Nothing bad could be said about this film, but it has a few flaws. Henry Fonda is one of them, miscast and unconvincing although he acts well, he said so himself and was only in it for the money, Wilfred Lawson as the old Prince Bolkonsky is another, he was better as Alfred Dolittle and only good in comedies, but that is all. Of course it's impossible to squeeze a novel like "War and Peace" into a short film of 3,5 hours, but the effort was admirable enough, and the result is still definitely the cinematographically most impressive and beautiful screening of one of the greatest of novels. Every scene and picture is full of beauty, the photography is a marvel all through, which makes this film one of the most pictorially enjoyable ever made. To this comes Audrey Hepburn, Nino Rota's discreet but perfect music (with some apt borrowings from Russian sources),Mel Ferrer's absolutely proper rendering of a tragic case of detached disillusion constantly getting worse, and above all the case of Napoleon and his grande armée of 450,000 men going down the drain. There was never a better Napoleon on screen. One of the strongest impressions in the film is how he handles his whip, restlessly moving it on his back until it suddenly stops as he is faced by the reality of the situation in Moscow. Another is the epic rendering of the retreat, especially the tremendous disaster at Beresina, a chapter which Tolstoy jumps in his novel, as the Russians used the desperate situation of the French at the river crossing to mercilessly attack them. The epic war scenes, some of the most impressing in film history, were so far the costliest ecer made. Because of its so many outstanding advantages, this is for me the best film version of "War and Peace", in spite of its many inevitable shortcomings.

I think much of the reason I score this film only a 7 is because I have actually seen the full Russian version twice and the Russian film, while far from perfect, completely overwhelms my enjoyment of this Hollywoodized version. Let me explain. The Russian version is incredibly long (over 6 1/2 hours) and had a HUGE cast--thousands and thousands of soldiers and countless actors who had speaking roles. It fell short for me at times because the Russian style was, at times, very strange and unfamiliar (such as when the bomb landed in front of a soldier and spun out of control--taking a seeming eternity to explode--followed by a closeup of the man's eye as he contemplated infinity). Considering, though, that Tolstoy's book was HUGE (and I mean BIG HONKING HUGE),this long presentation was necessary and any attempt to cram the plot into a more traditional format (3 1/2 hours in this King Vidor version) just doesn't do the story justice. The acting, direction and pacing in this 1950s version is decent though also a bit cold and forgettable.

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