A brilliant student tests his morality by killing an elderly woman in 1800s St. Petersburg. As a detective cleverly investigates, guilt consumes the conflicted young man's conscience.A brilliant student tests his morality by killing an elderly woman in 1800s St. Petersburg. As a detective cleverly investigates, guilt consumes the conflicted young man's conscience.A brilliant student tests his morality by killing an elderly woman in 1800s St. Petersburg. As a detective cleverly investigates, guilt consumes the conflicted young man's conscience.
- Won 1 BAFTA Award
- 1 win & 4 nominations total
Browse episodes
Featured reviews
Nowadays, many would find this mini-series overly talky, even for a TV drama. For example, in a scene of part one, actor Frank Middlemas grouses and weeps in self-pity for ten whole minutes! However, the sequence is straight out of chapter two of the novel, with most of the dialog included, and all in all, the whole mini-series is a very faithful adaptation. Yes, it may be talky, but the talk is good; few novelists were more philosophically ruminative than Dostoyevsky...
Some of the casting is first-rate. The other versions I've seen portray Raskolnikov as a somewhat demonic though poetical intellect--completely overlooking that, although a murderer, he can be often sensitive, sentimental, and even generous. John Hurt believably portrays all these qualities and he's a exemplary Raskolnikov, even if he is a little too old for the part. Timothy West is a brilliant Porfiry and his three scenes with John Hurt are model examples of nuanced and subtle acting and interacting.
This is a production for those who either love the book, or who want to love it.
Some of the casting is first-rate. The other versions I've seen portray Raskolnikov as a somewhat demonic though poetical intellect--completely overlooking that, although a murderer, he can be often sensitive, sentimental, and even generous. John Hurt believably portrays all these qualities and he's a exemplary Raskolnikov, even if he is a little too old for the part. Timothy West is a brilliant Porfiry and his three scenes with John Hurt are model examples of nuanced and subtle acting and interacting.
This is a production for those who either love the book, or who want to love it.
John Hurt is far and away the best actor I have ever seen, anything that he was in was a recommendation in itself.
I remember enjoying the series when it aired here in Australia on ABC in 1982.
I have never forgotten the brilliance of the exchange between Porfiry Petrovich (West) and Raskolnikov (Hurt). The acting is probably the finest I have ever seen in a dual scene. Worth watching for these scenes alone.
The reviews seem to be a bit down on the series but it is interesting enough basically a great display of British acting.
I remember enjoying the series when it aired here in Australia on ABC in 1982.
I have never forgotten the brilliance of the exchange between Porfiry Petrovich (West) and Raskolnikov (Hurt). The acting is probably the finest I have ever seen in a dual scene. Worth watching for these scenes alone.
The reviews seem to be a bit down on the series but it is interesting enough basically a great display of British acting.
This miniseries has its good points. Raskolnikov's farewell to his mother is moving; Sonya is believably sweet; the interrogation scenes are better than average; Marmeladov's long soliloquy is very well-acted.
However, there are a lot of problems. First, too many of the characters are too creepy and overdrawn, bordering on the freakish. The overacting gets seriously out of hand, especially during the funeral luncheon and its aftermath.
And, as weak as the novel's epilogue is, the film version's is even weaker, amounting to a trite exchange between Porfiry and Sonya and a reprint of the last paragraph of the book over a shot of someone crying.
And I don't think that Svidrigailov should end up as one of the story's more sympathetic characters -- thanks partly to the fact that the actor shows restraint in his role, and therefore seems recognizably human; and partly to the fact that the character's most unsavory urges have been excised from the teleplay.
Finally, I had mixed feelings about Hurt's performance. He spends a lot of the time looking scared and sweaty, but only occasionally conveys Raskolnikov's intelligence and sensitivity.
7/10
However, there are a lot of problems. First, too many of the characters are too creepy and overdrawn, bordering on the freakish. The overacting gets seriously out of hand, especially during the funeral luncheon and its aftermath.
And, as weak as the novel's epilogue is, the film version's is even weaker, amounting to a trite exchange between Porfiry and Sonya and a reprint of the last paragraph of the book over a shot of someone crying.
And I don't think that Svidrigailov should end up as one of the story's more sympathetic characters -- thanks partly to the fact that the actor shows restraint in his role, and therefore seems recognizably human; and partly to the fact that the character's most unsavory urges have been excised from the teleplay.
Finally, I had mixed feelings about Hurt's performance. He spends a lot of the time looking scared and sweaty, but only occasionally conveys Raskolnikov's intelligence and sensitivity.
7/10
Did you know
- ConnectionsReferenced in Doctor Who: The Night of the Doctor (2013)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Crime et châtiment
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content