Crime and Punishment (2002) Online

That review criticizing Dostoevsky (the one above with one star) is absolute garbage. This movie is spot on with the book and the book itself is mind-blowing. To describe it in the 1000 word limit this review imposes would be a grave injustice. The film is so long that it is split into two parts, all because the director wanted the film to stand true to the novel. You will find no substantial omissions from the book in this film. I'd like to see the ignoramus who gave that review direct me to the novel he/she wrote. Put your money where your mouth is. It seems highly arrogant to me that one should go out of his way to search the internet for this IMDb page just to rant on Dostoevsky and how much his work sucks. Get a life.

I enjoyed this. I had just finished the novel, and i found this version to be excellent. I'm actually trying to find somewhere to buy it, and failing at it miserably (help encouraged). As far as this not being a good adaptation because John Simm isn't attractive enough? Don't know, Don't care really.

At first, you are perplexed by the rather dogma-like TV technique of making this film, but the more you get used to it, the more you get into it, the more you like it. Actually, it's a marvellous Dostoievsky interpretation and adaptation amazingly true to Dostoievsky, even though it's all TV. The direction and filming is virtuoso all the way, and all the players are outstanding, especially John Simm as Raskolnikov, Ian McDiarmid absolutely super as the police inspector, Nigel Terry as Svidrigailov and David Haig as the perfectly abominable Luzhin, but they are all good, Rasumichin, Dunia and the mother as well - all deserve ample praise. There is really not much more to say. It's more organic than any other screening of this one of the best novels ever written that I have seen, but I still have a few to go through, and it will be very interesting to compare it with the modernization of the same year and especially the Russian in black-and-white from 1970. It relies a great deal on Josef von Sternberg's interesting version of 1935 with Peter Lorre and also in some respects on the German expressionistic of the 20s. There was a Swedish film in 1945 by Hampe Faustmann with the director himself playing Raskolnikov, which was too Swedish to be convincing (in a rather Bergman style), but this version succeeds in getting under the very skin of Dostoievsky even in spite of being very English - it actually comes close to Brontëism, and this is the marvel of the film. I prophesy it will grow into a classic.

I'm a book lover but I loved this. Yes, it left out some stuff (Marmeladov's long intro scene, Katerina's mad scene, Luzhin trying to frame Sonia for theft and failing), but it's a deep and inspired adaptation wit a really great cast.

I came for John Simm and I found him totally absorbed int the role, not a trace of the Master. He's wonderful. I believed him from the first moment.

Ian McDiarmid if an excellent Porfiry, annoying like hell (as he should be!), good to see him in something other than SW.

And Nigel Terry steals every scene he's in. No, he's not exactly book!Svidrigailov, they romanticized him a bit and they swept his really dark depths under the rug. No mention of him raping a maiden or other unsettling things. Without that, he doesn't come off as a villain, rather as an aging man who is truly and utterly in love, almost a victim. And with Terry being so gorgeous, you just don't understand Dunya...

DON'T CARE IF PEOPLE DON'T AGREE WITH ME BUT I WAS MESMERISED BY JOHN SIMM IN PARTICULAR. AND WHO SAID HE'S NOT ATTRACTIVE !!! I'VE LOVED ALL HIS WORK SINCE.

QUITE A COMPLEX PSYCHOLOGICAL GRITTY & DARK STORY, BUT EVEN AS A WOMAN THAT'S WHAT I'M ATTRACTED TO. ALL THESE YEARS IT'S STILL STUCK IN MIND, AND KEEP MEANING TO TRY AND BUY IT ON DVD.

*Possible Spoilers* (though nothing you don't see in the first 15 minutes) As cinema, this movie is wonderful. It's chockful of interesting camera angles, cinematography, and extreme closeups. As an adaptation of a novel though its not so good - purists beware. The character playing Raskolnikov is too short and not handsome, though dirty enough (refer to the novel, Raskolnikov is above average or at least perceives himself to be above average) in all categories. The murder scene is far too tame and wholly different than the novel. The murder of alyona is glossed, when it should have been focused upon as the death of lizaveta is "collateral damage". The pacing of the film is also off. The first several minutes encompass several chapters crucial to understanding the utilitarian philosophy underlying Raskolnikov's decision to kill Alyona. The closeups begin to grow tiresome however. Recommended for cinema buffs and the illiterate.

There is no doubt that "Crime and Punishment" would have been one of the greatest novels of the century had not Dostoevsky leaned towards the more acceptable sense of morality related to the weak tenets of Chrisitanity. In doing so, he made Rasknolikov a caricature of himself, lethargic and yet redeemable by accepting Christ's pathetic suffering. It was more appropriate to adapt Nietzsche's figure of "the noble superman" but Dostoevsky, at the time of his writing, was a destroyed soul, drinking and plagued by debts, a gambling and morphine addiction and on top of that, he was a converted Christian, which is to say he resembled a "spineless worm".

There is a powerful beginning in which the bold character Rasknolikov conceptualizes the murder of an old aged hag who serves no purpose to society but beyond that, Dostoevsky tortures us with the conscience of an obstinate man who is shattered by an insignificant crime. In all effect, Dostoevsky became an apologist not only for bourgeois values and the Czar with his corrupt regime, but for Orthodox Christianity, which not only supported the exploitation of the Russian population but welcomed it. The end of the novel, which portrays a once proud, noble, and intellectually superior young man weeping before a prostitute and the image of the bible, brings about the demise of Dostoevsky's credibility.

This is not an adaptation of the book, they probably filmed whatever they had memorized of it,and I see they don't have a good memory. All characters are skewed there are scenes that came out of the directors mind terrible acting total disrespect to the original work and writer vulgar "adaptation" totally disgusting i felt ashamed. BBC should be too. If Dostoyevsky was alive and watched the movie he would be frustrated by mankind once again. I once had good respect for BBC, where did all the responsible and talented people go? Don't they have a committee that supervises their productions after filming? Am I the only one that finds this offensive and totally unacceptable?