User Reviews (100)

Add a Review

  • The poor reviews that I've seen seem to betray either delusion or a complete misunderstanding of the book. This is an excellent adaptation.

    War and Peace is a story of mortals, fallible, corrupt, and yet full of love and hope. Some of the reviewers seem to have gotten in their head that Prince Andrey or Natasha should be like gods and goddesses when Tolstoy could not have intended anything farther from that. Tolstoy meant for us to see how the lives of admirable men and women are yet filled with foolishness. We are meant to see that in the end, the foolishness shouldn't matter.

    Others seem to be aghast that there's infidelity, violence, and dishonesty. My God, I can only imagine that these reviewers would be better off watching Barney and Friends. This adaptation captures brilliantly Tolstoy's view of how terrible the course of human interaction can run, and yet there is something magical to life.

    As far as the casting goes, I personally thought Sonya was a little too plain, Princess Marya a little too attractive, and Pierre rather too skinny, but these physical quibbles are nitpicky. Each performance seems true to Tolstoy's characterizations, if not the idealizations people have conjured in their minds. In my view, Denisov, though a minor character, is particularly brought to life. The old Prince Bolkonsky also is terrific.

    Finally, I am no expert on 19th century Russian aristocratic dress or interior design, but frankly I saw nothing particularly out of place. I would be quite surprised if any of the reviewers who took issue with the costumes or the decorations were far more knowledgeable.
  • Anybody who even as much attempts to adapt Leo Tolstoy's magnum opus 'War and Peace' deserves at least a pat on the back for trying, regardless of how successful it is in doing so or not. The novel is one of the greatest there is, but because of the enormous length (one of the longest novels I've ever read, and it was admittedly not the easiest to immediately get gripped at first), very rich story and dialogues, and complex characterisations and themes it is also one of the most difficult to adapt.

    Of the major versions, the best version is the 1972 mini-series with Anthony Hopkins, not only an ideal adaptation of the book and as faithful as one could get but also brilliant in its own right, one of the best the BBC ever produced. The 1966 Russian one directed by Sergei Bondarchuk, while not as accessible, is a close second, a towering achievement and contains the best battle and ballroom scenes of all the War and Peace adaptations. The 1956 King Vidor film has a number of good things, like the production values, the music score, Audrey Hepburn and some of the supporting cast but the sound quality and two male leads are very problematic and the story is not as riveting as it could have been. Faring least is the 2007 adaptation with Clemence Posey as Natasha, beautiful production values and some impressive supporting performances but sunk by the problematic performances of the three leading characters, awkward and underwritten script-writing and bland storytelling.

    This latest offering from 2016 courtesy of BBC is not as good as the 1972 mini-series or the Sergei Bondarchuk, but is far more successful than the 1956 film and 2007 adaptation. It isn't one hundred percent flawless, agree with Andrew Davies himself that the mini-series could have been two episodes longer as the final episode did feel a little rushed and Helene's story too hastily and conveniently wrapped up. Although the production values are wonderful on the whole, some of the costumes don't fit as well with the period and are not as lavish as the rest and some of the make-up is 21st century-ish.

    However, considering that adapting 'War and Peace' is a mammoth task and virtually impossible to be word for word, detail for detail this does very well as an adaptation. It is condensed and not one hundred percent faithful, but the heart and soul of the book is there and while focusing predominantly on the relationships between the characters and the characterisations it is very intelligently written and everything feels coherent and emotionally investible. Even if the Sergei Bondarchuk film has more beautiful ballroom scenes and more powerful war scenes, this adaptation hardly underwhelms in either.

    'War and Peace' (2016) stands brilliantly on its own, and shouldn't be marked down solely for it not being a completely faithful adaptation, that is not fair on the adaptation as they are two different mediums and deserve to be treated as such. It is wonderfully made for starters. The photography is some of the most beautiful personally seen all year on television, almost poetic and heart-breaking in its beauty (episode 3 is particularly striking), the settings, interiors and period detail is sumptuous in every sense and it's always special when scenery is like a character all of its own and the Russian landscapes is one of the greatest examples of that, as well as looking exquisite, seen anywhere on film or television not just this year but possibly ever.

    Another standout is the music score, words cannot describe how amazing it is. Not only is it so dynamic with every scene, with the haunting choirs, chilling ambiance, poetic nuance and rousing bombast even enhancing the impact, but it serves as an amazing score on its own and one of the best music scores for television this year as well as worthy of its very own soundtrack album. The script is very literate and intelligent, the characterisation meaty and the dialogue always flowing beautifully. The storytelling throughout is engrossing with a lot packed in but elaborated upon enough to make it fascinating and easy to follow.

    Performances are top-notch, regardless of any reservations as to whether certain actors are right physically. Paul Dano's sensitive and multi-faceted portrayal Pierre is one of the most successful ones of all 'War and Peace' adaptations, and is one of his best overall performances. Wasn't sure about Lily James at first, but as the character grows James grows too and becomes enchanting. James Norton is a handsome, commanding and tragic Andrei. In support, standouts are an outstanding Jessie Buckley, Tuppence Middleton as a Helene that's somewhat both a villain and a victim and Jim Broadbent's incredibly powerful and affecting Bollonsky (especially his breakdown).

    Overall, a very successful adaptation of 'War and Peace'. 9/10 Bethany Cox
  • I read Tolstoy's WAR AND PEACE when I was fifteen, and over the years I've read it so many times that the characters are almost like friends and family. And I have to say that on the whole this BBC adaptation was exciting, romantic, and great fun to watch!

    Lily James is perfect as Natasha Rostov. She excels at capturing all the moods of a young girl's coming of age, from giddy excitement to tearful despair to frank curiosity about men and sex. The thing about Natasha is that she has to be as natural and exuberant in a fabulous ballgown surrounded by glittering aristocrats as she is in a log cabin making merry among the Russian peasants. That's a lot to take on and Lily James manages it all perfectly. Bravo!

    James Norton and Jessie Buckley are both tremendously impressive as the Bolkonsky siblings, Andrey and his sister Marya. Both of them capture how deeply spiritual their characters are, in very different ways. Prince Andrey's search for meaning leads him to a near death experience on the battlefield, but his spiritual longings come across clearly even when is acting the part of a haughty aristocrat. Jessie Buckley's longing for her father's love is beautifully expressed, as is her devotion to Christian love in general. In the book Tolstoy suggests that Princess Marya's goal is simply "to love men as Christ loved men" and that quality is evident in every scene she plays.

    I had a lot of trouble accepting Paul Dano as Pierre Bezukhov. So much of Pierre's stature in the novel comes from . . . well, from his stature. He's described over and over as being tall, broad shouldered, clumsy, too big to fit indoors, moving like a big bear. His childlike qualities, his kindness and trusting nature, are balanced out by a gigantic and often menacing physical presence.

    Now, Paul Dano gets the childish side of Pierre perfectly, but in the darker moments there's definitely something missing. Even when he's a prisoner of the French he comes across more like Billy Pilgrim in SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE than like the Pierre of the book, who is looked upon by both prisoners and guards as a natural leader. I think there's a tendency today to downplay brute male strength as a positive asset, and Paul Dano's casting is symptomatic of a kind of bizarre politically correct form of censorship. But after all, this is a very multi- faceted character, and Paul D. certainly does capture Pierre's gentleness and kindness.

    I don't want this to be a ten page review, so I just want to say that the rest of the very large cast is absolutely extraordinary. While Andrey, Pierre, Natasha and Marya are so complex that no actor could really capture them completely, there are dozens of lesser characters who actually come more to life in this mini-series than they do in the book itself. I just want to mention very briefly the following performances:

    Tom Burke as Dolohov and Thomas Arnold as Denisov . . . these two characters are like book-ends, the good guy soldier and the bad guy soldier. And the two Toms nail them perfectly!

    Aisling Loftus as Sonya was a true revelation. Reading the book as a kid, I always felt like Tolstoy had it in for Sonya. She's the poor relation who always gets left out in the cold, and Tolstoy does a lot of victim-blaming to rationalize how the system works. But Aisling Loftus gives Sonya a depth, strength, and courage that's actually better than what's in the book!

    Greta Scacchi and Adrian Edmondson as Countess Rostov her husband Count Rostov. So much of the magic of WAR AND PEACE comes from the sense of family warmth and happiness in the Rostov home. These two actors really make you understand why Nikolay and his sister Natasha are so much loved and so at home in the world, because they grew up with the most loving parents imaginable! Even their flaws are endearing and totally believable.

    Tuppence Middleton and Callum Turner really make an impression as the evil, deadly siblings, Helene and Anatole Kuragin. The two of them are like a perfectly matched pair of dragons, or a couple of deliciously deadly vampires set down among the unsuspecting nobility! But the actors find something sad and almost desperate about both of them, keeping them real and capturing the humanity of Tolstoy's vision even with characters he painted in very broad strokes.

    The highest compliment you can pay to this production is that the great characters are represented in (almost) all their complexity, and that there are minor characters who are more real here than they were on the printed page. What a fabulous achievement for the writer, the director, the fabulous cast and the BBC!
  • janewarren227 January 2016
    I have read some of the reviews, and seen previous versions so looked forward to this with both hope and trepidation. I loved Anthony Hopkins in the 70s as Pierre, Sergay Bondachuk in the Russian version and Henry Fonda earlier than that. The character is one of my all time favourites, so it took me a while to take to Paul Dano, but once I had, I found it to be a sensitive performance that had its own merits, and deserves praise. Jim Broadbent, Ade Edmondson and the rest of the cast also make it worthy of your time.

    All I can say is enjoy the show, lap up the scenery, wallow in the wonderful characters and costumes, charge in your minds eye to battle and dance at the balls. Visit Old St Petersburg without leaving your armchair and be entertained. The book has too much to ever do justice to, (unless perhaps Peter Jackson took it under his wing).
  • I can't tell you how curious I was to see this. Being both a Russian and a crazy fan of Andrew Davies adaptations. And, in a nutshell, I found W&P series heart-warming and absolutely satisfying. Truth be told - even finally opening up the greatness of this famous book to me. Never mind that it was written by my compatriot : )

    A lot of students in Russia find the Leo Tolstoy masterpiece too big and too daunting. But it's a literature landmark, and you have to read it at school, at least skim through it : ) And because of that whopping size, it's hard to perceive the story as a whole - you just get too exhausted waiting for this or another thread to pick up again. However, Mr Davies shone his genius on us one more time - he took the essence of the story and presented it to a modern viewer in a digestible and tasty way. A big applause.

    So, the choice of scenes for the script I find marvellous. Our own movie filmed by Sergey Bondarchuk is loved by many, especially by the older generation. But I've always thought it had too much emphasis on the war side of the novel. And what do we, women, watch period dramas for? : ) Of course more for the relationship side, to watch multilayered characters unfold. And Andrew masters this to perfection. It flows easily, one could watch all 6 episodes in a row - except that it's not a light and romantic Pride & Prejudice. This is deeper and more dramatic food for thought, which requires a break somewhere along the way.

    The cast is generally very-very-very good. Pierre is portrayed brilliantly. I can't think of a better or a more sincere one. I also loved the choice of actress for Mariya Bolkonskaya, watching her I could forget this is a foreign actress. Can't say the same about Natasha Rostova, though. To me this was the worst casting fiasco. I'm sure Lily James tried her best. But I, personally, found her annoying in this part. I would prefer to enjoy her performance in Downton Abbey.

    On the negative side are the erotic scenes. They are soooo off here. Can you imagine Mr Wickham and Lidiya having fun on the dining room table? I doubt the British audiences would approve of it in the adaptation of their beloved classic. So I couldn't understand why it was included here. The production isn't Tudors, so that's something which is expected least of all.

    The other day I read a review by a Russian film critic, which said, "This wouldn't be a truly British adaptation if it didn't end with a scene of domestic bliss" : ) Ironic as it may sound, I find it a good thing and something to thank the production team for. Why not? I enjoyed the final scenes, even though in the original book some less satisfying points were highlighted by the author.

    All in all, I felt the series was filmed with attention to detail (as best one can), respect for the original material (for the most part), as well as the nation's culture and traditions. After the disastrous "Anna Karenina" and "Onegin", which ruined 2 other all-time classics of the Russian literature, "War and Peace" by Andrew Davies was a pleasant treat. I just wish this outstanding man 200 years of a happy and productive life, so the world could enjoy more of his projects.
  • War& Peace finished on TV last night and in my opinion it was one of the finest programmes I have ever seen on TV!! The producers may of had the American market in mind as the six part series was all but a precis of Tolstoys monumental work. And to be honest I found the ending superior to the morbid epilogue of Tolstoy. Many intellectuals will say that you must not change the structure of the original for an adaptation. But as an analogy I believe Verdi and Boito's adaptation of Othello is better than the Shakespeare original. For me the finest scene was the pathos we saw was Pierre met the peasant Platon Karataev and his dog Sashenka. Here Pierre finally finds out what life is all about ,as he expects to be shot by the French or frozen to death. Paul Dano as Count Pierre Bezukhov underplays his part brilliantly. The whole ensemble cast including Stephen Rea as Prince Vassily Kuragin are terrific.
  • Andrew Davies' latest BBC production, War & Peace, is an absolutely splendid TV adaptation of the epic novel.

    First things first: do not compare a six hour adaptation to the book. Of course there can not be the same level of detail either in character development or plot. This adaptation should be taken on its own merits.

    In my option, the outstanding components of this version are:

    1. Paul Dano is well suited as Pierre, particularly in his well- practised range (from meek and mild to a raging temper) as seen in, to name one example, There Will Be Blood.

    2. The cinematography is stunning. There are beautiful close-ups of couples dancing, for instance, sprawling vistas and an impressive symmetry to various shots.

    3. The score is impressive in its variation and poignancy.

    4. The costumes are, as you would expect, incredible.

    I'm looking forward to seeing the remaining three episodes!
  • The negative comments here, which I read after watching the miniseries, led me to two things: First, re-read the book, which I hadn't done in ages. Second, I re-watched the Bondarchuk version, which I'd seen way back then when it was first theatrically released. I have to say that all I remembered was simply its length and the scope of the war scenes as it had been widely impressed on viewers at the time that the Soviet army had actually re-enacted them with the blessing of the Soviet state, a propaganda coup in those Cold War times. Yet I seem to remember it as a bit of a bore.

    Frankly, people, those who are so negative about this miniseries seem to have watched something else altogether different or need go back and reread the book (if they ever did) and rewatch the Bondarchuk version (ditto). Unlike their claims, it's so happens that the miniseries is actually quite close to the book and a very honorable rendition of Tolstoy's work. Certainly, it doesn't portray Tolstoy's lengthy disquisitions on history and so on, obviously because they are not cinematographic. As to casting, people seem to forget that Bondarchuk, then in his forties, cast himself in the role of Pierre-and he didn't happen to be a very good actor, to boot! Fonda was clearly badly cast, but so was Bondarchuk with the aggravating circumstances that in his case it comes across as a vanity thing. This round goes to Dano, who is an excellent actor and way closer in age to the character.

    The other role that seems to have particularly grated on people is Natasha. But in Bondarchuk's film, the role went to a ballet dancer, with no acting experience except for the artificial miming required in the 19th century classic ballets. And this shows bigly, as she plays Natasha as though she were dancing the role! As a former dancer who has also been trained in acting, I can vouch for the differences between the two performance genres and how an unpondered transfer of techniques used in one don't necessarily transfer well to the other. Watching her enact Natasha is excruciating as her gesturing, posturing, and body movement, very obviously coming from ballet miming conventions, are quite artificial and stilted. She simply looks like she strayed into the series from a performance of Swan Lake. Lily James is a perfectly good actress and this round goes to her as well.

    All in all, while I can't speak of all the versions out there since I've only seen Hepburn's, Bondarchuk's, and this miniseries, I think this the best of what I know. And I appreciate it greatly for its cohesiveness, faithfulness to the original, excellent production values, acting, and overall quality.
  • What i like about this adaptation is that it gives the younger audience the chance to know why war and peace is one of the most important stories written so far. It is already known that most of the young population doesn't like to read books especially when its a long ones.I like TV series and films for the fact they can deliver a story similar to a book and some times even better.No place to argue that the screen is taking over now so why don't use it to tell famous and good story .So far i've seen 5 episodes and they are all made very well , directors and actors job is just awesome , i strongly recommend this adaptation to everyone!
  • Contrary to many opinions here, I found it rather watchable and even enjoyable at times. It felt like a polished, brushed, and westernized version of the original novel, and to my view there was little "Russian" spirit in the series. But I understand that overall it fits well within the BBC format of period movies such as those based on Jane Austin works. Perhaps this was the creators' way to make it more watchable for the modern audience.

    Of course, the best thing about this version of W&P is Paul Dano - to me, he's been born for this part. Kind, intelligent, noble, sensitive, soft, fragile, often a restless soul - Dano is all these things. Couldn't even dream of such count Bezukhov. Another strong suit of the movie, as many noted, are the locations and set decorations. Amazing. The costumes, on the other hand, looked at best questionable to me, especially when it came to Natasha's, Sonia's, and princess Bolkonskaya's dresses and styles. I was simply shocked by how the former two were dressed for their first appearance in the movie: seriously, they are young countesses, does the costume designer really believe that Russian nobility had no taste whatsoever in fashion? Unfortunately, apart from Paul Dano, I found most of other casting choices rather disastrous (especially Lily James as Natasha). They all are fine actors, but not suited for their parts, with rare exceptions. I felt that a more thorough casting job should have been done.

    Overall, I think that it is still possible to enjoy this new production, especially if you haven't read the book.
  • eapplebaum7 February 2016
    I watched the whole series in a few sittings and I found it to be worthy of it's literary masterpiece status. From the acting, the directing, the production design, set design, costume design even makeup each component of a production that brings a great piece of literature to visual life was to done here perfectly. The content evoked deep emotion and I commend everyone on such a lovely job. everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion but I believe sometimes people get so caught up in what and how they think a book should be depicted they forget to become a little objective and just "feel" what is being portrayed. One might not have chosen the cast this production did, but that does not take away the talent that shined. I thoroughly enjoyed that terribly bittersweet and epic story in film version. It contains so much sadness, I honestly don't think I can read it again and this was a wonderful substitute for being able to revisit Tolstoy's War and Peace another time.
  • lucinda_blue19 October 2019
    Whilst certainly still relatively gripping and entertaining (mostly due to following a very good story) it was almost like half of it was playing in fast forward! It felt very much at times like the scenes reflecting on relationships or situations lost had much more focus and airtime than the original telling of said relationship or situation, in this way losing a lot of depth of feeling and emotion that could have been achieved in a much longer season running.
  • Submitted on behalf of my Russian immigrant mother-in-law and student of Russian literature, who was very disappointed in this film version of War and Peace.

    War and Peace is about three aristocratic families: St. Petersburg's Kuragins are close to the Tsar (Tolstoy uses irony to show his dislike of them); the provincial Rostovs, who are in the process of losing everything; and the Bolkonskys of the old aristocracy, who are favored by the author. The novel is huge and extremely detailed in its descriptions of characters and details of Russian life in the beginning of 19th century.

    Leo Tolstoy intended his historical novel to be a majestic and profound one. In this film adaptation, "War" remains faithful to the novel. This is evident in the majestic panorama of the battle at Borodino, or the tragic escape of the broken and hungry French Army as they advance through the snow, and the impossible roads of a vast and empty Russia. However, "Peace" leaves much to be desired.

    At the party of the house of the Grand Dame Anna Pavlovna Sherrer, one of the guests, Princess Drubetskaya, asks Prince Kuragin to find her son a safe (comfortable) position in the Tsar's army. In her gratitude she kisses Kuragin's hand. Why? Only servants kissed the hands of their owners, or children kissed the hands of their parents. So why does the princess kiss Kuragin's hand?

    The house of Count Rostov in Moscow, shown in the movie several times from its backyard with livestock, such as pigs, chicken, etc., is not an accurate depiction of an aristocrat's home. No aristocrat's home, especially in a city such as Moscow, would have such a backyard. Furthermore, Pierre would never enter Rostov's home, or any home for that matter, through the backyard. That is a servant's entrance.

    There is a certain responsibility when working with historical material. One must show respect to the epoch being shown and understand the significance of decorum, protocols of behavior, etc. It is equally important to have actors who correspond to the characters of the novel and the times in which they lived. Tuppence Middleton's portrayal of Helene Kuragina (later Bezukhova) was taken too far from the character of this classic. Tolstoy wrote of Helene's beauty as if she were a perfect Greek statue. Napoleon, seeing her in the theater, praised her beauty. Pierre, standing next to her, wanted to own this beauty. So, the scene of her having sex on the dinner table is so modern and vulgar that I am afraid poor Count Leo Tolstoy turned around many times in his grave, as the Russian proverb says.

    Similarly, the character of Anatol Kuragin is also miscast. Callum Turner's portrayal of this character on screen is so far from how Anatol is developed in the novel that it leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of Natasha's behavior in the movie. In the novel, the young, beautiful, and smart Natasha (with her inner understanding of people) sees extreme beauty, bravery, confidence, and arrogance in Kuragin, and she is smitten. It is impossible to accept while watching this movie why Natasha has any passionate desire to run away with Anatol, who is played by a stiff, uncertain, and unhandsome actor.

    I could go on in detail about several other characters and, to a point, I will: The stiffness and monotonousness of James Norton does not show all the transformations through the life of Tolstoy's favorite character, Andrei Bolkonsky. There is some luck despite the wrong appearance of the actor who plays Pierre Bezuhov. In the novel, Pierre is a huge bear of a man, sometimes even comical looking. Though he may not look his part, fortunately, the talented Paul Dano tries to play him accordingly to L. Tolstoy's idea of Pierre. And it seems Dano is the only actor here who read the novel and understood his character.

    This film did not do justice to Tolsoy's telling of Russian aristocracy in the 19th century; it looks more like the petty bourgeoisie of some unknown country. But, thanks to the movie, I reread the novel with great pleasure. I am afraid, though, I and Paul Dano were the only ones who did.
  • After Anna Karenina, I was looking forward to War and Peace being more epic and heart rending. And I have not been disappointed so far. The story line seems a little bit rushed at times, but this was a truly mammoth story and Andrew Davies has a reputation for making fine series out of monumental classics.

    So far there is rather more peace than war, but the three central characters, Pierre, Prince Andrei and Natasha seem remarkably well cast and the eternal triangle is forming in a complex way, as expected. The series does not feel terribly Russian but clearly the culture and problems that existed at the time were peculiar to continental Europe. Napoleon was terrorising all of Europe and like many before and after him, thought that Russia would fall under his spell. Its therefore no wonder that characters like Prince Andrei found the military a perfect vehicle for their ambitions and patriotism. But the war was clearly going to decimate many of the leading members of Russian society.

    Tolstoy's ability to tell a complex love story is already showing through, and the lesser characters like Prince Vassily, Andrei;s sister Marya and Jim Broadbent's wonderful cameo as Andrei's father make this first rate entertainment.

    My only complaint would be that there is not more of this spellbinding story.

    Mary Gumsley
  • carinalynn9825 April 2021
    I don't care if they deviated from the books, this is a beautifully made series.
  • tomcervo7 August 2017
    This is not a review of the series--you like it or you don't--it's about the way you'll get to see it. The original UK presentation was a six part series totaling 370 minutes. The first five episodes were roughly the same length; the sixth ran longer. These are the scripts as written by Davies. This is the content of the UK discs. The US and Canadian discs contain eight episodes, totaling 357 minutes--13 minutes less than the UK version. They are all exactly 45 minutes long.

    The most obvious cut is the entire 13 minute sequence in which the Kuragins try to marry off Anatole to Marya Bolkonsky. (Most of the reviewers seemed to think that Jessie Buckley's Marya was one of the high points of the series, but apparently the US programmers didn't agree.)

    There are other, more subtle cuts; and some of the deleted scenes on the UK disc extras are in their place. They don't seem to have any particular reason other than to fit the 45 minute time limit--which also seems to throws off the continuity that Davies crafted. In one scene Nikolai and Denisov are in their quarters, each with a girl in bed. Nikolai has to go. The US scene ends there; in the UK version, Denisov tells Nikolai's girl to get in his bed to stay warm and they all go back to sleep. In another, Count Rostov's dance on Natasha's name day is cut short, but appears fully in the short bonus feature. (It seems that the US cable presentation, in two hour blocks, actually comprised 90 minutes of actual show and half an hour of ads.)

    As well, the UK version comes on three discs and looks like a premium release; the US version comes on two discs and looks like a rental release. The UK release is region 2, view-able on multi-region or hacked viewers, or a computer with a multi-region program, readily available through shareware. Or you can wait for the full UK version to get to the US.

    UK version: 10; US version: 8.5
  • To me, BBC is associated with great books adaptations: "Pride and Prejudice", "Little Dorrit" etc. War and Peace is not an exception. First of all, great casting! Lily James makes a very good Natasha Rostova and Paul Dano portrays really well Pierre Bezukhov, judging by the first episode. The only adaption, I had seen, was Russian adaption, which won an Oscar. So, it was a wonderful surprise to watch how BBC interpreted the book. Even though it was just one episode so far, but it seems they managed to keep the soul of the book intact. Another thing is the costumes! They look absolutely authentic and attention was paid even to a smallest detail! I hope next episodes will be as good as the first one!
  • manchoasatiani26 December 2022
    This is A true masterpiece in every way. Cinematography, acting and Adaptation From Book to Screen all is perfect. Best adaptation of this genius novel .well Done BBC. War and peace is best novel ever written. Lily james, paul dano , and james norton are so good as natasha rostova, pierre pezhukov, and andrei bolkonsky. I recommend this to everyone who loves good literature and good movies. This very best from BBC from last decade. I dont understand why some people dose not like this adaptation. This version made me to read book . And this is perfect example hot to adapt classic novel to the screen.
  • Consistent with the novel. Generally historically accurate. You can watch this first and read the novel next and you shall see how these series are consistent with the novel.
  • This seemed more like a an adaptation of Tolstoy's epic by the script writers that transferred her books to the little screen. maybe the BBC should have called it War & Prejudice or Gorky Park. It seemed to focus a bit too much on the tittering girls worrying about marriage. The miniseries just felt another of the many same types of staple shows to poke at British aristocracy and little to do about Russians, except it was filmed in Russia.
  • War & Peace is simply a triumph. I did try to read the book once, the word 'try' being operative, so I'm not considering it as an interpretation of the printed page. I've never been compelled to write a review for a TV series before, but as a piece of celluloid art this was spellbinding.

    The performances were universally perfect, from the central characters to the more periphery. Paul Dano as Pierre Bezukhov gave us a wonderfully human portrayal of intelligence and humanism struggling against the barbarity of war and the debauchery of peace. Lily James was enchanting as Natasha Rostova, painting her journey from a carefree, inexperienced girl to a fallen woman in delicate colours. The scenes of her reunited with Andrei Bolkonsky (an excellent James Norton) were heart wrenching, as was the ending. I'm not sure a TV series has ever elicited tears from this viewer before, but this one certainly did during the final episode, and three times!

    The other particularly emotional scene was between Marya Bolkonskaya (the lovely Jessie Buckley) and Nikolai Rostov (Jack Lowden).

    Also brilliant were Jim Broadbent as the cantankerous Prince Bolkonsky and Adrian Edmondson as the affable Count Ilya Rostov, being the two bookends of the piece. Every performance was pitch perfect and I should now list every cast member with a superlative attached, but...

    Of course, a great performance needs a great script as it's foundation stone. Andrew Davies had a string of wonderful adaptations to his name already (including Pride & Prejudice, 1995) and this one might just have topped the lot. Tom Harper, the director, has definitely given us his best work to date allowing the performances to shine yet also giving us spectacle and drama on a breathtaking scale. It will be interesting to see what he does next.

    I cannot recommend this highly enough. If you haven't yet seen it, please don't miss it. You will be amply rewarded.
  • This has the look and slow pace of a typical BBC Masterpiece production, good if you like that, and I usually do, especially the Dickens novels. (check out Martin Chuzzlewit for Paul Schofield's best performance) However, unlike most, in Tolstoy's major work, they've not remained true to the original literature.

    Apparently (I've seen only Pt 1 myself), after reading a major media review, they've decided to sex up this story with scenes never in the Tolstoy novel.. in pt 1 a brother got in bed w his sister (both adults) in the morning, something inappropriate that I never remembered from any Tolstoy novels.. later there will be an infidelity they've thrown in as well -- poetic license apparently means RATINGS TRUMP LITERATURE.. I'm surprised they didn't add some gory violence as well, the more explicit, the more teenage viewers will love it.

    FOR ME: IF you're going to film a major work of literature, then film THAT work, don't recreate it in your own modern perception filter of what it should have been.. or just write something original (if you can), but don't twist the classics into something more ratings worthy.

    After seeing all four parts of this, I will no doubt immensely prefer the 1966 Russian version (even though subtitled), seven hours long with 250,000 Red Army extras in the war scenes, directed by actor Sergey Bondarchuk, shown here on PBS in four parts. A more epic and cinematic film, it had much better pace, more passion, and didn't invent scenes with the audience in mind. The war scenes in this TV production are very 'cheesy' by comparison.
  • I had seldom looked forward to a drama so much as War and Peace, when I first heard of its release I thought they'd strike gold, the opportunities were huge, sadly the realisation wasn't up to the high expectations I had.

    I'll start with the positives, the scenery was superb, the locations, spellbinding, you cannot help but admire. On occasion the filming looked quite good. Gillian Anderson looked jaw dropping, but perhaps more suited to a drama that wasn't War and Peace.

    Sadly some of the casting felt wildly wide of the mark, at times I felt like Victoria Wood and Julie Walters were going to jump out with a funny line, it had that historical comedy feel at times. They failed to capture the edge of Tolstoy's novel, it was too light, lacking any sort of Russian edge. Paul Dano was shockingly cast, some actors have a modern appearance and presence, he certainly has, he felt out of place.

    I love James Norton, he's a brilliant, hugely capable actor who deserves a lot more then this.

    Sadly this missed the mark. It somehow just doesn't feel right, 4/10
  • I remember reading the book, and it was such a distinct and a particular period of my life. I slowly read the book in three months, and it is a certain feeling that comes to my mind now when I think about the book, rather than any specifics regarding the content. It's a feeling that is similar to the one you have concerning an epic tale, like reading LOTR or Harry Potter series.

    As for the mini-series, I understand that in the medium of a 6-episoded mini-series, it is going to be very difficult to arouse in the reader the same or similar kind of response that the books may produce. But I must say the soundtrack (or the music, or whatever is the correct term for that) does a marvelous job of providing that epicness. It really makes it much more easier and enjoyable to be empathetic towards especially Pierre and Andrei.

    Great job overall, amazing choice of cast.
  • Greetings from Lithuania.

    "War & Peace" (2016) is a good mini-series, definitely worth watching if you haven't read a book or watched any previous adaptations. I loved music (amazing), costumes (amazing), cinematography (sometimes stunning) the most - those are the highlights of this adaptation.

    The leading lady Lily James was just OK in my opinion, but this is not a strongest aspect of this series, although if i understood the whole story and point of it correctly, she is the central figure of it, the one which faces War & Peace times and is changed by them. Although you can see how this naive and very optimistic young woman changes during the events, it's sadly wasn't the best casting choice in my opinion. Paul Dano was OK to, but no awards will shine in leading acting department, Greta Scacchi and Jim Broadbent were the highlights of acting.

    Overall, "War & Peace" has some pacing problems, and there are some long scenes that drags in the middle of show. Overall acting isn't superb in this show and the scope - well i think to film this kinda epic you have to go big, or don't go at all. It is a very good thing that they ever tried and they succeeded in general, but this show does not rank among the best i've ever seen by far. That said it is not a bad show by any means - it's a good one, and the fact that it was filmed in my native Lithuania probably adds one point to a 8/10 overall score. Worth watching for great craftsmanship and magnificent story, which now i will definitely witness by watching legendary "Voyna i Mir" (1966) by Sergey Bondarchuk.
An error has occured. Please try again.