ThiefHott Too much of everything

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

milosvbl After many stupid movies I had to watch this one was refreshment. Although there are disproportions between movie and novel in many ways, I think it is very worth watching and recommend it to everyone. After this movie you should read a book, and not just Crime and punishment but others Dostoyevsky books too. I was so stupid I was ignorant and haven't read Dostoyevsky's books so far but will try to change this in future. Also, I must notice that at the end movie is too pathetic, it seems that director haven't fully understood its final words but anyways it is one of better movies I watched in last years and worth remembering. Thanks and regards.

palomnik The key parts of Dostoyevsky's novel are either missing, or are so badly twisted, that I found myself laughing hysterically throughout this movie. There were a couple of good casting choices, and some good sets, but otherwise, it is a complete wash. This movie completely misses the points of Dostoyevsky, but it isn't too clear on it's Russian setting either. The poor cast is made to deliver the English dialog with bad Russian accents. The movie opens with Raskolnikov trying to assassinate Tsar Nicholas II and Tsaritsa Alexandra as they are leaving a church! (only 60 years too soon and completely destroys the subsequent plot assumptions). Key scenes such as Sonia's Father's speech to Raskolnikov (in which is contained the main theme of the work) are gone. What is meant to be a scene in which Raskolnikov and Sonia experience profound repentance, grace and forgiveness during the reading of the gospel story of Lazarus, is twisted: Sonia reads one sentence of the Gospel (tossing aside the theme), and then it turns into a big kiss moment instead. Avoid this one like the plague!

emb-6 Between the bad accents, the horrible directing, and the predominantly bad acting, it couldn't be any worse. Even poor Richard Bremmer didn't look good trying to act while using that rotten Russian accent. Skip this one.

Ephraim Gadsby 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.