User Reviews

Although a poor adaptation in several ways of Fyodor Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment," this film does make one interesting adjustment to the novel, albeit in a clumsily heavy-handed manner. That's more than I can say for some of the other cinematic versions I've reviewed since reading the text. Many of them either update the 19th-century setting to the modern day, as this one does, or treat the narrative as some sort of timeless parable. But the book is very much a product of its time and a reactionary critique to the radicalism, including Russian nihilism, of the author's place and era. Reworking the politics and religion to its own day is what is interesting here. Made in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, it condemns the dictators of yore--and, namely, Stalin--by comparing their acts to the murder committed by Raskolnikov, while also relocating the story from Saint Petersburg (the capital in Dostoevsky's day) to Moscow (the capital of the USSR and today's Russia). Ironically, the picture wasn't released, however, until the rise of a new dictator of Russia in the 21st century, Vladimir Putin, which severely puts a damper on the narrative in the film offering hope for Russia's redemption in the post-Cold-War world.

As a transmutation of Dostoevsky's words to screen, this is otherwise quite bad. The score is a nuisance and seems to exist largely to compensate for perceived pacing problems. Crispin Glover, best known as Marty McFly's dad, initially seems well cast as the unhinged protagonist, and the early combination of his voiceover and straight-out public mutterings of his thoughts is faithful to the character. But, boy, does he feature some odd mannerisms, including deliberate line readings, a creepy smile at the strangest moments, and a tendency to overact. He's not the only one, though; Vanessa Redgrave and Margot Kidder, a.k.a. Lois Lane, are called upon to do likewise for two minor parts that waste their talents. All of which makes John Hurt's calm demeanor, as the police inspector pursuing Glover's Rakolnikov as a murder suspect, stand out all the more. The casting of American and English actors, for the leads at least, is another quizzical decision for what is reported to have been an international production between the two former superpowers of the Cold War, as well as by one of their former Iron-Curtain pawns.

Story particulars are altered, too, which I don't mind for the most part. Raskolnikov certainly does lead the police to suspect him--even more so than he did in the book. Hurt's police inspector, consequently, appears at best competent rather than brilliant at his job given the mountain of bread crumbs left to him by the murderer in this version. Additionally, Hurt narrates the epilogue, but I'm just pleased that there's an epilogue here at all; most film adaptations drop that part of the book, but it's especially important for this version given the connection to the nation's path to regeneration. The one alteration that significantly bothers me, on the other hand, is the reduction of the role of Sonia. Hurt's character assumes much of her original role in Raskolnikov's conversion, while other incidents between her and the protagonist are dropped altogether. This results in her inevitable love for and following of Raskolnikov seeming abrupt and unbelievable--and likewise her role as his confidant and savior.

The capital move is a nice touch, though, allowing for the prominence of the Red Square and its monuments to past dictators within a city in flux, as capitalist franchises such as McDonald's pop up, but a hammer-and-sickle poster continues to hang on the wall of the police station. A similar dichotomy appears with Raskolnikov's admiration of Nietzsche in contrast to the religious iconography hanging in Sonia's home and to the religious speech delivered by the Inspector in contrast to his Nietzsche-inspired essay. Although Dostoevsky's novel precedes Nietzsche's ubermensch, and Russian and Nietzschian nihilism are two different, if related, things, this is another apt updating on the filmmakers' part. It's largely over-the-top, much like everything else here from the acting to the music, especially when Hurt spells it out by specifically bringing up Stalin, but at least there's a raison d'être for this film--not merely yet another adaptation to miss the forest for the trees by attempting to slavishly render a novel's story particulars rather than focus on the superior work of thematic transmutation.

It's also interesting to compare this to the 1970 Soviet version, which predictably, if subtly, downplays the role of the individual and religion of the story, including by eliminating the epilogue, in favor of ultimate submission to a police state. Additionally, it's worth checking out Evgeni Bauer's pre-Soviet silent film, "Child of the Big City" (1914), which rejects Dostoevsky's moralizing in favor of modern materialism.

For quick characterization, I first like to know which country a movie is from. In this case, I was unsure.. stars: the usual anglo set (though I only knew Vanessa Redgrave). Director/producer/production company: Israel. I had bought the film for 1€, and had it shelved for almost a year, until I decided to give it a try last night.

And I was surprised to see it was a very Russian movie. Filmed on location in Moscow, or in Ostankino studios. Lots of Russian names in the credits, apart from the stars. Based on Dostoyevski's 1866 novel (which has been turned to film more than a dozen times), but enacted in 2000's Moscow.

And the outdoor scenes showed quite some of Moscow as I knew it from my trip there in 1988. The indoors scenes showed shabby apartments, as seen e.g. in Nochnoy dozor. In brief: visually I felt much at home in this.

Not having read the original novel, I can't judge how truthful it was rendered. Some of the acted emotions felt indeed 19th century to me, but then there were updates including Nietzsche, Hitler, and Stalin. So, much food for thought..

I agree that some of the acting was melodramatic (call it soap opera if you wish), but the disturbed Raskolnikov as well as the detective/judge Profiry (John Hurt) were interesting to watch over the full 2 hours.

I watched the pic again this morning (after some Wikipedia reading), and must say I liked it better the second time around. It's still an odd film, but now I really like it, and can recommend it to other lovers of film diversity :^)

I'm actually a big Canon group fan since 80's and love director Menahem Golan's works. Some people claim he's a bad movie director, well, even if so, some of his bad movies are several times better than a lot of films made in our days. And with this one he simply outdid himself. At least he managed to play a very significant role in 80's. Not only he directed such great movies as 'Over the Top', 'Enter the ninja', 'Mivtsa Yonatan', but also produced some great action movies including the legendary 'Death Wish' and 'Cobra'.

This movie is truly unique. Firstly the atmosphere. Although it came out in 2002, they had started shooting it in 1993. And that's one part of the special appeal in this movie. Golan masterfully used this post-Soviet era to create a modern day adaptation of this great novel and all the non-Russian actors perfectly fit in with this atmosphere.

In general I will say that the movie is fast-paced, rich in content and very nicely edited.

All the actors simply shined in this movie playing Russians. Frankly, I had never been interested in Crispin Glover's career and only after 'Crime and punishment' decided to check out his other movies. He does an outstanding job showing the mental condition of a criminal both before and after committing a murder. Talking about the murder, the scene of slaughtering the old woman was very realistic, violent and gory. Despite of all that, we still feel sorry for him after that very scene and that's actually the point of the novel - pitying a criminal.

As for John Hurt, before watching the movie I had read another review here saying his acting was bad, which I really don't understand why. I personally find he was terrific and delivered many memorable lines.

There's a scene where Vanessa Redgrave lies down on the floor beside his son's bed, then stretches out her hand saying 'Good-bye' to Rodion's friend. That particular scene is very Russian. It may seem ridiculous to some people (and I'm sure it has), but it's actually another subtle sequence. It seems the actors did understand what it feels like being Russian at the moment. They really did a very nice casting on this movie because as I said all the actors perfectly fit in. There was a young actress very much like Jodie Foster - Sophie Ward playing Rodion's sister. Not to forget Richard Lynch who despite of playing a negative role, still managed to induce sympathy, because even if in the first half of the movie they turn out to be sworn enemies with Rodion, later in the court sequence he seems to have compassion upon Rodion.

All in all, this was one of those movies that when you watch it, you don't think about who's the director, or who the actors are. The plot is so thrilling that you just want to see what's going to happen next, since Menahem Golan manages to give every event a natural outcome.

There was the cute Israeli actress Avital Dicker (a girl of marvelous beauty) playing a hooker with whom Rodion later falls in love.

Also I would like to point out the great score by Robert O. Ragland.

Overall, this movie is much more than just worth seeing. Hopefully they will release a proper DVD release of this someday with some interviews and director's commentary.

One of Menahem Golan's best movies.