Crime and Punishment

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.

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".

I have to admit that for a TV movie, I wasn't expecting much out of Crime and Punishment. However, as an avid reader of Dostoevsky, I felt I had to give it a chance. I read Crime and Punishment three years ago, and I loved it and welcomed the chance to see it acted out. I was pleasantly surprised! This was a wonderful adaptation of the novel. It stayed true to the wonderful storyline most of the time, and it was superbly acted. I don't know much about Russia in the nineteenth century, but this film really captured the time and really made me feel like I was there. It is certainly a great work, and anyone who loves Dostoevsky should see it.

Crime and Punishment is one of the greatest books ever written but is not the easiest book to put on screen.Dostoyevsky`s genius is in his capacity to go deep into his characters minds and thoroughly describe their emotions.Patrick does a great job in this movie and so does Sir Ben(but he`s always brilliant)but the movie doesn`t even come close to the excellence of the book.In Dostoyevsky`s books the plot is not that important,for him the characters are more important.He puts them in different situations just to see how they react,for him the world inside his characters is more interesting than the world outside of them so it`s very difficult(if not impossible) to You should see the movie but don`t judge the book by it. make a good movie based on one of his books.