Gerd
Few films are as poorly acted by so many otherwise talented actors and actresses. So by all mean watch this mess of a film if only to see what a film of excruciatingly poor quality is like.
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
10/04/23
Full Review
Bill T
Not too familiar with the source novel, but it looks to me that Von Sternberg slightly romanticized this adaptation of the novel, having the protatgonist have a love interest, also featuring a bit more glossing over of the gloom and doom of this. But still, Peter Lorre is quite dynamite in a totally straight acting part, playing a brilliant writer trying to get away with murder, if only his conscience will let him. Edward Arnold curiously gets top billing though as the ispector. While he's good, there was no need for him to hog the spotlight.
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
02/25/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Josef von Sternberg, Peter Lorre, and Fyodor Dostoevsky - that's quite a combination. It's a daunting task to put such a long and rich novel into film, and this one in particular, which had Dostoevsky plumbing the depths of human psychology. If you can forgive it for using the novel as a rough framework and appreciate it for what it delivers, I think you'll probably like it, despite what von Sternberg said afterwards.
Peter Lorre plays Raskolnikov, and as always, has wonderful screen presence. He's truly captivating, and works so well with von Sternberg's Expressionist/proto-noir shadows and tight shots. It seems to me he over-acts his part in showing too much agitation early on in the police investigation, when he's not even suspected, and should have been icy cool to let some of that energy build. With that said, the cat-and-mouse game that he and Inspector Porfiry (Edward Arnold) play is fantastic, with verbal sparring, subtle hints and gestures, and each trying to outwit the other. The comic/dramatic scene he has with his sister's suitor is also fantastic, blending outrage with barbs that had me smiling.
The rest of the cast is all strong, and includes Marian Marsh as Sonya, the pious poor woman he falls for and who helps spur his conscience. In the film it's not made clear that her character is a prostitute, as she is in the book. It's also interesting that the second murder, of Lizaveta, the serving girl who walks in on the first, is omitted. Those alterations were quite possibly made because of the production code, but seem to me part of a larger mistake, tipping empathy to Raskolnikov as the murderer of just an evil old pawnbroker because of his poverty, when we should be feeling the horror of a sociopath bordering on nihilist, who murders in large part because he thinks he can get away with it.
As other critics point out, the fact that his conscience is part of his downfall is a bit naïve, but this is an aspect of Dostoevsky's masterpiece. It just doesn't conceive of the fact that there are people out there who can commit these kinds of crimes, and suffer no pangs of guilt at all about it, even if someone else gets wrongly convicted.
As you can see from the direction my review took despite my introductory paragraph, comparisons to the novel are inevitable. How interesting it is to read that von Sternberg himself disliked the film, and did it only out of contractual obligation. Even so, I think he delivered. There is enough here to make the film entertaining - solid direction, clean story-telling, and great performances.
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
01/13/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Crime and Punishment 1936
This film misses the subconscious aspect that the book has covering what the character thinks of things and misses out on the small details of what the space looked like, the city as far as smell, appearance of the city and room on the larger scale. There is a much bigger thing in the book about paranoia over things that is not said but is thought.
This film is able to capture the Suspicion and feelings even by the actors looks, expressions, lighting, use of space, the where the camera decides to focus on.
This film does a good job on casting and acting. Peter Lorrie does a good job just how he does his acting by adding suspicion, confidence, shame; at the right time.
I like the lighting in the film. The silouiets are well used.
This film looses something by having it set in modern times and having hints of Imperial Russia such as the insignia of Imperial Russia or mentioning the currency, mentioning of the Siberian desert as a form of punishment.
This film looses the context of the times which Crime and Punishment was written in to better understand the way people acted in the days.
This film does not add the context that the Imperial Russian police were corrupt in the period the book was written or daughters still had there husband chosen by the family. The mix in cultural thought in religion and ethnic diversity.
This film had a dumb ending with grand thematic music because he is about to confesses his responsibility for committing the crime of murder on the pawn shop woman.
In some ways I think that this film or book is dumb. Not because of the realism but because of the incompetence, stupidity in bad planning and thinking in those who commit a murder or study crime by an experts who study crime.
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
01/25/23
Full Review
s r
Breaks it down and makes this epic approachable.
Rated 3.5/5 Stars •
Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars
03/31/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Not bad. Arnold and Lorre are great...but pretty Hollywood average stuff anyway with some typical von Sternberg touches.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
01/18/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
>
