StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

JohnnyLee1 Lacks authentic Russian feel. Needed a Selznick to direct this vast canvas on the scale of Gone With The Wind. Fonda miscast but Hepburn and Brett are better. Voice-over scenes are most touching! Fade-outs between scenes a mistake. Some scenes too long., others hardly exist. Rota score underwhelming. Worst line: "Moscow's on fire! How terrible!" (Sonia). Best lines: "He (Andre's father) was the first person in the whole world to disapprove of me. I suppose you're not really grown up till that happens to you" (Natasha). Trivia: In real life, Audrey Hepburn's partner at the time of her death became partner of Henry Fonda's widow.

SnoopyStyle It's the start of the 19th century. Napoleon's forces are marching across Europe. Moscow remains well beyond his reach. Pierre Bezukhov (Henry Fonda) parties the nights away. He's the bastard son of a rich Count. He admires Napoleon and is disillusioned with the patriotic militaristic fervor. His estranged father dies leaving him a vast fortune as the new Count. His friend Nikolai Rostov eagerly goes off to war. Nikolai's young sister Natasha Rostova (Audrey Hepburn) is adoring. Pierre's best friend Prince Andrei Bolkonsky (Mel Ferrer) is sincere and respectful. He's in the army and taken prisoner at Austerlitz. Pierre marries gold digging cousin Helene Kuragina (Anita Ekberg). Andrei is released home only to have his wife die in childbirth. Pierre's marriage does not go much better.It's a thick book to condense into three and a half hours. Hepburn is enchanting but a little old to play a teenager. Fonda doesn't strike me as the party boy but his star power is certainly capable of maintaining the leading screen presence. He may be a better fit as Andrei. Neither of which are big flaws. The major flaw remains the human drama from the book struggling to be more than the stilted highlights on the screen.This international production tries its best to encompass the vast epic. There are certainly big battles and large campaigns. The climatic battle has a cast of thousands stretching from one side of the screen to the other. Most of the war epic is impressive. The human story needs a concentrated effort. The simplifications may not be enough to focus the movie. This has its flaws although it may fill one's needs for an old Hollywood epic with big shining stars.

TheLittleSongbird 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), very rich story and dialogues, and complex characterisations and themes it is also one of the most difficult to adapt.While this 1956 film adaptation of War and Peace may not quite work (one of the most problematic War and Peace adaptations), it is a valiant effort and still has a lot of merits. The costumes and settings, while not as evocative of Russia as it could have been, are incredibly lavish, the colours are bold and opulent and the cinematography is very handsome, spectacle-wise War and Peace is hugely impressive. Also incredible is Nino Rota's music score, it's gorgeously lush in an unmistakably Nino Rota sort of way and it really stirs the emotions, not one of my favourite scores of his (seeing as he wrote so many great ones) but hearing how effectively it works in the film and how well it works as a work on its own it is clear why Rota and his music are so highly regarded. King Vidor directs very thoughtfully, with an eye for spectacle and addresses as many of Tolstoy's themes as possible.The war scenes are powerful and moving, with the French army's retreat from Russia resonating especially strongly. The performances are mostly odd, though reasonably odd on paper for some. Audrey Hepburn was simply born for Natasha, she portrays her with a real charm and touching dignity, and the camera simply adores her in some to-die-for shots. John Mills is similarly excellent, giving the film some telling optimism without taking one out of the situation. Napoleon could easily have been written and performed as a hammy buffoon, but not only is Herbert Lom delightfully pompous and imposingly tyrannical but he also brings some truly affecting humanity to the role. Anita Ekberg is luminous and emotive, and Okskar Homolka is ideal casting as well.However, the sound quality is agreed very poorly done here, while the voices sounded echoey the surrounding sound is artificial (this is including the war scenes) and like it was recorded on near-silent and the dialogue sounded canned. The script is thought-provoking and literate, but while the themes and events are present the impact and the substance they should have aren't so much, a lot of it too on-the-surface. With the story, the simplification didn't bother me, seeing as it was only a nearly three-and-a-half-hour length (whereas a 10-12 part mini-series is much more likely to do this massive story complete justice), but the rather sluggish pacing, on-the-surface writing and that some of the drama scenes were needlessly stretched to the point of near-tedium did. Two performances didn't come over so well either. Mel Ferrer is very wooden and stiff, with his performance often lacking in expression. More problematic is a badly miscast Henry Fonda in a rare 'bad' performance, didn't have the 'he was physically wrong' problem like a lot did but it was more to do with that he made little if any attempt to look and sound Russian, it was more Henry Fonda playing himself, while looking and sounding bored, but he just looked so disengaged and clumsy. Ferrer at least looked the part, so whatever the large shortcomings there were in his performance he did acquit himself a little better than Fonda.Overall, doesn't quite work but is a valiant effort adapting a classic but very difficult book. 6/10 Bethany Cox

DQGladstone OF COURSE, I slept through it. It was long and boring and one needed the drug of sleep to endure the stagey direction and acting.Audrey Hepburn was at her beautiful, charming, irritating, over-acting best in this film. It was only her personal charm and loveliness that kept her from making me sick with fakeness.The scene where Pierre tells her he's getting married, her head turns so fast I'm surprised it didn't break her lovely neck. People in real life don't act that way because they'd risk physical injury if they did.Henry: I'm getting married. What's wrong? Audrey: I hope you're happy with your new wife but I just broke my neck.Obviously she was trying to convey the enthusiasm and energy of youth so that we could see the change to her character resulting from war, experience and time but her enthusiasm was stagey and irritating. She was so damn happy to see everyone in this film I'm surprised they didn't smack her.Henry Fonda was less fake but he had his moments, too. At his father's death scene when he falls to one knee, I'm surprised he didn't injure himself. They must have put padding on the floor.Henry: My father..is dead...and my knee...is broken...Many other examples from Ferrer and minor characters.King Vidor apparently never heard of film minimalism.Henry was supposed to be clumsy, I guess, and he bumped into a few walls and tripped over a log but he certainly could have been funnier. He had some charm early on but he missed a lot of opportunities for humor.I found it funny when he stepped forward to be shot without waiting for orders. They could have had a guard put a hand on his elbow to guide him forward then have the commander stop the guard. Instead, Henry moves forward to the firing post of his own volition to be stopped by destiny. Funny.You hear a lot about conflict between actors and directors on the set but Audrey and Henry are good actors and I'm surprised they let this stuff go without saying "Isn't this going to look a little stupid?" I guess Henry really DID need the money.I've never had the energy or time to read the book and I hoped that this film might enlighten me a bit but...I slept through it.If you're tired and want to see a really GOOD movie that encourages sleep, I recommend "2001: A Space Odyssey". It's a beautiful movie but the scenes and visuals are so slow you'd better bring a large cappuccino.