Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

HeadlinesExotic Boring

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

jacksflicks Along with "M" and "The Face Behind the Mask," this Raskolnikov is Peter Lorre's finest rôle. Unfortunately, it's not supported by the rest of the production. The stylized von Sternberg lighting and the Madonna look he gives Marian Marsh (Dietrich stand-in?) don't really suit the grim narrative.Edward Arnold is woefully miscast as Inspector Porfiry. He's ponderous and bombastic, in his usual manner. Aside from Mrs. Patrick Campbell, the rest of the cast play their stock Hollywood characters. The only Russian about them is "the long-winded names by which they address each other." (Kael)Coincidentally, a great French "Crime and Punishment" was made the same year. Harry Baur as Porfiry is sensational, and if he had been cast as Porfiry in the von Sternberg version, then it would have caught fire.I give it a 7 for Lorre.

Robert J. Maxwell What a curious film. Peter Lorre is Roderick Raskolnikov, an impoverished writer of magazine articles in what appears to be 1930s Russia. His whole family is in financial trouble. His sister Antonya is about to marry a pompous blowhard for his money. Lorre can't pay his meager rent. He's already pawned the watch passed on to him by his father. What to do, what to do? Then it comes to him. Simply murder the old lady pawnbroker. Nobody likes her anyway, stingy old crow. And, after all, Lorre is an intellectual who has written a theory of crime resembling Nietzsche's. There are ordinary men who must play by the rules, and there are extraordinary men who can't be judged by the usual standards. Guess which kind Lorre considers himself. His heroes are Napolean and Beethoven.So Lorre visits the old lady at night and whacks her over the head with a poker, steals her stash and hides it under a small boulder. Nothing to it. On top of that, his editor gives him a promotion and a considerable raise and Lorre begins to get cocky, what with his new suit and all that. He liberates his family from poverty and throws the churlish old suitor out of the apartment, allowing his sister Antonya to link up with her true love. And he himself meets a young and beautiful whore and begins to slip her cash as well as other gifts.But then Lorre is called in to Police Headquarters to meet Inspector Porfiry, Edward Arnold. Arnold finds Lorre waiting for him in the anteroom, shivering with fear. But Arnold isn't interested in Lorre because of the murder. Not at all. He wants a friendly chat with Lorre because of Lorre's recent article on criminality.Lorre is at first wary, then superior, then sweaty with guilt, giving himself away in iotas of implications. Examples: (1) When Lorre first meets Arnold, they are interrupted when a suspect of the murder is brought it and accused. At the mention of "murder" Lorre faints. Arnold begins circling his prey, all the while denying he has any interest in Lorre as a suspect. Example: Arnold visits Lorre in his flat and, chatting jovially, lights up a cigarette, goes to the iron stove, bends over and flicks the match inside. "Yes," Arnold announces. "I'm as certain that you're innocent as I am that THERE IS NO POKER IN THIS ROOM." This sort of insinuation, this cat-and-mouse game, is in some ways the most interesting part of the plot. It's like Lieutenant Columbo, except that here the murderer is plagued by a guilty conscience.Lorre becomes obsessed with the crime he's committed. He can't seem to get it out of his head. He begins to misinterpret the innocent remarks of others. When his girl friend, the hapless hooker, Marian Marsh, begins to read the Bible story of Lazarus coming back from the dead, he hears the line about "the rising of the stone" and becomes enraged because it seems to hint that the hiding place of his loot will be discovered. He's forgotten all about "Lazarus come forth," which is just as well because Lazarus came fifth and lost the job.I can't remember the details of the novel all that well, nor all the characters and their characteristics. I DO remember that Antonya was Dunya in the translation I read. I also remember that the murder weapon was not a poker but an ax. (Yuck.) And that Roskolnikov killed not just the mean pawnbroker but another woman who appeared on the scene, though I might be wrong about that. And in the novel, or rather in my memory of the novel, Inspector Porfiry doesn't just come out and nail Roskolnikov with, "You murdered her and you're going to pay for it." Instead, Porfiry gently prods Roskolnikov into asking, "Well, who murdered her?" This allows Porfiry to gape in amazement and reply, "Why YOU did, Roskolnikov." I'm not sure why this movie isn't more gripping than it is. Directed by the famous von Sternberg. Maybe it's the casting. Roskolnikov is a young, starving student, thin and ragged, not the chubby little Peter Lorre. Lorre had been so successful as the murderer in "M" that maybe someone thought he would be good for a second go at a similar role. And Edward Arnold is not the Inspector Porfiry who edges crablike into Roskolnikov's life. Arnold is an intimidating and domineering blowhard. The confusion and puzzlement that came so easily to Lieutenant Columbo is not Arnold's strong suit.

theowinthrop Fyodor Dostoeyevski is, without a doubt, one of the greatest novelists of his native Russia, of 19th Century Europe, and of world literature. That said, he is also a pain in the ass to read. If you are into his views of self-sacrifice and mysticism, and of redemption through intense, sometimes meaningless suffering, you can't find anyone else like him. If you also like anti-Western slavophilia, with more than a dollop of anti-Semitism, he's your guy. These aspects appear in his Russian contemporary Tolstoi too, but Count Leo had a more universal view of forgiveness and brotherhood than Fyodor ever had. Therefore Tolstoi makes his occasional snide comments, but they are quickly dropped - not intensively developed. With these serious reservations said, Dostoeyevski remains monumental. Most people recall him for two novels: CRIME AND PUNISHMENT and THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV. Neither of the two novels were ever successfully made into U.S. films, despite a great director in this 1935 version of the former novel, and a grade "A" cast and production in the 1958 version of the latter that starred Yul Brynner and Maria Schell. From what I have seen a Masterpiece Theatre version of CRIME AND PUNISHMENT in the 1970s was far closer to the novel than Von Sternberg's 1935 version. But Von Sternberg, working with Columbia Pictures, did not have as good a budget (and certainly could not make a four hour film).CRIME AND PUNISHMENT has been called the first psychological detective novel, and the best. It is not a who-done-it in the spirit of Dashiell Hamnett's THE THIN MAN. It is more like a Columbo episode (and Columbo's character is obviously modeled on the laid back, wise Detective Inspector Porphiry - who patiently allows Raskolnikov to give himself away and up). Dostoeyevski lets us see the killing of the old pawn broker and her sister, and understand the twisted "philosophical altruism" that Raskolnikov uses to commit his crime. It is a murder for social purposes - get rid of the leech like money lender/pawn broker, grab her money, and use it to aid those truly unfortunate in society. Had the murder been committed quickly with only the pawn broker killed, the absurd logic might have worked. Instead, because the sister of the victim sees the killing, Raskolnikov has to kill her too for self protection. From that time forward his philosophical base begins to crash. Also he discovers that the material answer of money is not enough to help the poor or those he comes to love. As such CRIME AND PUNISHMENT is (no real slap at Conan Doyle) light-years away in effectiveness from THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES. And watching the Russian police procedural in the novel, as Porphiry helps whittle away at Raskolnikov's iron core of beliefs is quite good too.Peter Lorre gives an affecting performance as the killer, one more role in a chain beginning with "M" that would continue for much of his admirable career. It must have been well received publicly. The Ritz Brothers spoofed his performance in one of their films. Arnold is fine as Porphiry, who has seen all the murder types (and can quickly find their weak spot). Here, his best moment is when another lesser suspect confesses unexpectedly just as Lorre seemed about to confess. It leaves Porphiry perplexed and troubled, as the confession has been heard by witnesses (including a smart aleck Lorre), and Porphiry realizes an innocent man has possibly put his life in danger by such an act. There are some good supporting touches too, especially seeing Mrs. Patrick Campbell in her last performance on screen as the pawnbroker, a dried up, malevolent figure that one does not waste too much pity on (again, if she had been the only victim Raskolnikov's philosophical point would have been correct). Cuts due to budget and time considerations ruined several parts - Douglas Dumbrille as a married man who wants Lorre's sister (Lorre can't stand him) and who helps bring Lorre to book (for personal reasons) had a larger part in the novel, including suicide. That is not in the film.With all it's budget restraints though, it is a good introduction to the great novel and I recommend it.

Mozjoukine Arriving in the unlikely environment of action B movie studio Columbia, Von Sternberg, the ultimate aesthete, either by choice or circumstance fronted this project that was unlikely for him and for the company.He manages some striking images - the faceless rank of students from which Lorre emerges, the third story pawn broker's door which he furtively re-visits, the river reflection of Marsh's home, the tacky studio decors are enlivened by decoration (the stacked books in Lorre's room) and the attractive use of lighting (throwing curtain pattern over the action or rimming Marsh's hair). Even this decorative panache betrays it's creator at times - Painter Mark's arm raised awkwardly from his crouching position to follow a screen diagonal.The uninspired adaptation (the only one to preserve the Svedrigaylov character, represented murkily effectively by Dumbrille), conventional technique, serial sound score and erratic casting hold things back.Lorre is the screen's most menacing Raskolnikov. You expect him to produce a clasp knife and attack anyone rather than engage in philosophical debate. Arnold earns his top billing, turning Porphyry into Doctor Hibbard, but in a league table of interpretations of character he comes equal third with Warren William under Harry Baur and Frank Silvera