War and Peace, Part III: The Year 1812 (1967) User Reviews

Gut-wrenching war

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 3 June 2019]

Sergei Bondarchuk's adaptation of 'War and Peace' is one of the best, and while it is flawed it is nonetheless a towering achievement that still leaves one in awe over fifty years later. Only the 1972 mini-series for me is better, though all the adaptations are more than watchable (the disappointing 2007 adaptation only just though). It is a film and adaptation that shouldn't be missed regardless of whether you speak or have knowledge of Russian or not, despite studying singing in it at music college my Russian is still fairly basic.

Found the first part to be excellent with a couple of things that could have been better (pacing), with some of the most gut-wrenching war sequences on film. Part 2 was not as powerful in that respect, but it does contain one of the most visually stunning and gorgeously romantic and staged ball scenes on film and is more interesting from a character standpoint. The adaptation continues to get even better with this third, and penultimate and shortest, part, which continues to be a visual marvel, the portrayal of war and chaos being even more impactful, everything feeling more settled and the characterisation richer.

Again more sharp bite would have been welcome, but that is a nit-pick. Elsewhere, 'War and Peace Part 3: The Year 1812' is excellent.

'War and Peace Part 3: The Year 1812' is stunning once again. The scenery and period detail is spectacular and gives a sense of time and place far better than any other version of 'War and Peace' and the cinematography is inventive and enough to take the breath away. Those overhead shots! The scope and spectacle is also enormous and that is apparent in the dominating battle, that did hit me hard on an emotional level with lots of blood and guts (figuratively).

Enhanced by a truly chilling music score, not only music that was emotionally powerful and beautiful to listen to but also gave a sense that the story was set in Russia in the way that few of the other versions, only 2016's, managed to achieve. The script is thoughtful and the story is compelling and with a lot of recognisable elements in detail and spirit.

Characters don't come over as caricatures, even Napoleon, and Bondarchuk's direction in the battle is some of the most remarkable of the entire adaptation. The acting is at times histrionic but is fine on the whole, don't think there is a more chilling Napoleon on film than Vladislav Strzhelchik.

In conclusion, excellent. 9/10

"An event took place that was contrary to all human reason and human nature"

[ackstasis · 9/10 · 14 July 2008]

Part Two of Sergei Bondarchuk's 'War and Peace' was a rather quiet and contemplative affair, an exploration of a young woman's romantic development amid conflicting emotions and temptations. By the conclusion of Part Three, there has been very little character development of this sort, and Natasha Rostova (Lyudmila Savelyeva) makes only a solitary appearance in an early sequence that highlights the uneasy intimacy of her relationship with Pierre Bezukhov (Sergei Bondarchuk). The director seems to have decided that personal affairs are no longer important – this episode is about war! With a brief running time of 84 minutes, 'War and Peace III: 1812 (1967)' nonetheless contains among the most awe-inspiring depictions of conflict ever committed to film, surpassing even the grandeur of the Bondarchuk's work in Part One and later in 'Waterloo (1970).' Over the course of his film's production, the director sustained no less than two heart attacks – as one might expect, one of these came about during his recreation of the Battle of Borodino. I really can't blame him.

This battle, which lasts the bulk of the film's running time, is a genuine battering of the senses, film-making of such overwhelming excessiveness that it just about places the viewer amidst the blasts of smoke and the shudder of cannon-fire. After somehow securing the support of the Soviet Government, Bondarchuk employed full use of their resources, and conscripted 120,000 men to help recreate the Russian Army's mighty encounter with Napoleon Bonaparte's forces. Unlike the great battle in Part One, which seemed somewhat detached and impersonal, the Battle of Borodino focuses closely on the perspective of Prince Andrei (Vyacheslav Tikhonov), who has accepted that he may be dead by the day's end, and Pierre Bezukhov, whose clean civilian attire contrasts harshly with the dirty and ragged clothing of the weary soldiers. Of course, Bondarchuk can't resist regular use of his trademark sweeping overhead shots, but every detail is so meticulously orchestrated that one can only stare in fascination. What Part Three lacks in emotional depth, it more than makes up for in pure, uninhibited chaos – the chaos engineered to perfection.

Like most extravagant war films, 'War and Peace (1967)' boasts a curiously-duplicitous attitude towards combat. We are reminded frequently of the inanity of war, and yet Bondarchuk simultaneously celebrates its necessity; no director can expend so much effort on a battle without glorifying it to no small extent. The narrator's final words, perhaps sourced from Tolstoy's original novel, are shamelessly patriotic and no doubt designed to elicit nationalistic cheers from the Russian audience – "a moral victory which compels the enemy to recognize the moral superiority of his opponent and his own impotence was won by the Russians at Borodino." Even though the Battle of Borodino ended in a bloody stalemate, the French troops were afflicted with sufficient losses to withdraw their offensive. Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte (Vladislav Strzhelchik) is unsympathetically portrayed as a cold, remorseless strategist ("Never, to the end of his life, had he the least comprehension of goodness, of beauty or of truth, or of the significance of his actions…"), a far cry from Rod Steiger's interpretation just three years later.

Shock and awe

[gizmomogwai · 9/10 · 30 June 2019]

The centrepiece of Sergei Bondarchuk's 1965-67 War and Peace and the only one not named after a main character, "The Year 1812", as the title suggests, puts the war of Napoleon's invasion of Russia front and centre. And that's part of its power. Bondarchuk, from the word go with his seven-hour film, is relentlessly ambitious, and that shows no more than in the war scenes. To depict this invasion, no punches are held; according to The Criterion Collection, he was given no less than 15,000 real soldiers and 120,000 extras as well as 10,000 smoke grenades. Co-ordinating all this must have taken just short the effort to co-ordinate a real war (but thankfully without the real carnage).

That wealth of resources may not be enough if there was no artistic direction; but from the word go, Bondarchuk is relentlessly and endlessly ambitious in his creativity. That goes for "The Year 1812" too; replacing an explosion with a burst of music and panning to a forest that almost seems to come to life magically (much like the oak in Part I) is impressive.

The sheer scope of the spectacle of war itself is impressive, but a point still comes across. This isn't fun; war is seen as a loss for everyone, and when we see a commander-in-chief totally disconnected with reality, insisting it's a great victory, I felt my heart sink. War and Peace is a work that offers philosophy. It's both pro- and anti-war; the invasion was horrific but once started the Russians are given no choice but to defend themselves, and the turn of tide expressed at the end- the downfall of Napoleonic France- is momentous.

One of the most impressive things I've ever seen

[Jeremy_Urquhart · 10/10 · 21 July 2020]

Taken on its own, part 3 of this insanely long 4-part epic may be the ultimate war movie. Without watching the first two parts, a viewer's emotional engagement to individual characters may be lessened, but there is still so much this 80-something minute film manages to say.

The dread of waiting for the battle to start, the scope of violence, the tedium and anxiety of waiting to be ordered into combat, and the horrors one is forced to confront in the aftermath are all so excellently conveyed.

On top of that, I lost track of how many shots I was seeing on screen that I couldn't believe I was seeing. I fear battle scenes in future war movies I watch may never live up to this one. It looks so messy and spontaneous, yet it's so excellently and clearly captured, and it's beyond me how this even exists.

Technically strong, but that's it

[Horst_In_Translation · 4/10 · 26 September 2020]

"Voyna i mir III: 1812 god" sounds like a pretty complicated title with the words and number if you do not speak Russian, but actually it does not stand for something complicated at all. Of course, here we have another installment of the movie adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace". And 1812 stands for the year in which the movie is set. This is the third of four chapters and it is a bit unusual that it is not named after a character, but then again, it also makes sense I suppose because the war action is the only thing that we see from beginning to end. The only character they could have gone for is Pierre Bezukhov, but he has the fourth chapter named after him and I have not seen that one, but I suppose that he is featured prominently in there. If you knew that by the way, you also knew that he would survive this third film, which is a bit of a pity. I mean the spoiler and not that he survived because this suspense is one of not too many interesting things in here. Nothing that will have you on the edge of your seat, but I take what I can get with this movie. At slightly over 80 minutes this is the shortest installment from the quadrology that is even linked to an Oscar win. This triumph is maybe one reason why the outcome here is not forgotten yet. Also it is a color film, which is not to be taken for granted for 1967, so this is easily over half a century old. And I think the color aspect also really helps the film in terms of sets and costumes because this is really the epitome of a period piece overall. This installment not so much as some of the others because here we do not get fancy dresses from the girls, i.e. female characters, but we do get military uniforms from the guys mostly. And not just from the Russians, but also from the French because these two are the ones going against each other from beginning to end really. This film is all war, zero peace in contrast to the previous installment where the only aggression was maybe in the main characters' minds and linked to jealousy and desire. One thing coming to my attention here is that the French and Russian flag look very similar in terms of the colors, only one is vertical and the other horizontal, but then again the Soviet flag is of course entirely different. I watched the second chapter last weekend and at the end we saw a brief bridge already to the ation in this penultimate third chapter that it will be all about war. And it is. It may be the shortest of them all, but maybe it was the most challenging to made because of the sound of war, the gunfire effects, the many, many extras etc.

The man who was in charge here is of course Sergey Bondarchuk. He is the director and one of the writers who adapted Tolstoy's material for the screen. Plus he is also a key actor in here and has a lot of screen time. In the seccond chapter, he was not featured too prominently, but this one here is a lot about his character. How he perceives war, how he is honored to fight for his country, even if admittedly he is more walking around than firing shots really and a bit of an observer. Admittedly this was the bestg choice because he does not look like a tough soldier at all, more like a nobleman or an intellectual. And I am not sure if it was the way he was written or if it was the performance that made him slightly memorable for me. or at least not as forgettable as everything and everybody else. Maybe it also just had to do that I remember the character from the second chapter and his love confession at the very end. So it seems that he gets more and more screen time with every film. Haven't seen the first, but like I said in this third installment he has much more than in the second and in the fourth that I will probably watch next weekend he is the one at the very core of the story and no war to take attention away from him. He has only one scene with natasha Rostova here in this third part, mostly because the actress herself (or Natasha I should say) does not play a big role here whatsoever. We only find out in said scene that she is singing and maybe pursues a career in this field. We are also only there basically because Pierre is and we follow him through the movie. War is depicted as something really bloody in here, but also as heroic in a way. That's how the soldiers and military generals talk about it. As you can see from my rating, I did not enjoy the watch too much unfortunately, but I am not too surprised. The second chapter already did very little for me overall except in terms of Natasha's looks and I am generally not big on war films, so this one here was a bit doomed from the start. At least in my case. I still feel no need to give out a recommendation really because 99.9% of people coming here have seen the second chapter before considering watching this one and you can decide for yourself if you wanna keep going. Still, like I said, this third chapter here is very different compared to the second, especially in terms of the story. This puts the "war" in "War and Peace" really. What else? Oh yes, a few snippets in addition: There are voice-over parts on several occasions coming from Bondarchuk himself, i.e. his character, so only very vaguely a narrator. And Napoleon is in this film too, but only very briefly as we see him lead the sweet life even on the field of war while his soldiers are killed most brutally. He also speaks French there, but is such a brief inclusion that it is not even listed here on imdb. Same for two or three sentences of German that are also part of this film. At the core, it is of course all in Russian, so if you speak Russian, then you will maybe have a better time seeing this one as you don't need any subtitles. Finally, as for the violence: It is there and we see people falling to the ground on many occasions and they are killed of course. However, it is not too graphic or bloody, so younger audiences can also check this one out, although I feel that most of them will be bored like myself or even more bored than myself. I am still ready to give the final chapter a chance and hope the quadrology can go out on a high note. As for this film we have here, it's sadly a thumbs-down for me. I prefer more recent period pieces. Oh yes, let me finally add one more thing: I have not read Tolstoy's career-defining work, so my review is entirely about the movie and I cannnot make any references about parallels and differences between the base material and this adaptation here. But then again I firmly believe that this should never be the case anyway that you must be required to have read a book in order to watch and understand the movie. It isn't here either. Don't think I would have liked this film (more) if I had read the book before. Or at least not much more. That's all now. See you next week.