TheLittleSongbird The Brothers Karamazov has quickly become one of my favourite books, with its riveting story, interesting and thought-provoking themes and some of the most brilliant characterisation of any book (how many pieces of literature have characters this multi-dimensional?) I've ever read. This 1958 film version does pale in comparison, lacking the book's depth of characterisation, but does a brave job adapting a monumental and complex book with some scenes being impossible to film, and is a solid film overall.It's not perfect. Sometimes the film is stodgily paced (some might say overlong, not to me, considering the length of the book and the amount of story there is if anything the film's too short). The ending was always going to be a reasonably problematic one, with it in the book being as open-ended as it is, but this viewer couldn't help shake off the feeling that the ending felt too rushed and incomplete here. Most of the casting came off surprisingly well, but there were reservations about Maria Schell, despite her alluring appearance and her impressively played early scenes she was generally too genteel for Grushenka, a role that was in need of more earthiness and peasant-like.However, The Brothers Karamazov looks great, with lavish colour photography and an evocative re-creation of the opulent but also gritty 19th-century Russia period. It's scored with a stirring yet also understated richness by Bronislau Kaper, and does benefit from controlled direction by Richard Brooks and a literate script that really provokes though and, even when condensed with the essence and the religious and philosophical themes missing, makes an effort to keep to Dostoevsky's tone of writing and giving the film substance. It is not an easy job adapting a nearly 800 page book into a two-and-a-half hour film, and while not completely successful due, to feeling sometimes like highlights being present but not always to their full potential and major characters being significantly reduced (Alexei, Zosima) at the expense at focusing primarily on Dmitri, it does so laudably. It is still mostly riveting and there wasn't much trouble following the story, with the major events depicted and structured relatively faithfully, and there is enough atmosphere, suspense, emotion and mystery to give the story some flavour.From the acting front, the film comes off surprisingly successfully considering that initially there were a couple of actors that seemed unlikely casting (i.e. William Shatner). The two that came off the most strongly were Yul Brynner and Lee J. Cobb. Brynner is very charismatic and gives the right emotional intensity and vulnerability, while Cobb gives his patriarchal role so much juice and life, his demeanour sometimes even quite intimidating (the role is a problematic one due to being one that could easily fall into overacted caricature, Cobb admittedly does overact but enjoyably and the character still felt real. Richard Basehart brings many layers and nuances to Ivan, Claire Bloom is spot-on as Katya and Albert Salmi is effectively insidious as Smerdyakov. William Shatner does suffer from a greatly reduced (in terms of how he's written) character, but surprisingly this is Shatner at his most subdued and moving, most of the time in his acting for personal tastes he's the opposite.All in all, pales in comparison to the masterpiece that is the book but it is a brave attempt. Taking it on its own merits, which is a fairer way to judge, The Brothers Karamazov has short-comings but is a solid film overall. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Ephraim Gadsby Novels and movies are separate disciplines and each has its own requirements. People who want to read Dostoevsky and people who want to know what one of his books is about also have separate needs. I am a Dostoevsky lover, and have read THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV in several translations (no, I don't know Russian). This film hits all the necessary high notes to cover the book's plot, and so the screenplay serves the film well. The brothers themselves (Yul Brynner, Richard Basehart, Albert Salmi and William Shatner) turn in variable performances. Basehart comes in first place, with Brynner smoldering not far behind. A young William Shatner shows promise, while Salmi's inexplicable whine is almost unbearable, which is a shame because Salmi was a good, though underused, actor. Stealing the show from the brothers in every scene he's in is the wonderful Lee J. Cobb. Fans of the book will be disappointed at the excisions, but they were necessary to pare the story down to a workable movie. And, though I love the book and think it may be the world's great novel, I prefer the ending of the movie! Dostoevsky's book is open-ended as he intended it to be an introduction to characters he intended to use in further book -- but he died before it was written. So the movie wraps everything up nicely. Ivan's end scene is much preferable (no spoilers, though! See the movie and read the book!). Although Alexei is the main character in the book, he's basically an observer. Dmitri (perfectly captured by Brynner) is the powerhouse of the book and should be the focus in a dramatic adaptation, as he is here. A worthy effort in making an unfilmable novel filmable. If you want to know what the book is about but a thick novel is daunting, this film tells you everything you need to know.

Ashkevron I have never read The Brothers Karamazov. I have always been under the impression that the novel is too long, probably preachy, and most probably boring. Therefore, I put off seeing this film, even though most of my friends and family gushed about it whenever I watched anything with Yul Brynner on it (Anastasia, Ten Commandments). When I came to New York as a graduate student, though, it happened that my roommate was an even bigger Brynner fan than I, and I soon found myself in what amounted to a one week Brynner marathon. The Brothers Karamazov was the 2nd film we watched. And I loved it. It felt strange to think so back then, and it feels strange to write it now. But I loved it.As a fan of both Classic films and literary classics (I haven't read Brothers Karamazov, but I have read several other classics, and thoroughly enjoyed them), I know that the first is almost always 180º apart from the latter. No one needs to tell me this film is probably only 20% of the original novel, and changed/re-arranged to boot. Doesn't matter. I still enjoyed it. I have never watched a film classic that so moved me, drew me in, and made me forget that the year was 1958. Brynner is at his most vulnerable here, and the actors portraying his brothers all did top-notch jobs (such a good job, in fact, that I was able to watch William Shatner -Captain Kirk to anyone remotely Trekkie- without even chuckling), as well as the leading ladies. Mr. Cobb deserved his Oscar. What a wonderful performance. The man must've had a blast playing Fyodor Karamazov; he cavorts about with energy and flair. The best scenes are whenever he is on screen with all four sons around him, although I liked this film so much that, at this point, "favourite scenes" would include 90% of the film. Truly a wonderful work. Don't hesitate, as I did, to treat yourself to this cinematic jewel.

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.