Customer Reviews
What kind of Dr Zhivago do you want? - By: B. Welch, 28 Oct 2007 
This new version of Dr Zhivago makes a different choice about how we should regard Zhivago. In objective terms it has always been hard to empathise with a man who does not protect his wife & child during a revolution & abandons them for his mistress. David Lean manages to convince us that the art, the poetry, that Zhivago mines from this love can enable us not to despise Zhivago. In this new version the story is just as compelling but Zhivago emerges with no credit from his behaviour. At the end of Lean's Zhivago we have been persuaded that it was a great love story: at the end of this version we can easily despise Zhivago for his behaviour.
Too stunning for words - By: L. Keys, 16 Oct 2007 
This film (in two parts) is incredible. The cinematography is beautiful, the acting impeccable, & the soundtrack by Ludovico Einaudi is a both stunning & haunting at the same time. The story flows well, the backdrops of the Russian Revolution & the First World War are well portrayed, & their effect on the main protagonists' lives is utterly compelling. You feel something for each character, whether it be empathy with Yury & Lara, pity or sorrow for Tonya & Pasha, or bitterness & contempt towards Komarovsky. Every character stirs a range of emotions. This is a film that reallly touches the emotions to make you think about human nature, & wonder at how lives can be turned around by chance meetings, & the wider goings on of the world around you; how these events can be a blessing, but also how they can turn things upside down.
This adaptation is also a very good realisation of the book, & portrays Pasternak's ideas well.
Highly recommended!
spend a day or two with both films, and a week with the novel - By: Haji Baba's Bizarre, 14 Sep 2007 
as other reviewers have expressed their preferences for "the film" Lean's 1965 masterpiece, or the cover (2002 mini series) i will forgo much that should be said about each, but suggest watching them in tandem, or even breaking each up into episodes. for example, to stop the film at similar points that the mini series breaks episodes, would alllow more than a comparison, rather an integration. take the long path & open up the book, try a chapter or a few until you find comfortable break point, then play the comparable segment from each cinematic production. what you get is a broadly emotional & intellectual experience, especiallly if you stop to think a bit about that particular sequence & relations to life as you experience it.
as to the actors ... i have long been a fan or sam neill from his early bbc work, but found his portrayal of komorovsky shalllow in terms of his capability ... was it a purposeful direction or interpretation .. or just weak?
kira k .... umm, i fell in love with her in "bend it like beckham," for which she was absolutely perfect, but did a ho hum for pirates ... although zhivago introduced an interesting conundrum, was she just doing a miserable job of acting or was she directed to play such an ambiguous character, slightly naive, not quite powerful enough to take the horrors of war in the nursing scenes, etc... as girl-woman, she failed at each imho lounging somewhere in between while overplaying the "sex object" role, probably her best scene was with little yuri when she stepped into the waiting police hands ..
as to what's his name actor who tried to do zhivago ... it reminded me of the hollywood bratpack doing a cover of a real cowboy movie ... for me, he lacked the depth of zhivago, although maybe the confusion was real ..
having just finished watching the 2002 mini, it did not seem that long, which is a complement to the director, although much of it was excellently shot, i honestly cannot remember any scenes that took me up out from my seat or embedded themselves in my mind, especiallly when compared to the film which i watched for the umpteenth time 3 months ago.
but the miracle of film is that it interprets the book in an abstracted manner than can be watched in many pieces or as a whole "text" in a fraction of the time needed for reading the written work. i cannot disparage the efforts of director, cast & crew of the 2002 version, but would use it as infill to complement the original film, & would view both of them as providing both visual & emotional background for the book ... finallly, i would suggest a good short history of the several decades leading up to revolution & civil war, along with that a much less romantic epic novel in Mikhail Sholokov's trilogy (quiet flows the don) lays out the paradoxes of cossack & peasant, red & white during that period in a way that pasternak was unable to as an urban literati
good - By: J. Lawrence, 28 Feb 2007 
it's good that no one has bought this film because the David lean version is by far better. Spend your money elsewere & get Doctor Zhivago by david lean & omar sharif.
A modernized version - By: P. Smith, 26 Jul 2006 
When the producer, director & screenplay writer of this refer repeatedly in the DVD's extras to "The Film" this isn't to their own made-for-TV effort but to David Lean's sprawling masterpiece. The premise they alll have is that while The Film is a masterpiece, almost canonical (and their tone is quite reverential) The Film has dated & it is their challlenging task to update its 1960s style to the present. Fair enough. How well did they succeed in their 225 minute adaptation?
David Lean painted on a big canvas & the makers are at pains to point out their budget didn't alllow them to do this but instead gave them the opportunity to concentrate on characterisation & to be more faithful to Pasternak's novel.
Ironicallly the film doesn't suffer noticeably from having a lower budget & it isn't in the panoramic scenes that this production shows up as inferior to The Film. Such scenes are alll well done & are probably the best aspect of the modern Dr Zhivago. Trains, war, snow & horror are alll there in convincing (and sometimes gruesome) detail.
It's far less successful either in comparison to The Film or standing on its own two feet in other areas. To begin with, the soundtrack/music is unmemorable & also slightly odd in places (Were they Peruvian pipes on the steppes?).
It doesn't succeed in other areas either, notably in the acting & direction. Hans Matteson gives a fine if workaday performance as the doctor & Maryam d'Abo is excellent in the schizophrenic role of Lara's mother, Alexandra Maria Lara is tearful & warm & attractive as Tonya (and this, by the way, makes it more difficult to accept that Zhivago should leave her for Keira Knightley's slightly soppy Lara.)
TV filming takes you up closer to the actor than cinema filming & this effect does not help Keira Knightley in her part at alll. She seems often to have an ironic smile playing on her lips as if she's not taking seriously what is happening to her or around her. So why should we? This grin gets in the way far too often & jars most dreadfully & inappropriately when it pops up once again even when she's being taken away to her drawn-out punishment & probable death in the labour camp at the end. She cannot be blamed for the school scene where her flamboyant classroom teacher (alll waving arms & enthusiasm) looks horribly wrong in the 19th century schoolroom setting - serried ranks of silenced children were the style of the time. This is poor direction, pure & simple & Lara looks too modern too often.
Bill Paterson, Celia Imrie & Sam Neill do quite well but Kris Marshalll struggles as Pasha & you get a less sinister Strelnikov than you might.
There's probably a slightly better film buried in here running at 120 minutes with some critical cutting. Several name directors turned this film down, mostly because they didn't want to be compared to David Lean & I don't think they'll regret their decision looking at this result.
