Schuld und Sühne

A quiet cinemaization of a masterpiece. Nothing special, strange or beautiful. An ordinary acting and good work. It is a vain ambition to desire translate the Dostoievski's world in a movie. Important is the respect for novel's spirit. And the film is a interesting example for this rule.

Ben Kingsley is correct in the skin of a proteic character. Patrik Dempsy is a special Raskolnikof, victim of desire to show every aspect of a silent crisis. But what instrument is perfect for the Russian soul examination? "Crime and punishment" is not a great TV movie. It is not a reject or a boring piece of weekend afternoon. Corect, without any ambition, it is fairy description of a impressive literary creation. But is it enough? Maybe for the public who ignore the book because the movie is, in fact, only a noble intention.

This would have been good, but it's got the actors speaking in stupid accents, I appreciate that Ben Kingsley was trying his hardest not to, but I'm still stunned how some directors would think it a good idea! Stop the stupid accents!

it is only another outside adaptation of the novel. and the only sin remains the conviction than to save the appearances represents to make a good film. because the sin of this film is the same who defines many other exercise on the Dostoievsky text - good actors, beautiful performances and poor script. or, not exactly the script is the problem but the ambition to give a "reasonable" version of a book who has its precise rules, perspectives and development of the way of characters. and this is all.Patrick Dempsey as a good Raskolnikov, a brilliant Ben Kingsley and Julie Delpy as the ideal Sonia. but the essence of the universe of novel remains a sort of version "ad usum Delphini".

Just because something is a so-called classic doesn't make it worth watching. This movie did not remain true to the storyline. There was some fraudulent backstory, as an attempt to provoke sympathy for Raskolnikov up front, when in fact he should get none, until the end. One of the most moving scenes in the book, the reading of the raising of Lazarus, was reduced to a quick, almost jokey, bit of silliness shoved up against a commercial break. The acting was atrocious, as the actors had to manage unnecessary Russian accents. Perhaps the needs of commercial television simply make the adaptation of novels like _Crime and Punishment_ impossible. As far as the casting, Ben Kingsley is a superb choice. Patrick Dempsey was inspired casting (better than 1935's Peter Lorre); the way Raskolnikov is described in the book I had always pictured Michael Sarrazin, but Dempsey is cut of the same cloth, and we're supposed to be appalled that such a nice looking and bright fellow could commit Raskolnikov's crime -- and this was undercut by the synthetic sympathy they tried to give him. There was no spirit of Dostoevsky at work in this movie. It's almost as if their source was a Classics Illustrated version rather than the book. But, if it encouraged anyone who was hitherto reluctant to read the book, it served a good purpose.

Some scenes are ridiculous - the timing is all wrong and the director deserves an axe-treatment for screwing this book up. The Disney version would probably be better. The original story has many layers but they tried to make it into a shakespeare play or sumthin, but worse.. Shame on you. Ben Kingsley is good though, and I liked the genuine feel to the surroundings, but that doesn´t help this empty shell of a movie. If you read the book u might get inspired to read it again. If u have not - leave this crap alone. I bet the reason Kingsley (the police) looks angry at times is because he´s starting to realize the movie will suck.