User Reviews

*Possible Spoilers* (though nothing you don't see in the first 15 minutes) As cinema, this movie is wonderful. It's chockful of interesting camera angles, cinematography, and extreme closeups. As an adaptation of a novel though its not so good - purists beware. The character playing Raskolnikov is too short and not handsome, though dirty enough (refer to the novel, Raskolnikov is above average or at least perceives himself to be above average) in all categories. The murder scene is far too tame and wholly different than the novel. The murder of alyona is glossed, when it should have been focused upon as the death of lizaveta is "collateral damage". The pacing of the film is also off. The first several minutes encompass several chapters crucial to understanding the utilitarian philosophy underlying Raskolnikov's decision to kill Alyona. The closeups begin to grow tiresome however. Recommended for cinema buffs and the illiterate.

I'm a book lover but I loved this. Yes, it left out some stuff (Marmeladov's long intro scene, Katerina's mad scene, Luzhin trying to frame Sonia for theft and failing), but it's a deep and inspired adaptation wit a really great cast.

I came for John Simm and I found him totally absorbed int the role, not a trace of the Master. He's wonderful. I believed him from the first moment.

Ian McDiarmid if an excellent Porfiry, annoying like hell (as he should be!), good to see him in something other than SW.

And Nigel Terry steals every scene he's in. No, he's not exactly book!Svidrigailov, they romanticized him a bit and they swept his really dark depths under the rug. No mention of him raping a maiden or other unsettling things. Without that, he doesn't come off as a villain, rather as an aging man who is truly and utterly in love, almost a victim. And with Terry being so gorgeous, you just don't understand Dunya...

In trying for a super -literary feel, this is not only fantastically inaccurate, but the decision to film almost every scene in frantically moving closeups to induce a sense of disorientation, or whatever the director has in mind, is a disruptive failure, considering the fantastic lucidity and penetration and exquisite articulation of the source, with its near-unbelievable sense of composition.

I have read this particular novel by every major translator in the English language and that is no exaggeration. I've discussed it with Cyrillic/Russian language professors and last week re-read the Constance Garnett's translation for at least the fourth time. In her case, some scholars feel she has taken some idiomatic liberties, and since I can't collate, I can only say that of the many I've read (versions by Garnett, Monas, McDuff, Pevear, Volohonsky, Katz, Slater......) Garnett best captures the genuine HUMOR in the writing.

In all the turmoil and agony and confusion of Raskolnikov, there are moments of intense humor created, and this is often overlooked in the "SERIOUSNESS" of many interpretations of this work of literary art, whether filmed or retranslated, because of the awe in which the quality of writing is held.

For instance , the totally botched early scene where he is supposed to be at a a private tavern table with Marmelodov, whose half crazed monologues are outrageous and extremely funny and pithy establishes character points in both men that are ruinously forgotten here. There are probably movies that are based on C&P that are much better then this TV attempt at literality.

Even Simms, looking like a young Mickey Rourke, is hideously wrong. His clothing is wrong. The Petersburg sets are wrong. The whole thing is wrong but is trying so hard to be 'literal'.

There are many personalities that cannot be "played" because they are inimitable. There are musical compositions that are so brilliant , that they cannot be recomposed without destroying the integrity of the original.

This does not stop ambitious intellectual peasants from taking their shot at portraying works of undisputed genius.

This thing is silly and it's huge effort to be a serious work with a capitol S , makes it more of an insult to Dostoyevsky, then a cartoon version. A man who spent much of his life imprisoned, lined up in front of a firing squad as a "joke" for being so seditious, was perpetually broke because of his fondness for roulette, and had to write "The Gambler", to get an advance, only to destroy that money, who then at age 68 married his eighteen year old secretary, would probably get a good laugh out of this piece.

Of course if he could only have been put in suspended animation, cryogenically frozen, Fyodor and guys like Van Gogh or even Phillip Dick could have been resurrected as billionaires.

I have actually seen worse adaptations of things, and I couldn't care less, but I do recommend in passing that you do yourself a favor and just read the book. It's extremely interesting and entertaining, and an argument could easily be made for it being the greatest crime novel ever written for many reasons, it's certainly one of the world' greatest novels.

The version of 1984 with Richard Burton and Hurt was a beautifully imagined and faithful rendition of the author's vision, and it does happen rarely. Perhaps the worst film adaptation I can remember is what they did to "Catch 22". Some things are best left to the masters. I would not try to reproduce a Rembrandt or play cello like Yo Yo Ma.

But then, why would a person who has NOT read the book, seek out a movie on this now ancient piece. Is Bach dated? Beethoven? The Bible?

This book will be around a long time for a reason, this TV thing is flash in the pan.