Crime and Punishment - Du sollst nicht töten

Appalling.

Within minutes of the film's onset, the ideas of Raskolnikov's published paper are attributed to Nazis and consequently to Nietzsche. Anathema.

Crime and Punishment was published by Dostoyevsky in 1866. Nietzsche wrote Also Sprach Zarathustra *after* 1882. Nietzsche's last written work before dementia took hold was published 1888. Nietzsche died 1900. Nietzsche's sister published Will To Power in 1901. The National Socialist Party (the Nazis) formed in 1920.

Golan's "liberty" with the reality of Nietzschean philosophy only serves to reinforce insidious disinformation. Contrary to the insinuations of Golan's script, Nietzsche was *not* a Nazi; Nietzsche detested both the state and the notion of racial supremacy. Anyone who bothers to read his works knows this. Unfortunately precious few people ever bother to even lift a cover, relying instead on the sewage published by people like Golan, who obviously has also not bothered to even glance at Nietzsche's work.

This _movie_ is an insult to both Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche, never mind its myriad other affronts to the art of film, in general.

Attributing Raskolnikov's behavior to Nietzsche or Nietzschean philosophy is unforgivable. Not only was the writer of Crime and Punishment from a different generation (Dostoyevsky b. 1821; Nietzsche b.1844), there was *nothing* German about the ideology Raskolnikov had published in his paper. "Deutschland über alles," at the time Crime and Punishment was published, was known as an appeal to the various German monarchs to give the creation of a united Germany a higher priority than the independence of their small states, not a call to a race of "super" men.

Did Golan actually *read* the book written by Dostoyevksy? My money says he read 3/4 of the Cliff Notes for Crime and Punishment, and used cultural "knowledge" he found in various chatrooms and forums on dial-up BBS and the internet to inform his screenplay.

This film is like the bad dream of a university sophomore in 1998, who nodded off despite ingesting a full bottle of No-Doz, as he was trying to write the final paper for Russian Lit (went to class, but read none of the books), the day after he learned he got a D- for his final grade in Survey of Existential Philosophers. Also made a D in history, 20th Century Europe Before the Cold War.

If you have read Crime and Punishment and enjoyed it, do *not* watch this if you seek to heighten/enrich that experience. If you are supposed to read Crime and Punishment, but think you can watch this film and get what you need, you are headed for an epic fail.

If you're into msting, however, there may be some value to viewing this.

Aside from numerous fails with time period inconsistencies that only make sense in the context of a bad dream (note: not a nightmare, just some crappy, disconnected dream): wardrobe *sucks* and contributes massively to the overall unbelievability of the world this script created; the makeup is... more-often-than-not very obviously make-up, poorly applied; everyone delivers their lines thoroughly stilted, unconvincing in the extreme. Props and set design are exactly as one might have in a bad dream, especially if, in real life, one has worked stock at a big box store, Walmart, or Best Buy.

What an awful waste of celluloid. I wish Mystery Science Theater 3000 was still making new episodes on TV, and that either Joel and the 'bots or Mike and the 'bots could give this thing the roasting it deserves.

So, firstly, I must say that I read the book a week ago and I still have a fresh memory of it. Today I watched this movie, and I would say that you better have to read the book first, so that the movie don't spoil it, in case you read it. And you really should to.

The idea behind the movie is really great, and unfortunately, it fails to pass the full meaning very well. However, you should keep in mind that it is a movie, and the book wasn't made for being one. That happens because of the great emotional presentation and the unique character and thoughts each person has in the book.

So, watching this movie, you lose a part of Dostoevsky's masterpiece. What is more, many details are missing that really give life and making the novel feel real. There are a few differences with the book as well, insignificant however.

"So must I assume this movie is garbage?" Of course not. The actors are great in the majority of cases, and the plot is very solid and good enough conveyed. Nothing great at effects or music (not more than 5 soundtracks, think so). But it's a decent visual representation of the epic novel. Read it and watch the movie as I said, you won't regret it.

PS: Keep in mind that they can be both depressing enough, but Very Good at their class (especially the novel).

each adaptation is occasion for present personal style. the dose is essential. in this case, basic sin are innovations. Nietzsche and Stalin, Russia after 1991 and crumbs of Hitler/Ceaușescu speech, a story without borders or soul, great actors in not inspired roles. only virtue - the measure of fragility for novel. Dostoyevski is not rubber toy. and the ambition of director/scriptwriter to do a personal version is a big error. because his Crime and Punishment is almost fake. the confession of Raskolnikov - a profound injury against novel. the relations between characters - chain of mistakes. only excuse - the good intentions. but to use a really good cast for a poor drawing is expression only for a great blind ambition. desire to say a classic story in yours manner, with yours mark, with selfish attitude is a mistake out of words.

I wanted to watch the 2002 version of "Crime And Punishment" but to my surprised, there's actually two versions of that movie released the same year! Dang, I ended up seeing the wrong one. Well, I'm going to review this anyway. This was a pretty good movie for me. I went into this completely blind. That is, I have no idea what the plot of the original book is.

I can see why this version isn't that beloved. The acting, especially Crispin Glover's can get really silly at times. Still, this was a nice way to be introduced to this story. I have obviously never read the original book. This one seemed to focus on things that weren't relevant to the story. I'm sure I'll find the right version next time. ***

Strayed too far from the essence of the book and characters for me. Hurt was very good, that's about it on the acting side. I didn't think the Rodion Raskolnikov character was anywhere like that of the book, and poorly acted.