If the value of a novel can be judged by the number of times it has been adapted for the cinema, then the place in the Western canon for Anna Karenina is surely beyond question.

Leo Tolstoy's masterpiece, published in 1877, has been the subject of more than a dozen big-screen outings - the first one dating back to the movie industry's infancy in 1914. Since then, the eponymous heroine has been essayed by Greta Garbo (1935), Vivien Leigh (1948) and Sophie Marceau (1997) among others.

In 2012, it's the turn of English rose Keira Knightley to play the Russian aristocrat with a script from Oscar-winning playwright Tom Stoppard and under the direction of Joe Wright.

And for such a well-trodden story, this adaptation proves a largely successful reinterpretation of events that have been played out countless times before. However, I would also add that the realization of certain characters is sometimes found wanting.

Flowing shots

A highlight of the film is Wright's flowing and seamless camera shots in the transition of scenes. Some may claim the Brit director is more "style over substance" and this is underscored by the fact that much of the film is shot as if the action is actually taking place in a theater.

Wright is famous for his adaptation of period classics including Pride and Prejudice and Atonement (both also starring Knightley) and he perfectly evokes the color and style of aristocratic society in 19th century Russia.

The impressive soundtrack is another reason to appreciate the film and marks the fourth time that Wright has worked with Italian composer Dario Marianelli.

And Knightly is given admirable support by a cast of acing stalwarts each of whom flesh out their characters. They include Alicia Vikander as Kitty, Matthew Macfadyen as Oblonsky and Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Vronsky.

The love story between Kitty and Levin (Domhnall Gleeson), a farm landowner, is also well developed, expanding the plot from the city-based nobility to the Russian countryside.

Wispish figure

Some commentators were initially skeptical about Knightley's casting when it was announced, given that her wispish figure and angular features appear to be the very antithesis of the amorous, plump character created by Tolstoy. 

But in fairness, Knightley is experienced enough to carry the role off, and even in some ways to make it her own. She is particularly outstanding in a number of scenes, such as when she is watching Vronsky in a horse-riding competition, and also after she has been isolated and humiliated by high society.

However, it is still hard for the audience to feel much sympathy for her character. And this, I think, is down to the way Anna's husband, Alexandrovich Karenin (Jude Law) is played. Unlike Tolstoy's original character the always excellent Law portrays him as a caring and tolerant man. So when Anna does eventually betray him, it is her character that comes across as being unreasonable in the matter.

Everyone's a critic: White Knightley?

Huang Liping

27, Shanghainese

"It's all about 'old wine in new bottle,' and on this occasion the 'new bottle' didn't let me down. I wasn't expecting much more from such a familiar story, but I was amazed by the way the story is narrated using the setting of a theater. The film is visually enjoyable on the whole and the soundtrack was extremely impressive."

Chen Yunxia

45, Shanghainese

"As a big fan of Tolstoy's novel, I have watched many previous versions of Anna Karenina, and I think that Vivien Leigh played the most classical Anna. Keira Knightley is not really suitable for the part because she is neither charming nor noble enough in appearance. The plot has also been changed slightly. But I did enjoy the actors who play Vronsky and Karenin."

Jessice Brown

24, American

"The film reminded me of Joe Wright's Pride and Prejudice in some part, but the director should have remembered that Anna is not Elizabeth Bennet. And I don't think Keira Knightley's acting chops are up to the job. Also, the plot is overshadowed by the flamboyant filming techniques and general stylization of the movies. I also think some of the characters were not very well developed."