User Reviews

There are at least three major filmed versions of the epic, sprawling Tolstoy masterpiece, and each offers particular pleasures. The King Vidor version made for Hollywood is short; otherwise, it offers a miscast Henry Fonda and a wistful Audrey Hepburn, who while lovely indeed, is out of her depth in a deeply tragic story. The Russian version which clocks in at somewhere about eight hours has lavish spectacle going for it, huge amounts of staged battle sequences which boggle the mind--and done without the use of CGI;its drawback is an often confusing script and, for contemporary English and American audiences, an over-the-top, occasionally hysterical acting style. This version is fifteen hours long and I found it followed the book carefully, and is loaded with fine performances, particularly Anthony Hopkins as the confused Pierre, bumbling through life in search of some spiritual catharsis; there are numerous other roles that become memorable from actors not familiar to most of us, and only Napoleon comes up short in a lackluster, thudding performance. Because this version was for BBC and not the movies, it looks a little spare now and then, but once the rhythm was set, I found it compelling and hugely satisfactory.

Anthony Hopkins stars in the role that brought him to my attention, that of Pierre Bezukhov. He gives a rendition of Pierre that is very convincing, and takes the character through an education that is far from sentimental, though it is very moving.

The depth of the novel is brought out by the length of the mini-series, which I saw on PBS' Masterpiece Theatre in the early 1970's. It is well shot, with wide open vistas that do some justice to the Russian countryside. The portrayal of Russian country life and its glittering high society of the cities is most convincing.

The performances beyond that of Hopkins are also quite strong. Very affecting was Alan Dobie as Prince Bolkonsky. The whole effort deserves 10 out of 10.

This more-than-twelve-hour-long BBC TV version of the epic Tolstoy novel, War and Peace, starring Anthony Hopkins as Pierre, is a brilliant production, is the finest TV movie that I have ever seen and is based on the greatest novel ever written. The length allows sufficient time to fully develop the many characters over a long period of their lives. This is one area where TV can surpass the cinema.

The 1972 BBC TV miniseries, War and Peace, was a far superior rendering of the great Tolstoy novel. A 2007 TV series of War and Peace, created by Italy, France, Germany, Russia and Poland was also excellent but, to me, the BBC version was the greatest.

I am delighted to say that this miniseries is an excellent adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's famous book and it is remarkably faithful to the story line. What I do not understand is why this film version has not been set onto DVD yet. If it were I would buy it tomorrow. Nearly every major British Actor and Actress from the 70s appears in this version and I notice different items in the episodes every time I view my VHS version. I highly recommend this for anyone who wishes to read the book beforehand or afterward. I also enjoy seeing Anthony Hopkins as a very young man portraying a character full of energy, failings and then how the character through Anthony Hopkins matures by the end of the series.

I remember seeing this first when I was just 12. It definitely left an impact on me especially Alan Dobie's Prince. Also Natasha Rostova played by Morag Hood is a very interesting and free-spirited character. Ms. Hood has really brought natasha to life, so much so that sometimes you can't wait to watch what she's going to do next. The scenic backgrounds of Russia are beautiful and as always Anthony Hopkins dazzles in his rendition of Pierre. Anyone interesting in seeing a movie version of War & Peace must watch this and not the more recent versions (very dry and boring - would think it was shot in Texas). The scenes tend to linger in your memory..

I don't have much to say in addition to the adulations given by, especially, those who watched this amazing series at a young age. I was 23 when it first broadcast on public television, a co production of the BBC and Time-Life. I disagree with the verbose UK reviewer above, who felt the episodes boring until about halfway. I was intrigued with episodes 1 and 2, and utterly engrossed by 3, waiting impatiently for the following week to bring the next episode. My only problematic observation from the 1st episode was that it seemed a little stagy, as if I were watching a stage play. Small criticism. Watching it again 37-odd years later ( have finished the 2nd DVD as I write this) I was again engrossed, with the advantage of not having to wait a week for the next episode! The only proper and accurate adaptation to the great novel.

Considering this a television production, I was again impressed (and surprised) by the ambition and quality of the battle scenes. It was refreshing not see an exaggerated CGI army battling another CGI army. My favorite actors were Alan Dobie and a young Anthony Hopkins. Every time I see Hopkins in a movie, I immediately remember his outstanding performance as Pierre. The one scene I always remember is Alan Dobie ad Prince Andre, lying in the battlefield after being wounded while leading a futile charge at Austerlitz, lying on the ground, staring up at the sky and remarking about it, that all is vanity, illusion.

Finally, how can one forget Fiona Gaunt as Helene? Wow, those low-cut empire-style gowns. I kept fearing (if that is the word) that she wouldn't be able to "contain" herself. (Sorry for the moment of male levity).

My all-time favorite British TV production, even slightly ahead of the wonderful Upstairs, Downstairs.

P.S. Thanks to the viewer who pointed out that it was not shown on Masterpiece Theater. I always remembered that it was, and was regretting that Alistair Cooke's introductions and final comments were missing from the DVD. Now I know that they were not! But how I wish they were!

I remember seeing this when I was in high school and being mesmerized. Having watched it at home now twice, I still think this an amazing adaptation. Watching Anthony Hopkins stretch his legs in his first big role is a wonder and presages all the kudos he was to receive in ensuing decades. I also think Morag Hood was quite convincing as a 13-year-old girl through to a nearly-30 Natasha; in contrast to another viewer who was bothered by a 30-year-old woman playing the girl Natasha, I found her acting the part of a 13 year old to be convincing.

David Swift brings real complexity to Napoleon, and the family scenes of the Rostovs are a wonderful contrast to the dysfunctional Bolkonsky family. The acting is very good throughout (although Joanna David as Sonya does a bit too much weeping for my taste) and the peek into the Russia of the times is faithful to the book.

This production shows its age, especially the graininess of exterior shots compared to the interior studio film, but overall I think it a truly outstanding adaptation. I sure wish Alan Dobie was still working in film! Most of the secondary characters (Dolohov, Helene, and Katische) are quite good.

I agree with 2 reviewers that the production lacks nuanced characterization.Iam particularly disappointed with the choice of Morag Hood as Natasha. As one reviewer said,"hello, a 30-year-old playing a 13-year-old ? ". She looks ridiculous in those scenes and her laugh is that of a mad-woman, not an enraptured adolescent. They should have just picked a 13-year-old actress to play Natasha at that stage ! Moreover, she just doesn't have, nor project Natasha's radiance, charm, vitality, or even loveliness. It's annoying to see Natasha with wrinkles ! Alan Dobie is also disappointing as Andrey. He looks the part, but his crisp delivery of lines makes the character look flippant and superficial. I didn't like the scene with the symbolic oak --- it's too rushed, and it's hard to believe that the character underwent such a substantial change in his outlook ! However, the scene where Natasha is singing and Andrey is musing " that he could weep " is very sensitively done. If only that potential for expressive performance could have been developed in other scenes !The actor just seems to read the lines and doesn't really get into the inner life of the character.

Bondarchuk's movie is far superior and much more moving !

Adaptations of War and Peace aren't a great many, and almost all of them have their problems. That said, as masterful as Tolstoy's novel is, due to the mammoth length, the complexity of the characters and the story as well as Tolstoy's themes and his writing style, it is also one of the most difficult books to adapt. One adaptation does a particularly fantastic job with it however, and that adaptation is this 1972 BBC mini-series.

The mini-series looks wonderful, with spectacularly opulent costumes and sets, lavish and evocative period detail (actually looking like Russia, Russian country life and high society is also very accurately depicted) and it's photographed beautifully as well. The music score is well composed and fits beautifully, with an appropriately understated version of the Imperial Russian Anthem serving as the main theme. The script is thoughtful, cleverly structured(tight in alternative to rambling, and a real attempt is made to let the story make sense, and successfully too) and literate, not only adhering true to Tolstoy's writing and themes but it captures the depth and spirit of the writing and themes as well. The occasional voice-overs help one to completely understand the story and why the characters behave the way they do, not feeling intrusive at all. The nearly fifteen hour length is ideal for adapting such a huge story, adaptation-wise this version is as faithful to the book as you can get and does it while also maintaining in translation what makes the book so powerful, keeping the key scenes, characters and themes and with the full impact they ought.

War and Peace (1972) doesn't spend too long on the human drama scenes, and unlike the 1956 film doesn't endlessly stretch them to tedium, key and family relationships portrayed with moving intensity. The battle scenes don't wrench the gut quite as much as the Russian version, but are still powerful and poignant with far superior and authentic sound quality than in the film, and would have been even more so with the inclusion of background scoring. The winter retreat is particularly well done here. The series is skilfully directed, and the characters carry the narrative compellingly, their interactions and situations feeling very real and they avoid falling into caricature (including Napoleon and Kutuzov). Anthony Hopkins is superb in one of his best early performances, the only Pierre of any of the adaptations to be completely ideal, and Alan Dobie is aristocratic and expressive as Andrei and Morag Hood enchants as Natasha despite being somewhat too old.

Rupert Davies steals his scenes, Joanna David is touchingly sympathetic and Angela Down makes one wonder why she didn't do more acting. Harry Locke underplays wisely in the optimistic role of Platon, David Swift brings humanity to Napoleon rather than as a hammy caricature and Frank Middlemass is a vividly forthright General Kutuzov. Overall, a brilliant mini-series and the best version of the Tolstoy classic. 10/10 Bethany Cox

British television has a mystique among some American viewers. This version of "War and Peace" is a useful corrective. Parts of it are quite good, but much of it is barely competent, and some is even less than that.

Many scenes combine lackadaisical pace with yelling and over-acting, a lethal combination. Some of the acting would be OK on the stage, but the camera is merciless in revealing miscalculations. "Faster and softer" across the board would have helped a lot.

It is not always the actors' fault. Sometimes the players look like some firm guidance from the director might help a scene, but that help often doesn't come. I suspect the director had his hands full just getting stuff in the can on schedule and under budget.

"Excuse me, can we do that again? I think I can do it better." "Sorry, we haven't the time. That take was good enough." Over and over again.

The one actor who covers himself with glory is Anthony Hopkins as Pierre. Hopkins could be awful elsewhere ("Legends of the Fall"), but here he rarely puts a foot wrong. He is what you will remember from all this.

Alan Dobie fails to convey Prince Andrei's aristocratic bearing, and looks lumpish and unattractive at the Great Ball where he is supposed to dazzle Natasha. But after fitful attention earlier, Dobie focuses wonderfully in his deathbed scenes, and winds up quite moving.

Angela Down makes an unexpectedly effective Maria, making the most of a part that often recedes into the woodwork.

Morag Hood is unbearable as the young Natasha. As the character ages, she quiets down considerably, and by the end she is merely annoying. But the giant shadow of Audrey Hepburn has stunted her growth, and Hood's inadequacy is a central concern.

Faith Brook is generally good as Mama, though she goes seriously off the rails when the Rostov house is emptied out ahead of Napoleon's occupation. Rupert Davies as Papa seems to think he's playing Dickens, not Tolstoy. When the Rostov family gathers noisily, I wind up looking for Tiny Tim.

David Swift's Napoleon is neither charismatic nor evil, just baleful. Frank Middlemass buries Kutuzov's humanity in a welter of eccentricities, in a performance that never quite adds up. Harry Locke is a blessedly underplayed Platon Karateyev - perhaps the best in that part that I've seen, but that doesn't make up for the other 12 hours.

The filmed Serbian exteriors are dreary without being impressive, and the muddy color doesn't help. The battle scenes boast a cast of hundreds rather than thousands, but they are sabotaged by clumsy staging and the lack of background music. Somebody's decision to restrict music to balls and salons was a major mistake - the dramatic scenes are rarely good enough to survive without orchestral support.

The sense of strain never leaves this enterprise. Actors force some encounters and trudge through others. All too often, we look at something that is one take short of merely OK.

You're far better off with the Vidor or Bondarchuk versions. This second-rate attempt is for completists only.

I was more into the romance of the show rather than the battle scenes but I watched the entire production when in my early 20's. I thought Morag Hood was a good choice for Natasha, resembling in appearance and actions, a young Audrey Hepburn who had originally played Natasha in the 1950's production. This was the first time I ever saw the young Anthony Hopkins and was very impressed by his kind and sincere portrayal of Pierre and was also impressed by Alan Dobie as Andre! Well, lets face it, I thought they were both extremely handsome!!! As I said I wasn't into the historical aspect of it but enjoyed the storylines of the important families, the Bezuhov's, Rostova's and Bolkonsky's.

That may sound like faint praise for what many cite as the most boring novel ever written. I suffered through the novel and had a difficult time keeping up with the characters, multiple plots, and backstories. Not so with the movie. I found I was able to keep up with the story and to take an interest in the characters, something I was unable to do when reading the novel.

Keep in mind this is a 20 part mini-series, 750 minutes in length. Don't plan on watching this over a weekend, unless you have some dexedrine. I was considering borrowing the 1956 version with Henry Fonda as Count Bezukhov and Audrey Hepburn as Natash Rostova but when I saw that it only had a tepid 6.7 IMDb score, I decided against it. I figured it was due to the short length of the film that voters didn't like it. How can you film "War and Peace" in 208 minutes? When I saw the 1972 version starring Anthony Hopkins as Bezukhov scored an impressive 9.4 on IMDb, I immediately placed a rental order on Blockbuster Online, & preceded to watch all 5 discs. It was an excellent experience.

Now for another crack at the novel. Maybe I'll begin to understand what all the critics were raving about.

Having seen all three versions, (Hepburn, Russian and this) and having read the book and biographies of Tolstoi, I am most impressed with this version. The actors may not be exact replicas in appearance but in spirit they capture the characters quite well. The dialog is well chosen and faithful in the most important areas. My only criticism would be (and this is true of all versions) that Tolstoi's explanation of Helene's and Anatole's cruelty being due to their complete lack of sensitivity of what they're doing, is not so obvious as in the book. Anatole is seen riding around Moscow and waves gaily to Pierre the day after his failed attempt to elope with Natasha which indicates how little he thinks of what he has done. Perhaps it is not extremely important but I thought it made a lot understandable. In all other respects, this is a wonderful film, one I would and have watched again and again. You feel as if you know all the characters and you find yourself caring deeply about them. Even having seen it repeatedly I find myself equally moved with each viewing (ok, not as much as the first time when it was new but I was 12) I wish I could give it more than 5 stars. This is a film I had waited 25 years to see again and having lent it to a friend look forward to its return so I can watch again. In my esteem it ranks as one of the top 10 beautiful films!

The one on which all versions can be rated against. Brilliant. Holds close to the Tolstoy novel. Better than all the movie versions to a large degree because movies cannot cover the detail of the novel, although the Sergei Bonderchuck is the best movie version.

This exceptionally well-done miniseries easily surpasses both the Vidor and Bondarchuk versions. It makes the most of its nearly 13 hours, featuring many excellent performances, strong cinematography, and a good script. In addition, the director's use of long takes really allows the actors to *interact,* adding to the overall feel of realism.

Hopkins is likeable and believable as the twitchy, self-conscious Pierre. Dobie is excellent as the somewhat distant Andrei -- he succeeds in being handsomely iconic without seeming stupid or wooden. In fact, it's hard to imagine a more effective performance of this role. And Morag Hood is very good as Natasha, once the character ages a bit (it's hard to accept a woman in her late 20s as a 14-year-old).

The writers and actors also avoid the cardboard characterizations of historical figures that so often plague historical fiction; the main adversaries in the "War" -- a self-important Napoleon and the disfigured, forthright General Kutuzov -- are both vividly portrayed.

There are occasional weaknesses, but for the most part, this is a wonderful production.

I read the book, saw the Hollywood and Russian versions and was very impressed with this version. Though it was made in the 70's it is on DVD and I was able to rent it from Netflix. Anthony Hopkins was believable as Pierre, Dobie's portrayal of Prince Andrei was also excellent. Morag Hood, the Audry Hepburn look alike's portrayal of Natasha was so much better than the Hollywood version. Anthony Jacobs deserves lauds as Nicholas Bolkonsky. The first episode may seem a little dry or slow but be patient as this is an epic, not a simple plotted movie. Hang in there and watch it. If reading War and Peace (1400 pages) is too much of a task (I used cliff notes as I read the book-- it helped me enjoy it more) view this version first then attempt to read the book.

Ignore the old style film: the lead performers honor the spirit of Tolstoy. Anthony Hopkins is a perfect Pierre, simultaneously profound and foolish. Alan Dobie's Prince André is precise-Byronic yet pragmatic. Sylvester Morand is superb as Nikolai, temperamental, noble, proud. Angela Down is an exceptional Maria, faithful, beaten down, homely until she falls in love and becomes beautiful. The character actors playing secondary characters, namely family members, flesh out the family dynamics. A few critics panned Morag Hood, but she does what Natasha does: mature into the role. You'll long remember the characters and their impact on each other, their times, and you.

I own the DVD set. So glad. Can watch whenever I want. Man, Hopkins and cast and the pretty English women. Quality city!

No, it wasn't part of the Masterpiece Theater lineup, I guess, but as I remember it was telecast weekly on PBS. Clue me in, please.

It was "must-see" every episode way back, something to look forward to when I was early 20s watching with Mommy and Daddy before I gradiated and left the nest.

By the way, I read a lot. Thanks to everyone for teaching me how to.

I haven't read every book ever written (life is too short), but Tolstoy's "War and Peace" is my favorite. What an experience! I recommend it highly.

Thanks for your time.

I would just like to say that this is probably the most ridiculous movie I have ever seen. First of all, it 70s BBC (aka really bad acting). On top of that all the actors speak with exaggerated and obnoxious British accents (not that British accents are bad)... Hello, this is supposed to be Russia, could you tone it down a bit. Second, there is no music. What kind of movie doesn't have music? A really bad one. Plus, there are really gross, eating each other's face make out scenes, so without music, you can hear all the nasty sucking and spitty-ness. All sweet and romantic, huh. Third, the whole this is so melodramatic, it's funny. I mean, the scenes are so awkward I burst out laughing, even though it's no supposed to be funny. Fourth, the casting sucks. Natasha, who is supposed to be thirteen at the time, is played by, like, a thrity year old woman with her boobs taped down (to make her look younger). Hello? Couldn't you just get a younger actress? I mean, seriously. It can't be that hard. Watch the Soviet version of War and Peace; it is much better. Everything is wonderful about it. Plus, the actors are hot and they are cast well (Natasha probably is thirteen). I would only watch this movie again because it is so ridiculous it's funny.

Someone posted a while back that this mini-series aired on PBS' "Masterpiece Theatre" in the 1970's. This is an error. The series did indeed air on PBS via NYC's station WNET. "Masterpiece Theatre" is presented by Boston's WGBH and "War and Peace" was NOT aired under the MT banner.

WHY is the plot of "War and Peace" generally regarded as a mere love triangle--- 3 main characters--when, in fact, it is a massive, panoramic saga of a multitude of characters who continually interact as they are swept along by the tides of history?

The 1972 BBC version, masterfully directed and "managed" by John Davies, is a stunning accomplishment in almost every way. The sheer SIZE of the production is astounding, from the huge cast to the vast array of sets: ballrooms, palaces, estates, cathedrals, sitting rooms, parlors, foyers, halls, vestibules, bedrooms, verandas, balconies, solider's quarters, village inns and huts, military meeting rooms, etc etc..and ALL of them imaginatively designed, decorated and lit. Amazing.

The cast is almost uniformly wonderful; yes, Anthony Hopkins gets top billing and creates a totally believable Pierre..yet physically he's not quite the "bear" of a man that Tolstoy describes {Sergei Bondarchuk of the '60's Russian version is PERFECT). But this BBC production is brimming with TERRIFIC British actors who bring every role to life in a vivid and appealing way. "War and Peace" is actually a story of AT LEAST FIVE main characters--- including the honorable yet impetuous Nikolai Rostov and Princess Maria Bolkonsky (beautifully played by actress Angela Down).

One example of the nearly-flawless casting: the magnetism of actor Donald Burton as the cruel, yet charming Dolohov (Burton later emigrated to America, where he married actress Caroll "Baby Doll" Baker). Also totally engrossing are the performances of David Swift as Napoleon, Rupert Davies as Count Rostov, Joanna David as the lovely Sonya, and Gary Watson as the jovial yet deadly-serious military officer Denisov.

There are many outstanding performances of characters who appear in very few (or even a single) scenes--eg: the old guy in the carriage waiting station (Osip Bazdayev) who introduces Pierre to Masonry---is magnificently portrayed by Carleton Hobbs, a popular radio Sherlock Holmes in England. And the list goes on (Harry Locke as Platon, Victor Brooks as Dron, the peasant elder, the members of Napoleon's staff, Captain Tushin..)

Major recognition also to writer Jack Pulman, who took on the daunting task of elaborating Tolstoy's written dialogue into a FULL, 15-hour script; it is eloquent and beautifully tailored for maximum insight into the inner workings of Tolstoy's richly conceived, complex characters, as they journey through his epic tale.

THE BATTLE SCENES--filmed in summer of '71 (in terrific heat) in Yugoslavia--and using 1,000 actor/soldiers, are imaginatively and effectively staged, grand enough to convey the scope of the conflict yet, oddly, intimate enough in close-up shots and quick editing to give the scenes their crucial pace and rhythm AS WELL as capturing the gruesome violence of war in which any sense of humanity is obliterated (there's a shocking, split-second shot of a French soldier literally exploding into pieces during the big charge at Borodino; slo-mo viewing reveals the realism of the effect).

THE MUSIC-- OR LACK OF IT--- some writers complain; not me. The absolute realism of the action---whether hordes of military troops on the march or two people sitting and conversing in a drawing room--- is greatly enhanced by the lack of a background score. ONE THE OTHER HAND, when "source" music is required..during the many scenes of ballroom dancing--- the meticulous research of the production is evident: the sound of the instruments, and indeed the physical, ON-CAMERA instruments themselves, are authentic, early 19th-century recreations.

------------------------------------ MY RESERVATIONS-- remarkably few for such a mammoth production.

1.) The casting of actress Morag Hood as the central character of Natasha. I understand the producer's dilemma (in fact, they conducted a lengthy, "Scarlett O-Hara-style" search for the right actress), since Natasha's character undergoes a major transformation during the 15 years of the novel's action. Ms. Hood is really excellent in the later, mature scenes--as sensitive and elegant as you will ever see. But JEEEZZ---- she was 29 years old when this film was made--and looked every bit of it. Her early scenes..where the fresh, youthful, earth-spirit that enchants every man she meets... giggling, romping, flitting about the house and all that....are embarrassingly bad. Too bad; a major blot on the production.

2.) The portrayal of old Prince Bolkonsky by Anthony Richards. Yes, he's a demented, cruel old hermit of a man who daily torments and humiliates his daughter Maria, but JEEEZZZZ---- the actor's portrayal is SO grotesque and caricatured that it's hard to take seriously. I kept trying, but his scenes become increasingly cartoon-y and difficult to watch. WHOSE DECISION??actor or director---or both??

3.) Everyone who knows "War and Peace" will quibble about the scenes that were omitted for this version, but ONE of them is absolutely too difficult to understand: the medical tent scene at Borodino where the mortally wounded Andrei Bolkonsky finds himself next to the mortally wounded Anatole Kuragin, the man who destroyed the only true happiness Andrei had known in life-- his love for Natasha. This is perhaps the biggest "OMG!!" moment in the entire novel, and to eliminate it in the 15-hour BBC version is maddening---- ESPECIALLY when some scenes--notably Anthony Hopkins' L-O-N-G drunk scene with French Captain Ramballe, which could have easily been cut in half---are far less important.

4.) Also lamentable is the loss of the scene where Nikolai searches for his friend Denisov in the carnage-filled, ramshackle country infirmary-- a scene which had me on the edge of my seat when I first read the novel.

HOWEVER-- in the final analysis-- THIS is the version of War and Peace to own and treasure. It is a remarkable work of art, and its modest budget and lack of modern effects dictated that the quality of the writing, acting, direction and overall design HAD to do justice to Tolstoy's "un-filmable" literary masterpiece, a goal which was admirably achieved. LR