiors were videotaped like stage presentation and the exteriors were shot on grainy film, but the breadth of great novels came across. Four hours was not time enough to do justice to Pasternak. Everything seems to boil down to sex in this version, which is daring -- for the 1960s!
On the plus side, it must be said that Keira Knightley (Lara) is pure sex on the screen. Her character is hardly the thrall of Komarovsky she is in the novel (the victim she is in Lean's movie). Again, this might have been daring forty years ago. It seems the writers of this movie missed the other revolution (the sexual revolution) that might've gotten them past this approach to the material to focus on the larger view of the Russian revolution the novel presents. We had the love story, done a whole lot better, decades ago. We're still waiting for a version that does justice to Pasternak. -
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.