If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

I only wish that the novel could hold a flame to this visual masterpiece. The Novel is too heavy. It broke one of my bookshelves. The book cost me like 40 dollars for a collector's edition. This film was free on pretty much any site that I had a membership for; therefore, I didn't even blow a cent for my viewing enjoyment. I could go to the fridge and get a tasty beverage, while still listening to the movie without having to pause it. I tried to bring the novel with me while I was reading, to get a delicious beverage, but ended up in traction. I only had to set aside an evening to watch this film. I had to set aside my vacation time to read the novel. But, you know how the saying goes "A novel is never as good as the movie."

I refer to the oft running joke about the time it (apparently) takes to read the full Tolstoy novel. The width refers to the slight flabbiness of its storytelling and obvious cuts and constricts to allow for its stellar Anglo/American cast.My DVD was a Korean release, which you need to go into the menu to turn off their subtitles and set it to 'none'. It does seem strange that such a famous and widely respected and loved epic, in probably its most popular 'Hollywood' format just doesn't seem to be more widely available.I'm also probably the only person to have seen, in its five disc entirety, the 1967 Russian Oscar Winner, directed by Sergei Bondarchuk before this far more accessible one. I'm no literary expert but this one here is easier to follow (the subtitles on the Russian one are impossible at times and some of the dialogue is in French but not subtitled!) and the narrative jumps about confusingly.It's always great to see our favourite actors - when we are not sure or enjoying the story less, we can savour and immerse ourselves in their familiarity and in this case, Audrey Hepburn and Henry Fonda are two of mine and many others' all-time favourites.Whilst the legendary Jack Cardiff takes the reigns with the cameras here and his Technicolor is deep, sumptuous and rich, for once, even he is vastly overshadowed by the Russian epic, which has three chief cinematographers! and has some of the most beautiful, majestic and uplifting images ever recorded, including the legendary hiring of the actual Red Army as extras for the awe-inspiring battle scenes.Back to this King Vidor adaptation - for my fairly ignorant eyes and palate, it is more measured and the dialogue less 'free', almost monosyllabic and starchy. The costumes are regal and splendid of course and the period detail of a impeccable standard one would expect.All in all, I find much of this War and Peace a bit flat-footed and without the spirit of the 8 hour epic. The mixture of accents don't always help either but the story does get told, clearly and concisely, which is the main thing, I suppose.

"War and Peace" (1956) was directed by King Vidor and is based, of course, on the novel by Leo Tolstoy.Tolstoy's novel takes place during the Napoleonic wars in Russia. Interwoven with the grand march of armies are the personal stories of aristocratic men and women who lived through these times. The movie takes a parallel course. There are immense battle scenes intermingled with private scenes of romance, happiness, and heartbreak.When the film was released, Paramount emphasized the battle scenes--their authenticity, the accuracy of the costumes, and the immense resources required to mount and record these images. (Remember, this was 1956. No computer-generated images. You saw on the screen what the camera saw at the moment of filming.) I thought that the "war" aspect of the movie was very effective. Even more effective were the scenes of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. You could almost feel the cold, the hunger, and the mud.Paramount and Vidor wanted an all-star cast, and that is what they got. Anita Ekberg is Helene Kuragina, called "La Belle Helene." She's the most beautiful--and most ruthless-- woman in Russia. Henry Fonda is miscast as Pierre Bezukhov, the husband of La Belle Helene. Although rich, Pierre is supposed to be inept and clueless. Before a duel, he has to be taught how to fire a pistol. (I felt like stopping the DVD to say, "Mr. Vidor--that's Henry Fonda. He was in "Fort Apache." He played Frank James. He knows how to fire a pistol!")On the other hand, Mel Ferrer is cast perfectly as Prince Andrei Bolkonsky. Ferrer was handsome and aristocratic in appearance and bearing. You accept him as a proud, brave, but somewhat cold hero.Audrey Hepburn was born to play Natasha Rostova. Her appearance matches what Tolstoy tells us about Natasha--large bright eyes, long slender neck, luminous skin. And of course, she could act! She and Ferrer had married shortly before the movie was made, and the chemistry shows. (Incidentally, they must have been the most attractive couple in Hollywood in the 1950's.)I thought the film was well made, and a good adaptation of the novel. The weaknesses in the film are what I perceive as the weaknesses in the novel. With one exception, all the main and supporting characters are wealthy aristocrats. The poor appear only as soldiers, troika drivers, and servants. Also, people who have read the novel know that Natasha makes a ghastly error of judgment. She's Tolstoy's creation, and it represents hubris to second guess him about his own characters. However, I still don't think she would have done it."War and Peace" carries an abysmal 6.7 IMDb weighted average. Why? You have Hepburn, Ferrer, glittering gowns, cavalry charges, and the French retreat from Moscow. Aren't those alone worth an eight or a nine?Seeing the movie on DVD was successful enough. However, it was made for the wide screen. If it ever plays at a theater, don't miss it. Until it plays at a theater, watch it on DVD.

I'm a little biased in my judgement of this film – not only because I've read the novel, but also because I've seen Sergei Bondarchuk's 1960s Soviet adaptation, which is undoubtedly one of cinema's most spectacular epics. Any comparison leaves Vidor's Hollywood adaptation, for all its merits, beaten and conquered. Despite clocking in at a respectable 200 minutes, 'War and Peace (1956)' is simply too short to do justice to Tolstoy's vision. The episodic nature of the novel means that it can't be readily condensed into a regular feature-length time frame, and the film's narrative is often choppily composed to fit everything in.I think I'm forever destined to imagine the main characters as they appear in the 1960s film, but the main actors here are nevertheless passable. Henry Fonda, sporting a misplaced American twang, brings an accurate passivity of the role of Pierre Bezukhov. Audrey Hepburn half works: early on, her Natasha Rostova lacks the vibrant, bright-eyed naiveté of Lyudmila Savelyeva, but the actress portrays beautifully the compassion and weariness of the "grown-up" Natasha. The battle scenes are large in scale, but curiously narrow in scope, with the Battle of Borodino – in the 1960s film, an astonishing hour of unfettered pandemonium viewed through a God-like lens – seen mostly through the eyes of Pierre.