While other versions of "Anna Karenina" worked because you sympathized with Anna's plight, here I'm afraid that it is the husband (Ralph Richardson) who gets my support here, not Vivien Leigh's Anna who seems more interested in keeping things going with her lover (Kieron Moore),hardly at all involved with her son. In fact, the poor kid is hardly seen at all, making it difficult to believe that there's any type of closeness between mother and son. At first, it is easy to see why Leigh could be taken with the dashing Moore, but after the infidelity is revealed and Richardson takes her back, that-a should have been the end of that-a. You see the gossipy fishwives bad-mouthing Anna to Richardson's Karenin, initially seen as cold and distant, but he forgives her. As the saying goes, "Hurt me once. Shame on you. Hurt me twice. Shame on me."

This creates mixed feelings towards the film's heroine. Certainly, Leigh is absolutely beautiful, and the photography shines the spotlight on her, making her look absolutely radiant in the snowy settings. The problem is how the focus lies here, not on the relationship between mother and son or the decaying relationship between husband and wife, but between the two lovers whose scandal shocked the Russian nobility and made her practically an outcast. As the details of the film are expanded, Anna is revealed as far more selfish than her husband is cruel, which as it turns out, he is never actually cruel to her, only officious, then finally having the strength to say enough when she cheats on him for the second time with the same man.

I really wanted to like this a lot more. After all, there is much to enjoy here in the story of the last days before the Russian Revolution, and some haunting metaphors as Anna's impending doom is hinted at. Even the presence of a ghostly figure in her dream creates a feeling of tragedy, so as the famous finale approaches, it appears to be leading to a tension that sadly never arises. Richardson gets acting honors here, and a great cast of supporting players (among them Martita Hunt, famous for her Miss Haversham from "Great Expectations" and a young Sally Anne Howes) round out the ensemble. There's no comparing this with the Greta Garbo version where you sensed that the mother loved her son and the husband was certainly a lot less likable and sympathetic than Richardson is here.

Greta Garbo's 1935 film is not perfect. As much as I like Fredric March in most films(primarily Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde) I found him ill suited for Vronsky. However, it was visually stunning with a heart-rending suicide scene as well as superb performances from Garbo and Basil Rathbone. This 1948 film, starring Vivien Leigh this time, is worthy but I do prefer Garbo's personally. As with any film adaptation of the book, the film does deserve credit for compressing a long book into a just over 130 minute film. While there are scenes that are inevitably not as powerful, it does do credibly and perhaps adaptation-wise it is a little superior to Garbo's film. However, the screenplay while literate and thoughtful in some parts is also rather thin to sustain the story in others. Consequently the film does feel overlong and there are times also where it feels turgid pacing-wise. And as much as I hate to say it, as handsome as Kieron Moore is I found him as Vronsky miscast, he is too dull and the conviction of drama is lost for my liking. There is still much to like though. It is sumptuously filmed, with ornate settings and costumes, and the score is of poignant delicacy. It is beautifully directed by Julien Duvivier, and apart from Moore I thought the cast were fine. It was lovely to see Sally Ann Howes, Martita Hunt and Michael Gough and Vivien Leigh as ever gives a dazzlingly beautiful performance in the title role, but the acting honours go to Ralph Richardson whose Karenin is authoritative and superbly unbending. In conclusion, a worthy film adaptation. 7/10 Bethany Cox

When Vivien Leigh did her version of Anna Karenina for the British cinema she had the advantage of a less stringent censorship in the UK than Greta Garbo had working for MGM in the Thirties. Garbo was hemmed in by restrictions that she had to be a wronged woman, seduced and abandoned by her lover, and committing suicide to also atone for her sins.

Vivien plays a woman who knows precisely what she was doing and yet she chose to flout the male dominated society of 19th Century Russia. Like Garbo she is married to a pill of a husband and when a dashing young cavalry officer shows his attentions to her, she falls madly in love.

It's pointed out to her at least once in the film that her biggest sin is a lack of discretion. But Vivien and Kieron Moore want the whole world to know what's going on with them. Like William Randolph Hearst and Marion Davies.

MGM softened the portrait of Count Vronsky in the Garbo version by making it an eagerness to get back into the military during war that causes the breakup. Here Kieron Moore is far less noble. Not a bad person but a weak one. His mother wants him to make a more advantageous marriage and not to a woman with a bad reputation even though he's the one who gave her the bad reputation.

There's also a cop out scene filmed by MGM where Vronsky played by Fredric March expresses remorse over Anna in the end. No such scene exists in this more realistic version.

Of course Ralph Richardson as the husband Karenin is just as big a pill as Basil Rathbone was back in 1935. A man quite full of himself in his high level job in the Czar's government, he only sees how Anna's betrayal is affecting him. Richardson is almost doing a dress rehearsal for his portrayal of Dr. Sloper in next year's The Heiress.

Vivien Leigh was unfairly compared to Greta Garbo back when this came out, unfairly I think because there's only one Garbo. Vivien was a frail creature in life and that helped in a lot of her work. Anna was a frail creature herself unable to stand up to the hypocrisy and the pressure of the society around her.

In fact Anna Karenina is a story of failure. Two people fall in love, one of them trapped in a loveless marriage, and attempt to flout society and they lose. Tolstoy sees all that and records it well, but offers no solution.

Women's liberation was off the radar in old mother Russia.