Crime et châtiment

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.

Usually movies for TV don't have the outstanding quality this one displays.Seeing movies like Crime and Punishment is a pleasure.It's well acted and well directed.I wish TV viewers had the opportunity to see more quality films like this.

A crime causes much grief and guilt for the young idealist Rodya Raskonlnikov (Dempsey) who cannot come around to confess his offense.

Beginning with the positives, Crime and Punishment has a fairly powerful cast with the exception of Patrick Dempsey. Julie Delpy plays an excellent Sonia, and Ben Kingsley could not have done a better Porfiry. The cast were great for their parts, unfortunately the actual movie wasn't too great in terms of quality film-making.

Without knowing any prior history to the movie (or the book for that matter), one can easily see that this was made for TV. The cheesy "spacing out" effects only used in TV are an abundance in Crime and Punishment. It is most noticeable in Rodya's moments of despair and depression. The overall impression of this version of Crime and Punishment is much more different than what I saw in my mind while reading the book. The words in the novel are dark, gritty, and full of heart. The movie is very simple and it's almost always in broad daylight! If anything, all scenes should be shot in nighttime 99% of the time since darkness relatively symbolizes desperation and grim moments.

Patrick Dempsey, as much of a sweetheart as he is, is NOT Rodya Raskolnikov. Rodya is a rough man, not a pansy. This was a complete casting error that ruined his character's complexity entirely.

For what it's worth, Crime and Punishment makes for a decent straight-to-television movie. If one is looking for justice to the book, let your imagination run wild. After all, an imagination is a much more powerful tool than a cheesy television film. Too much was changed in the transition from the book to the little screen. That was the crime. Watching this as a faithful Dostoyevski fan was the punishment.

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.