Diagonaldi Very well executed

Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

utgard14 Peter Lorre stars in this fine adaptation of the Dostoyevsky novel, directed by Josef von Sternberg. Lorre plays a criminology student who murders an evil pawnbroker. He appears to have gotten away with it but his feelings of guilt and a police inspector's suspicions may do him in. It's a compelling crime drama with a great cast and creative direction from von Sternberg. Lorre gives a dynamic turn full of highs and lows. The highs are shades of his "M" greatness and the lows are when he gets a little campy. Edward Arnold makes a fun foil for him. The rest of the cast includes Marian Marsh, Elisabeth Risdon, Douglass Dumbrille, Gene Lockhart, and stage actress Mrs. Patrick Campbell in one of her few film roles as the pawnbroker, a completely unlikable character if there ever was one. Von Sternberg's direction is very polished by 1935 standards. His beautiful close-ups of Marian Marsh are enough to make anyone fall in love with her. Despite some pacing issues and a few oddly placed attempts at comedy, it's a strong effort from all involved. The usual 'book vs movie' complaints apply, of course, but none of them are deal-breakers to me. If you're a fan of the director or stars, it's a must-see.

pontifikator Director Josef von Sternberg had a long and distinguished career interrupted by "Crime and Punishment." Among his stellar performances are "The Blue Angel," "Morocco," "Blonde Venus," and "Duel in the Sun," to mention only a few. Many of his motion pictures starred Marlene Dietrich. In "Crime and Punishment," von Sternberg works with Peter Lorre, Edward Arnold, and Marian Marsh to get this gargantuan novel down to 99 minutes of screen time. Since I haven't read the novel, I have no clue what they left out. I'm sure it's a travesty. Since I haven't read the novel, however, I treat the movie on its own merits. I consider of plot of little importance in this movie version. Raskolnikov (played by Lorre) is introduced as a student with great promise. Our next scene shows him impoverished but too proud to accept a loan from a former school chum. Raskolnikov is slowly pawning all his belongings because he has no other means of supporting himself. The pawn broker (played by the famous Mrs. Patrick Campbell) is absolutely appalling, and her murder by Raskolnikov is, if not excusable, at least understandable. The irony is that Raskolnikov is famous in police circles because of his magazine article (for which he was not paid) called "On Crime." In this essay (if I understand the movie correctly) Raskolnikov advances the theory that there are two classes of people: those ordinary people who commit ordinary crimes, and an elite class, including Napoleon, whose crimes are somehow superior and above the law and therefore are not to be punished. The head of police, Inspector Porfiry, meets Raskolnikov and praises his work and asks for his help in solving the murder of the pawnbroker. It is not till this game begins that the movie gets interesting. Until the game between Raskolnikov and Porfiry, Lorre's acting has been random and muddled. In his scenes with Arnold, though, Raskolnikov takes shape and becomes hunted, haunted, angry, brave, cowardly, and a myriad of emotions that play across Lorre's entire body. Arnold is excellent as Porfiry, an old hand at the game of crime, and Porfiry plays the game superbly. In their scenes together, you get to enjoy Porfiry's knowledge that Lorre knows he knows, and we see Lorre's anguish as he realizes Porfiry knows, knows Lorre knows he knows, and we spiral down the hole of madness of he knows he knows he knows.Lorre is superb playing anguished men. I think he was at his best in "M" as Hans Beckert under the thumb of Inspector Lohmann. It's a shame Lorre was type cast as Sidney Greenstreet's sidekick in so many movies. I saw Peter Lorre on a 50s game show. The contestant was a blindfolded woman who was asked to chose which of three men was Peter Lorre doing a love scene with her. Each actor kissed her hand and murmured sweet nothings to her. The other two men were credible imitators, but the woman blurted out, "I want _him_!" as she picked Lorre. She didn't care whether he was the real Lorre or not; he was the man she believed in his lovemaking. Lorre was a great actor whose talent was not much used.

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

whpratt1 This 1935 film of "Crime and Punishment" was one of Peter Lorre's greatest acting role, he had such great talent and he used every facial expression in the book as the guilt ridden suspect along with his famous soft boiled eyes! Edward Arnold took a back seat in this film, however, Marian Marsh gave a good performance and she looked radiant throughout the picture. These actors in 1935 made this film tops on my list of films. Peter Lorre like many actors were type cast and never were able to reach the high level of their talents.