blanche-2 George Hamilton stars with Marian Seldes and Mary Murphy in "Crime and Punishment USA," an adaptation of the novel by Dostoevsky, directed by Denis Sanders.The film "introduces" George Hamilton.Hamilton plays a young man who kills and robs a pawnbroker and later comes up against a smart police detective (Frank Silvera) who preys on his conscience.The only other version of this I've seen is the Peter Lorre one from 1935 and as you might guess, this film doesn't compare, and comparing George Hamilton to Peter Lorre - well, it can't be done.One thing both films have in common is that they were done cheaply, and both in black and white. The black and white serves both films very well. It made the places in this film look kind of low-class and gritty.The atmosphere was really the only thing I liked. The music was very loud and had those screeching trumpets one always heard in the '50s and '60s in films.I also thought everyone acted somewhat inappropriately. It's possible it all happened in the other film, but it was either done better or I just don't recall it. When a man admits to killing someone, what would make a woman suddenly decide she wants to sleep with him? Especially after an uncomfortable scene where he yelled at her and acted rather weirdly.Hamilton would be talking and suddenly start shouting -- it seemed like the emotions in this film came on suddenly with no build-up.It was interesting to see such a young Marian Seldes as Hamilton's sister. She was a stage actress and teacher, married at one time to Garson Kanin. She died last year.I saw George Hamilton in "La Cage aux Folles" a few years ago. He's done a great job of marketing his personality, and he obviously has a sense of humor, but he didn't register much, and he co-starred with an excellent Broadway performer, which made him look worse. I don't think in films he was a horrible actor, just not that great.So that's Crime and Punishment U.S.A.

MARIO GAUCI To begin with, I almost did not acquire this when I chanced upon it, since the film does not have much of a reputation; even so, it has recently been released on DVD-R as part of Warners' "Archive Collection", running 96 minutes (like the version I watched) rather than 78 as listed on the IMDb! In any case, the result is undeniably gripping (given the source material) and decidedly accomplished (in spite of the obvious low budget) – with gleaming cinematography by Floyd Crosby and a jazzy score by Herschel Burke Gilbert.Best of all, the performances (notably, as always, the arrogant protagonist and his wily nemesis) are reasonably impressive. George Hamilton (being nominated for a BAFTA award in his film debut) kind of channels Anthony Perkins here, and it is unfortunate that he would soon forsake such thoughtful roles for sophisticated (and, in the long run, superficial) ones. Frank Silvera plays his pivotal cop role as something of a buffoon; Mary Murphy's character, then, does not shy away from discussing her sordid 'profession'; while John Harding appears as the seducer of the hero's sister. Incidentally, Hamilton's scenes with the latter two are only slightly less compelling than his confrontations with Silvera (established in previous cinematic renditions as the novel's centerpiece).As the title suggests, Dostoyevsky's morality tale has been updated to modern-day America: curiously, it eschews the pivotal figure of the pawnbroker entirely (though we are still told why the murder was committed) – indeed, the narrative here starts off with the arrest of the painter! Still, the victim's essentially disagreeable characteristics are transferred onto the afore-mentioned Harding – which seemed unnecessary at first, but this does generate an intriguing complicity between the two murderers…paid off, most effectively, in ironical fashion when the student ultimately confesses because he believes the other fellow killed himself out of remorse when it was over rejection! In the end, the film is pretentious (boasting a powerful script by Walter Newman), with a tendency towards sleaze; that said, this mature approach is quite redolent of the transitional period in which it was made – being entrenched somewhere between studio-system Hollywood and the 'movie brats' generation. For the record, this was also director Sanders' first effort, of whose later work I have watched (and own) WAR HUNT (1962), ELVIS: THAT'S THE WAY IT IS (1970/2000) and INVASION OF THE BEE GIRLS (1973); besides, I have just acquired THE American WEST OF JOHN FORD (1971; TV) and am interested in ONE MAN'S WAY and SHOCK TREATMENT (both 1964).

saintonge This is a very good adaptation of Dostoevsky's novel. The actors all gave solid performances, and the script captures the essence of an investigation into a crime that will depend on not on physical evidence, or finding a witness, but on a psychological campaign by the police detective, as he seeks to get a crack his suspect. As George Hamilton's Robert fences with Frank Silvera's Inspector Porter, he tries to come to terms with his own guilt and fear. In the end, it resolves wonderfully, with Robert coming to terms with his actions and deciding how to live them.The low budget for the film seems to have been a benefit in this case. The seedy Southern California landscapes give a feel of desperation that makes the initial crime believable, and makes Robert's desire to escape it understandable. And the 'cheapness' fits the small cast, and the film's concentration on a few characters, intensifying the psychological pressure Robert is feeling.Really well done, and I highly recommend it.

Scharnberg, Max I am not going to present a conventional rejection, nor to justify such a rejection from a conventional perspective. Apart from people who have a professional relation to such subjects, rather few persons are as familiar with different philosophical schools and different forms of fictional literature. But I do not think that Dostoyevsky is more than a middle-sized writer: far from poor but also far from good. Perhaps a little better than Walter Scott. And I am unable to perceive any philosophy in his writings. Nor have I learned much from texts aimed at explaining his philosophy. Consequently, it would be alien to my thinking to reproach Sanders's movie for having neglected 'the philosophy' of the novel. Nevertheless, I think that Denis Sanders has reduced 'Crime and Punishment' to a kind of 'Classics Illustrated'. A boy murders an old pawnbroker woman. This is the kind of events we may read about in the newspapers or watch on television, and the same thing is true of what follows: the boy eventually gets of a nervous breakdown because of his crime. He goes to the police and confesses, and even hands over hard evidence. - However much I think that Dostoyevsky is overrated, his novel contains SOMETHING more than just mass media sensations, but Sanders's movie does not (apart from one scene). The boy's writings about super-humans with the right to discard normal moral rules reminds me foremost of a newspaper columnist trying to catch the attention of bored readers by means of funny paradoxes. - - - But there is one scene that moved me very deeply; perhaps mostly so because of its very quiet nature. Sometimes (though not always) it is a wise rule that emotions should be felt by the spectators, not exhibited by the actors. There is nothing in the girl's appearance or behaviour that reveals her profession. But one night when she goes past a cheap café, she sees the boy in there, and goes to him. She tells him, 'I go out with men. Many men.' - This is a really great scene, and it must be regretted that I do not have the proper competence for describing why it is so. After some 40 years I still would like to see this scene again. I have no wish to see any other part of the movie again.