Mörderische Verführung

I knew nothing about this film before I saw it, so I was hoping it would be some undiscovered classic. Quite soon, however, I realised that it was pretentious nonsense. It had the air of being made by some studio in order to appeal to teenagers who write rubbish goth poetry in their bedrooms. It makes awful, contrived attempts to be "arty", while forgetting to add any actual meaning. The characterisation is almost non-existent, people don't seem to have any justifications for their actions, and while they may occasionaly give reasons verbally the acting is so poor that the motivation just isn't there. The dialogue, especially in the voice overs, is terrible and amateurishly written. The pace is painfully slow, since I hadn't read a synopsis of the film (and I'm not familiar with the source material, and the same probably goes for the target audience, which shows how misjudged the film is) I spent a long time wondering when this film would get to its point and indeed where it was going. There is no need for it to be so slow, and there is also no point in dividing it up into sections other than to have "cool" titles like "Damaged little f***ers" flashing up on the screen. Dividing it up into sections only serves to highlight the lack of structure and the inconsistency of the plot. The film is narrated from the point of view of a character who only appears sporadically throughout the film, and the film ends by concluding a plot line that is not very prominent except at the very beggining, so is quite pointless, yet acts like it is some kind of high art.

I realise this review probably reads like a jumbled mess but then so does this film. Life is too short for garbage like this.

> This (very) loose rendition of Dostoyevsky's novel is at least smart enough not to forget the basic moral dimensions of the book - but they are present only basically. Dostoevsky's complex, nightmarish theological wrestlings are more or less summed up as `So, like, you believe in Jesus, like.' I start with my main beef because the film is strong, weak, confused, and intriguing. It continues the genre initiated by Freeway and continued by Cruel Intentions (contemporary teen drama based in/contrasted with classical literature and myth), but moves beyond them. The narrator is an authentically whacko seer, Vincent (Vincent Kartheiser), part angel, part demon, a living example of Dostoyevsky's most painful but genuine thesis that genuine morality comes from those who have sinned, people who understand the breadth of human capacities for good and evil. The `Raskolnikov' figure is not an arrogant genius but teenage girl Roseanne, whose life at the start is fairly normal, mixing equal parts anxiety at home (parents hate each-other) and working for popularity at school (she's a cheerleader who dates football player Jimmy), embarking on an unconcerned hedonism condoned by modern suburban existence. Her stepfather (Michael Ironside) is either a stroke or a psychotic fit waiting happen, stewing in deep frustration as his wife (Ellen Barkin) withdraws from him into an affair with cool, romantic barkeeper Eric (Jeffrey Wright, in an oddly small role), resulting in Ironside assaulting the couple in the local yogurt barn. As home life disintegrates, Roseanne's social position is rocked. Earlier seen trying to anchor the seething emotions of her parents, Rosanne is left in the middle of an escalating marital war with her social embarrassment acute. Things spiral into the lower depths when a drunken Ironside rapes Roseanne, precipitating her breakdown at school and then her planning with Jimmy to murder her stepfather.

Obviously Roseanne isn't really an equivalent of Raskolnikov; if you can say she exists in a Godless fashion it's just in the generally unacknowledged manner of modern life and not because of a conscious intellectual challenge, and her murder is fuelled by personal, even justifiable animus; this situation is taken from the sort of occasional psychotic excesses of suburban life we hear about on the news now and then, or see for ourselves. Fair enough; Dostoyevksy and other 19th century writers liked basing their stories upon real crimes and incidents that would be both authentic starting points and also accorded to themes that the writers were interested in.

So although the movie more or less skips around updating Raskolnikov as a character, it does lead into the novel's development. Vincent takes the place of Raskolnikov's prostitute lover as the informing presence of redemption. Although introduced tattooing the apparently nihilistic emblem `Por Nada' on his arm, Vincent actually has a weird form of Christianity that balances his overt perversity (he likes following and photographing Roseanne at all hours), and becomes, as he predicted, a figure to lean on for Roseanne; she is despite herself steadily drawn towards his lurking, warped philosophical self. As Barkin has been arrested and put on trial for Ironside's murder, Roseanne is faced with either confessing or letting her mother go to prison or possibly be executed. Anyone who knows how the book goes knows where it is going (for those who don't, don't read on), as Vincent, who has photographed Roseanne committing the murder, refuses to hand her in, instead subtly encouraging her to confess. She eventually does so, suffering a period of imprisonment where she takes over the narration, glad she isn't noticed anymore. Vincent is the only person who comes to visit her and eventually when she is released, and they ride off together on his motorcycle, evoking for me Allen Ginsberg's `Angleheaded Hipsters'.

The problem the film encounters is in updating Dostoyevksy's moral dilemmas. The story makes the incidents too personal; it's very much easier for Roseanne's gnawing guilt to be inspired by her mother's imprisonment as opposed to the poor unfortunate Raskolnikov's killing is blamed on, just as her murder is less problematic. Also, Vincent's Christianity isn't as strongly affiliated with a love of humanity as Dostoyevsky's, although it is implied that Vincent's way can accept people no matter how damaged because they are all born of the same imperfection. These things said, the film is always edgy, tough, and entertaining, particularly stylish in the pep rally filmed to resemble a form of black mass.

Roseanne Skolnick (Monica Keena) is a popular cheerleader and girlfriend of the football player Jimmy (James DeBello), and she has a very dysfunctional family: her mother Maggie Skolnick (Ellen Barkin) is having an affair with a bartender and her stepfather Fred Skolnick (Michael Ironside) is a drunken and aggressive man. Vincent (Vincent Kartheiser) is a sweet and weird teenager, who studies in the same class and has a crush on Roseanne. He follows her everywhere with his camera, taking lots of pictures of her in the most different places or situations. When Roseanne is abused by her stepfather, she decides to kill him, with the support of Jimmy. However, her mother Maggie takes the blame and goes to the court for trial, being accused of murder. During the trial of her mother, Roseanne has to live with her guilt, being supported by Vincent. In the end, she has to decide: leave her mother be convicted and live with the feeling of guilt for the rest of her life, or assume the responsibility for the crime. "Crime and Punishment in Suburbia" is a surprisingly great teen free adaptation of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment". The screenplay is very well developed and the young cast has excellent performance. Although having a great moral in the end, with the redemption of Roseanne, the direction is so good that is able to conclude the plot without being corny. I like good contemporaries free adaptations of famous romances, and this one has not disappointed me. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Crime + Castigo" ("Crime + Punishment")

When I first heard about this being based on Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment I was fearful that it was going to be another half-hearted teen version of a classic. I am so glad I was wrong.

While Dostoyevsky made his point with words, Rob Schmidt did the same with the films imagery which truly was both narcotic and haunting. He would make you feel as if you were in some drug induced dream/nightmare. You felt as if you were trapped between Heaven and Hell, happiness and sorrow, love and loss.

As the story progresses you watch the ghosts of Roseanne (Monica Keena) slowly absorb her. She goes from this glowing image of beauty to a shadow of a human being. It's stark and disturbing. While Vincent (Vincent Kartheiser) the seemingly gloomy one, who loves her from the beginning of the film is the sole voice of reason, hope, and beauty in her slowly cascading world of tragedies.

The film epitomizes the continuous hopelessness that many today feel but refuse to acknowledge. Although, I think what the film does best is that it shows us these sadnesses while reinforcing us with the concepts that we can make anything happen if we want to badly enough. Good or bad, we are the only ones responsible for our fates.

I would be more perplexed by the low rating and the many vituperous reviews if I didn't understand as much as I do about family dysfunction, alcoholism, irresponsible behavior and all that. Some people don't like this much truth in their faces. Oddly, it's not just the perps; it's often the victims, as well.

For me, this is just an artfully rendered case study of the stuff I deal with four days a week. But I see more Victor Hugo (and "Les Miserables") here than I do Dostoyevsky.

Yeah; I agree the execution is uneven. At times to the point of being almost senseless. But that may be part of the charm. Life in the world described here -is- uneven. At times to the point of being almost senseless. (How many adolescent females with alcoholic parents have I known who think life is senseless? A hundred? -Two- hundred?)

Can't say I "enjoyed" this movie. The "Jimmy Stewart" character (from "Rear Window") is just a little too obsessed to work in the world of a young victim / victimizer who seems, at least, to be trying to make sense of it all. The trial scenes may well be meant to have a dreamlike quality, but they just seem disconnected. And the whole trip is plain ugly.

But the fact that the whole trip -is- so ugly is a major reason why this film demands to be seen. Alcohol; frustrated, narcissistic fathers; cougar moms and hottie daughters are a recipe for disaster that's being cooked daily in suburban America. This is reality in modern America. It'd be nice to put a stop to it before our whole culture becomes dysfunctional.

Nice little wake-up call here.