Alicia I love this movie so much

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Bill Wrobel Watching the first hour of the movie after many, many years of not seeing it since then (I am 67 years old)...Strange movie. When it starts, it seems that you're already in the middle of the movie! You're trying to figure out the picture! Not a very good movie in terms of how it is presented. Good actors. Maria Schell & & Yul Vrynner are the most appealing, followed by Richard Basehart. The bearded father played by Lee J. Cobb is a rather annoying character (although generally I like Lee J. Cobb). Very unappealing. I like William Shatner but his character in the picture is just a two-dimensional character plotted-in (like Albert Salmi). The movie has a strange attraction but overall the taste of this wine is not as good as the initial smell & color! Poorly conceived movie. The music score by Kaper is disappointing so far, especially the abrupt singing section in the Main Title. For a "serious" movie, this movie does not really deserve your serious attention. Watching it completely thru once only is enough....

howardeisman I was reading The Brothers Karamazov when this movie came on TCM. I recorded it and then watched it after I finished the book. There is no way that any movie could have duplicated this long, rambling book full of digressions, religious and psychological discussions, Russian nationalism, and satirical descriptions of inept doctors and lawyers. As a movie, it follows the basic plot well enough, ironing out the complexities and complications to make it a movie. A basic movie plot.Well, it's not all that much of a story by itself. The romance is unconvincing; there is little suspense or mystery. The production values are okay. It looks like we are in backwoods 19th century Russia, but, at the same time, it is hardly impressive.Lee Cobb makes a caricature in the book into a real person. Maria Schell plays a character who is supposed to have an infectious smile, but she smiles so much in the movie that it seems like a psychiatric condition. The rest of the cast is okay. Without the book's long back stories the characters have no depth in this movie and their motivations can be bewildering.

Ulan_Dhor Richard Brooks was a talented and versatile director, well-versed especially in adapting literary works, concerning this I loved his movies based on Tennessee Williams' works and the movie adaptation of Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood" but this time he totally missed the point about the story. This adaptation is almost exclusively focused on the adventurous and romantic side of the novel missing out more important aspects as the characters psychology (which is rough-sketch), the critical analysis of religion and the existence of God, the reflection about the human condition, moreover it's absolutely unbalanced in terms of characters treatment, Dmitri seems to be the absolute protagonist around which revolves the story so Ivan and Alexi are reduced to supporting characters with no substance and, interestingly enough, it's just Ivan Karamazov the most important and complex character of the book (the author himself speaks through him), although The Brothers Karamazov was conceived by Dostoyevsky as a biography of Alexi Karamazov so if there's a protagonist that's just Alexi Karamazov, however the novel is choral enough it can't identify an absolute protagonist.There's two memorable moments in the book which don't find a place in the movie, both of them involve Ivan, I'm talking of the "The Grand Inquisitor" poem and the encounter with the devil towards the end, I consider them two key passages without which The Brothers Karamazov wouldn't be so great. On the other hand I can understand why they didn't include that kind of passages in the movie, due to their verbosity I think, however The Brothers Karamazov is a verbose novel, it's an inescapable aspect which makes this novel sublime, The Brothers Karamazov is mainly a philosophical and psychological work, let it be clear, it'a a lot of things, it's a crime story, it's a love story, it's a legal thriller, but all that is absolutely marginal compared to the depth and the authenticity of the characters, it's an amazing study of human nature, well this authenticity and this depth were totally lost in the movie; the characters turn out to be stereotyped and melodramatic, except the father played by Lee J. Cobb that I liked. Richard Basehart, who played Ivan, was definitely too old for the role, Ivan is 24 years old whereas Basehart was 44 when the movie was filmed, he looked clearly older than Yul Brynner who was supposed to be the elder brother, even if the actual age of the actors is not so important it's necessary to keep a consistency with the original characters in my opinion. Yul Brynner was decent enough as Dmitri, Dmitri himself is the character more faithful to the original, however I found Brynner good in the action sequences but a little expressionless in dramatic ones. What to say about William "J. T. Kirk" Shatner? I don't consider his performance so bad, I think his role was just poorly written, this Alexi Karamazov is just without personality. In short I consider this adaptation a sort of "The Brothers Karamazov" for dummies, in the sense that it was totally deprived of its "cerebral" content, what remains of this monumental masterpiece is the umpteenth Hollywood's melodrama with the classic "and lived happily ever after" ending (which was totally overturned compared to the book's) in Douglas Sirk style. If I should indicate a director who would have been able to do a great job with this story at that time I'd say Ingmar Bergman and I'd have liked to see Marlon Brando in the role of Ivan Karamazov, only two geniuses like those ones would have been able to do justice to this story, but now they're passed away as well as the time when it was still possible to make this kind of movies.

hans101067 As happens so often with film adaptations of great novels,we have a screenplay that will focus on the events of a novel,rather than on the underlying philosophical tenets and theories that seem to be involved.Perhaps it is inevitable that this be the case.The Karamazovs are,in actuality,the fragmented aspects of the author'spersonality;a.)brutishness;b.)impulsiveness;c.)intellect;d.)spirituality;e.) depravity.(To wit;Feodor;Dimitri;Ivan;Alexis;Smerdyakov).And the real hero of the novel is Alexis.We are witnessing his growth and development as a hero against the sordid story of his family and the murder of their lustful,wicked father.It is development,particularly regarding the testing of his faith in the hard and often callous world,that marks the real journey of the story.This is minimalized in the film.I guess that this probably wouldn't have sold in 50s America.The adaptation ,given my observations,is really quite impressive.We can't fault any of the production values,efforts,and activities.And,with one exception,the cast is excellent.My one fault in this respect is with Lee J.Cobb.This outstanding character actor is much too young,virile,and attractive to portray accurately the character the author intended.Feodor Karamazov is supposed to be about 65,a physical wreck,sinister,and depraved.His physically debauched condition is intended to mirror his moral corruption.And,yet,given these attributes,he in nevertheless fascinating to women.(At least,certain kinds of women.I shudder to think what their agendas are if they find an old villain like this attractive.They must be as needy as all get-out,and viewing him through a fantasy veil that keeps out all accurate perceptions.)In my opinion,the late Donald Pleasence would have been a much more realistic choice for the part.Otherwise,given my criticism,this is a highly enjoyable film.