Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining but still Hollywood
Review: THIS movie is a typical Hollywood production. Highly entertaining but the too familiar faces detract. Production good. However, I have never been a big fan of Audrey Hepburn as an actress (adore her as a person). She was the right look for Natasha. The suffering of Russia didn't come forward. The Russia version made me feel the agony of war.I know I will not find many that agree with me. I gave this movie 4 stars simply because of its entertainment value.
Rating: 
Summary: Lovely , simply charming and heartwarming
Review: This movie touched my mind in so many ways. One thing it brought to mind was that the most important things in life are still free. The cast was excellent and the cinematoghraphy was beautiful. I truely enjoyed this movie. An excellent choice for those who love history with a lot of romance.
Rating:
Summary: great film
Review: War and Peace is a wonderful film and Audrey Hepburn and Mel Ferrer are great in it. Its a must see performance. Truly good.
Rating:
Summary: great film
Review: War and Peace is a wonderful film and Audrey Hepburn and Mel Ferrer are great in it. Its a must see performance. Truly good.
Rating:
Summary: War and Peace, Lite
Review: War and Peace is about the Napoleonic invasion of Russia in 1812. This edition, verses the Russian (1967, Soviet Union era) edition, is of course shallower. However, for half the time investment it does give one a good taste of the subject. The longer, 1967 edition has more to say, yet it also ends with a sort of propaganda message of "compassion towards one's defeated enemy" that does not align with history (it was made during the Soviet Union days). This 1956 edition ends more like it did in real life. Both editions are worthwhile.
Rating:
Summary: War and Peace, Lite
Review: War and Peace is about the Napoleonic invasion of Russia in 1812. This edition, verses the Russian (1967, Soviet Union era) edition, is of course shallower. However, for half the time investment it does give one a good taste of the subject. The longer, 1967 edition has more to say, yet it also ends with a sort of propaganda message of "compassion towards one's defeated enemy" that does not align with history (it was made during the Soviet Union days). This 1956 edition ends more like it did in real life. Both editions are worthwhile.
Rating:
Summary: A beautiful film
Review: War and Peace is one of my favorites films. One aspect I especially like is what the characters say; all words seem to be a moral to life. Not only did I like this film for its excellent directing and realistic characters, but also teaching me what life is and how different people think of it in their different situations.
Rating:
Summary: bring that, beat back
Review: Well, looks like ever-lovin' Moscow is being attacked again! And man does it look good! Unfortunatly, Audrey Hepburn is really the only redeaming character in this movie. Have you ever bit you tongue really hard, and then for the next two hours, you are constantly bitting it as you try to eat? That's what movies like 'Mission: Imposible 2' and 'Solo' are like. The first tape of this piece however, is not near as bad as any of those brutal movies. The second tape is like getting your mollars removed. Not Audrey's best, But still has a certain production value. Even if watching it by your self can lead to boul movment faliure. A must see. Big Truck
Rating: 
Summary: Don't buy this film
Review: While I recognize that film versions of great books can never be as good as the book itself, this film is so poor a rendition of the magnificent book that it should be banned from the shelves of video stores and stricken from the memory of humankind. If it weren't for character names and a few random passages of dialogue, there would be no way of knowing that it was based on Tolstoy's masterpiece. Events were made up whole cloth in many instances, while others were nonsensically juxtaposed. For example, though the events in the film began in 1805, we are confronted with a mature Natasha (who is only 17 in 1811) flirting with (a horrifically miscast Henry Fonda as) Pierre. By any standards, other than sets and costumes, the film is an abomination; a bumbling, boring, muddled slaughter of a giant of a novel. Avoid it like the plague. It is vile and pestilential.
Rating:
Summary: Superb...for a Hollywood production
Review: With 10 years in the making, two years of filming and (as a previous reviewer noted) no less than six writers, Tolstoy's epic masterpiece à la Hollywood does get a bit muddled and lost at times, but who cares!?!? The film's cast is stellar. Audrey Hepburn, Mel Ferrer and Henry Fonda were each born to play their respective roles in this monumental film. Fonda plays the quixotic Pierre almost as good as Sergei Bondarchuk does in the more accurate (though also more brutal and heart-wrenching) 1967 Russian version. Hepburn, as the dazzling and ingenuous Natasha is a perfect foil to Mel Ferrer's Prince Andre, who loses his melancholy and determined seriousness only in the presence of Natasha (the same could almost be said of the film!). Where the Hollywood version is lacking in battle scenes, historic detail, commentary from ordinary Russians and several key character developments (Mary Oblonsky, Nicholas Rostov, the Tsar, Denisov et al), it more than makes up for it with personal performances (above mentioned actors), set and costume design and an overall mood and tone consistent with the book. This film should not be seen by people who demand faithful and tireless book-to-screen adaptations (the Sergei Bondarchuk version might be a better choice), but by people who want to get a sublime essence of one of the greatest novels ever written.
| 
