Crime + Punishment

> 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.

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.

Roseanne(Monica Keena) is a popular and beautiful student that is admired by a lot of people, especially by a lonely outcast Vincent(Vincent Kartheiser) who is obsessed with her and follows her around everywhere, hoping to get noticed . But Roseanne isn't so perfect like everybody thinks, she has a horrible life with her stepfather who one night, after her mother leaves, rapes her. The next day, Roseanne is totally devastated and she decides that she wants to kill him along with her boyfriend Jimmy(James DeBello). This movie started out good, it seemed like it was going to be a dark teenage drama but near the end, it turned into this cheesy bad love story with no plot. That was the problem with this story, it didn't really fit in anywhere. The only character i really liked was Vincent, he was so interesting and he had so much soul, not to mention that he was gorgeous. Anyways, I would give Crime and Punishment in Suburbia 7/10

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.

The 3 best aspects to this film are the acting, cinematography and soundtrack.

This film just made me a big fan of Monica Keena and Vincent Kartheiser. Both delivered dynamic and intriguing performances. Monica Keena's character is transformed throughout the film and she's able to convey that arc with great subtlety. Vincent Kartheiser's character was also conveyed very well, not overdone like so many other goth/nerd characters are portrayed.

The cinematography was great - visually compelling imagery and an unsteadiness throughout that lends to the feel of uneasiness with what is happening to the characters. It lends itself to the feelings, moods of not only the characters in the film but to the viewer as well. A great film engages the viewer and makes them feel as though they have been drawn into the world of the film.

Finally I'm a big fan of music and soundtracks that aren't cliché and don't dominate a scene. I'd love to get my hands on a list of all the songs used in the film.

The writing was decent, and many of the supporting actors played their parts very well - this easily could have devolved into overblown and overacted performances but nobody in the cast fell prey to that trap.

There's a strange morality to the story - one not easily discerned after one viewing. Of course there can be comparisons to the film "American Beauty" and while that one garnered all the praise and awards I believe this film is much more challenging yet far more fulfilling. It's more subtle and the answers aren't so easy to ascertain. I'll be watching this movie many times and I have a feeling I'll discover something new each time. Great movie!