Visually stunning; Dramatically. . . what's the opposite of stunning?

"This story is not about individual characters, but the different classes of society that they represent."

I think the film does chronicle the discontents of early 20th century Russia, but the romantic plot lines especially that of Zhivago and Lara, do tend to overwhelm the historical context of the story. David Lean was interested in the history, but also very conscious of creating a commercial product for a mass audience, to the extent that the individuals in this case are thrust well and truly, front and centre of the milieu.

Yes, I agree with you to a large extent. You can understand to a certain degree why Zhivargo and Lara are attracted, but Tonya is such an appealing character too that you feel she is really being stiffed. I also felt that Alec Guinness and Rod Steiger really dominated the screen in their roles arguably at the expense of Omar Shariff. I found myself wanting to know more about General Zhivago's story as he appeared to be such a compelling character. Yet he was on the screen relatively speaking only a short time. Only really great actors can impose themselves on you in that sort of sense and this was one of those times.

I agree with your excellent post.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

I think to a large degree the lack of "chemistry" between Lara and Zhivago was deliberate. David Lean wanted Omar Sharif to portray Zhivago as a passive onlooker, not a character who directly involved himself, made things happen, took initiative. He was basically a bystander, with emotional depth and artistic talent but not an erotic character.

Lean left out some of what was in the novel (thankfully). In the book, Zhivago only has sex with Lara because his wife is pregnant and he finds her sexually unattractive. Then he is taken by the partisans. He and Lara bond with each other due to circumstance (in the book she is deeply in love with Pasha throughout). After he is separated from Lara, he takes up with yet another woman and has two children by her. So he seems to be someone who leans on whatever woman is available for emotional support, but Lara is the one who inspired him to write some classic poems (which we never see). I got the impression that his sexuality was largely poured into his poetry, so that would be part of the reason for a lack of chemistry between him and Lara.

A major theme of the movie, I think, is less romance than it is the devastating effect of war and unrest on people's lives and how they become toys of fate and circumstance.

But another theme seems to be that some characters embrace or adapt to the chaotic changes rather than passively enduring them. Yevgraf, Strelnikov and Komarovsky all do it in different ways -- they actively involve themselves in the strife, rather than waiting for something to happen. Yevgraf is still doing this at the very end.

Film analysis isn't my forte, but some of these things occurred to me and make the lack of "romance" more understandable.

Its funny because this is regarded as one of THE most romantic movies of all time, and I never got why. The couple didnt do much for me, their romance was written as pretty one dimensional and superficial and I felt that I should have rooted for them more than I actually did.

watched Must Love Dogs last night, John Cusack's character loves Zhivago and say "they won't remake it, nobody wants to watch this kind of yearning nowadays, it's too painful, modern man can't take it."