Own the rights?
25 out of 32 people found the following review useful: A surprisingly involving and more faithful adaptation, 13 December 2004 Author: DLibrasnow from Washington DC, USA
It 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to watch this 2002 adaptation of the Boris Pasternak epic I was all prepared to be both disappointed and resistant to a newer version of the Omar Sharif/Julie Christie favorite - so what happened?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.
21 out of 26 people found the following review useful: a perfect Zhivago, 16 March 2006 Author: songbird2882 from United States
I 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.
15 out of 19 people found the following review useful: A New Adaptation With Some Advantages, 11 December 2004 Author: Roseofsharon969 (Roseofsharon979@live.com) from Canada
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
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!
12 out of 17 people found the following review useful: This is so believable, so true to life!, 26 December 2004 Author: margorby from Canada
I 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!
7 out of 10 people found the following review useful: David and Goliath?, 30 August 2006 Author: benbrae76
This 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.
5 out of 7 people found the following review useful: Not Even Close!, 10 December 2003 Author: tholar-1 from woodburn, oregon
This has beautiful scenery, but the acting is plastic, non emotional and in my opinion, anyone who considers this as a viable alternative to the original should be barred from making any other comments for at least 12 months
8 out of 13 people found the following review useful: A riddle wrapped in an enigma, 15 October 2003 Author: sjm136 from New Zealand
I'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.
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful: Once again an experience that leaves you with a lasting impression., 4 March 2006 Author: Harm ten Napel from Netherlands
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.
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful: Another disappointing English adaptation of Dr Zhivago, 28 December 2002 Author: Rod Evan from Amsterdam, Netherlands
Try to imagine two versions of a classic English novel filmed in Ukraine twice but never once in England and then maybe my criticism of this film adaptation be a little less unkind.Firstly the actors: other users praise the acting abilities of Hans Matheson and Keira Knightley. OK, they both look good and Matheson looks totally right as Zhivago but in all honesty they are really not that exceptional. Looking decorative seems to have taken the place of the burning passion that an adaptation of this book needs. David Lean's film was equally guilty in this area.What we really need is a full blooded Russian version of this novel. But with the current state of the Russian film industry and the decline of Russian culture in general, that is an unlikely prospect. Maybe this is finally an unfilmable book (lots of excellent books are).Zhivago is a poet and in the book we read his poetry, so why isn't there any of his poetry in either film version? I'm sure a Russian director such as Tarkovsky could have achieved this and used the poetry to both literary and filmic effect. Sadly he's dead, and maybe he didn't want to do it anyway.And what of Kris Marshall as Pasha? In the first episode he is an excellent actor and a very sexy one, but in Episode 2 we get a sequence where he appears as Strelnikov which to my eye seemed almost a direct copy of Lean's, the menacing train and then a cut from his hands to the deadly communist face of poor old Pasha. Not only does he visually change, but his acting plummets as well. I admit that years have passed and he has been through a war, but in film terms this just shows him as the same old evil communist stereotype we saw in David Lean's film.The scenery is very pretty, but there again I'm not sure why we couldn't have gone to Russia itself. The Czech Republic though cheaper is not Russia.
5 out of 8 people found the following review useful: So much better than the original, 19 February 2006 Author: goddessofoddness from United States
Kiera 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.
Add another review
