Rating-7/10The Last Station is a biopic of good proportions and delivers them thoroughly and dramatically to produce a film about Leo Tolstoy that isn't his point of view at all, if anything is criticises parts of his mentality. It isn't scared to show the fragility's of every person included in this film and just what it takes to push them over the limit. I particularly liked this movie also for it's moments of silent drama pieced with it's angry drama together which build up for a good drama, and that is exactly what I found it, a safely good drama.The story is slow yes but it has to be to that to show the drama unravel and who is treacherous and who is faithful for a good film that shows good drama. I enjoyed the more humorous side with James McAvoy portraying a character who although it is in no way a comedy but a drama that isn't afraid to not always be serious and produce a more light side that runs along side the darker tones too. Finally on the story it is a story that starts by being more happy than expected but by the end darker tones come in and not to ruin it but it is dark until the very last few scenes(well kind of).Christopher Plummer and Helen Mirren(both nominated for Oscars) do superb and although Ii actually didn't feel this was Mirren's best, she still did a great job as the slightly damaged wife. Plummer I felt was great support for McAvoy as the main man Tolstoy, he excerpted his smart mind with a tad of crazy to bring in a portrayal that can dazzle. Supporting cast are all good, literally nearly all of them and the film gains on that point with a solid cast as I said. I finally will say that the acting deserves more praise as the characters are diverse and unpredictable, and so there skills are pushed to the limit, all of them.This is based on Jay Parini's book of the same name and the screenplay adaption by Michael Hoffman is a well unknown if it is a good on the book but in any cast the script is good and is of course adapted very well by the actors on screen. Hoffman is also director and proves to be a great one of that making this film nearly very good, but not quite. Finally on technical terms the locations are beautiful in Tolstoy's grounds and make for a drama yes, but it is beautiful to look at if you happened to not like the story.The film is not without criticism but not a lot so here is the only thing I found wrong with this, the film is incredibly slow and set in the most similar places scene for scene, now personally I found the drama in most scenes but I felt maybe some were wasted and boring, but also why my rating is not higher than what I gave it. I think some will not find these annoying and some will hate the entire film but in the end it is your opinion.I think those who enjoy straight drama will love this and if you enjoy films set in these kind of early 20th century settings then it is perfection for you, although maybe a more romantic film set in this time would be a better choice for you. Those who like big and loud films stay away, this is slow and also slow releasing drama that is for those who like it that way, but still worth a watch nonetheless.Overall I give it a 7/10 and it is Safely a Good film, it just escapes from being simply Pretty Good and I feel I could have rated it a bit higher, but also rated it lower. People will be mixed on how to rate it and although I do believe if you watch this you will like it, in the final end it comes right down to preference and what kind of film you enjoy watching. Finally also even if you don't like films like this, if you are an aspiring actor this film has prime example of how to be a good actor and really is worth taking notes on.

Charming. Impressive. But the final impression is about few great actors on stage. The taste of theater play is deep. And the novel is only pretext for a a nice interpretation. The virtue, in this case, is the story in spring clothes. Invitation to read the novel. And to discover Tolstoi universe. Pray of expectations, the film is only a personal adaptation of a book. And one of images of subjective huge writer. It is not another solution. The result is decent and Christopher Plummer seductive, Helen Mirrer - brilliant and James McAvoid - the same.But the deep waters are avoided. Piece of old Russia in the pocket of West director, The Last Station is only a impression. An interesting toy in the light of lost time, a beautiful drawing in delicate colors.

Much of the criticism I have been reading about 'The Last Station' is specious, and I felt compelled to write this article because I believe that most of the negative reaction might be eliminated if the film were more adequately illuminated.You don't have to love (or even know anything about) Tolstoy to enjoy this film. You do, however, have to have a taste for love, because this movie is a wonderfully full (if occasionally saccharine) tour de force of love- in fact, the director informs the audience so, right away, in the opening quote. So the viewer ought to approach this work with the mindset that the story is about the love that occurs to various degrees with each of the different characters.It would be a grave mistake to believe that, since this is a film about Tolstoy, the film itself echoes some of the characteristics of Tolstoy's work. In fact, it echoes practically none of Tolstoy's work. I do not, however, find fault in this, and any movie-goer who is expecting to experience War and Peace ought to just go read War and Peace because War and Peace's literary excellence is just that: literary. To find fault in The Last Station because it does not address the problem of the Russian Aristocracy's exorbitant habits, and their relationship to the struggling peasant class, is like condemning the movie for not discovering who was responsible for the murder on the Orient Express, or insufficiently detailing the party life of Holly Golightly- that is to say, the two are entirely unrelated.Although the content of the story concerns the aging Leo Tolstoy and his wife, Sofya, the protagonist of the movie is Valentin Bulgakov (played by James McAvoy), and so, the principle conflict is, in fact, about his personal devotion to the Tolsotyian doctrines, and how his personal goals and values change as a result of his employment under Tolstoy. So, any stigma attached to Tolstoy comes directly from Bulgakov's personal devotion to Tolstoy the Diety, and this dynamic is the only thing which plays on any viewers' preconceived notions of Tolstoy.The story is not really about Tolstoy, per se, but is instead about Bulgakov's navigating between the celibacy and strictness of the Tolstoy Dogma, (as embodied through Chertkov, portrayed by Paul Giammati) and the passionate and sometimes inexplicable nature of human interactions (as embodied through Sofya, portrayed by Helen Mirren in an incredible, forget-where-you-are performance). So, take heart, the viewer is not taken on a journey with Tolsoty where-in we aim to discover how to solve the enormous question of the class conflict in Russia. Instead, the question is: how has Bulgakov's first hand experience of Tolstoy, Sofya, Chertkov, and Telyatinki in general, affected his beliefs, and will those beliefs confirm his position as a disciplined Tolstoyian, or will they facilitate his rejection of the doctrine? So, you see, criticism about Sofya's "weird behavior", or about the lack of Tolstoyian erudition really comes down to a misunderstanding. The Tolstoyian scholastic plays a frivolous and superficial role, and does so intentionally. The film is not actually about Tolstoy, or his works, and we need only process the interactions that occur, and the characters for that matter, through Bulgakov's experience and frame of mind.When the viewer understands this, I think they will understand why the film is so delightful.

Rather than present at least a GLIMPSE of Tolstoy's brilliance, Christopher Plummer depicts him as a one-dimensional, gruff, lovable old coot. He hardly has any lines throughout the movie, and the other characters are equally devoid of any depth. Helen Mirren's character is supposed to be self-centered and calculating, but even she breaks down into saccharine lightness at the end. The entire film is a descent into maudlin, pretentious sentimentality, and is only atmospheric, not substantive. Instead of being an accurate portrayal of early 1900's Russia, we are given "Russia-lite." We don't have a clue about Tolstoy's inner thoughts and motivations, because we see only an affable geezer. This was a squandered opportunity to reveal the mind of a complicated, social visionary. The director chose cute over interesting.