User reviews

It's 1870 Ryevsk, Tsarist Russia. Fyodor Karamazov (Lee J. Cobb) is a wealthy tyrannical father to four grown sons and has the mistress Grushenka (Maria Schell). The oldest Dmitri (Yul Brynner) is an officer who always fights with his father over 25k rubles left by his mother and engaged to the rich Katya (Claire Bloom) who wants to repay Dmitri for bailing out her father. Ivan (Richard Basehart) is an atheist rationalist and cool towards his family. Katya and Ivan develop feelings for each other. Alexey (William Shatner) is the saintly novice monk. Pavel Smerdyakov (Albert Salmi) is rumored to be the illegitimate son who was brought up by servants and works for Fyodor. Fyodor with Grushenka's help aims to put Dmitri in debtor's prison. Dmitri had to write IOUs to his father which he sells to Grushenka at half price.

The acting style is big. Cobb does impressive drunk bombastic acting. Brynner needs a bit more emotions. He's too upright and always with that superior mannerism. The dialog is somewhat stiff. Marilyn as Grushenka would have been very interesting. Maria Schell is perfectly fine. The material feels rather like the highlights of a large Russian book. It's probably best to have read the book first. It's an impressive attempt.

After watching this film for the first time I can see where Jerome Weideman got the inspiration for the novel that became the basis for the films House Of Strangers and Broken Lance. The Menottis of the first film and the Devereauxs of the second were definitely inspired by The Brothers Karamazov.

The feelings for the father are the only thing that unite these four distinctly different brothers. Lee J. Cobb is a hard drinking, hard wenching, two fisted patriarch who is determined to beat everyone else in the game of debauchery. He's getting good competition from son Yul Brynner and it arouses some jealousy even though Brynner is engaged to a nice girl in Claire Bloom who also has a father giving both of them a run at that game. Things do come to a head when Brynner takes an interest in another woman who Cobb is currently keeping company with. In fact Inger Stevens and Cobb have a complicated scheme to get Brynner under their thumb through his gambling debts so he's forced to marry Bloom and start living respectively.

The other brothers are unique individuals themselves. Richard Basehart is a reporter for a radical newspaper with budding revolutionary thoughts. William Shatner is a pious novice monk, he and Basehart are a study in contrasts. Finally there is Albert Salmi who claims Cobb as his father and who Cobb treats like a doormat. Not that this brutish sadistic thug is worthy of anything. All of the sons suffer from a lack of a strong father figure.

The climax is when Cobb is murdered and Brynner is arrested for the crime. Fyodor Doestoyevsky is not Agatha Christie, people who like murder mysteries will have that solution figured out. But Doestoyevsky was writing this novel as a character study. Each of these brothers represent an extreme in terms of a way of living be it radical politics, religion, debauchery, or even brutish strength. An amalgam character of all of them would be a well adjusted man.

The Brothers Karamazov got one Oscar nomination, Lee J. Cobb for Best Supporting Actor. Papa Karamazov is certainly the kind of role that one cannot possibly overact in and Cobb feasts on enough scenery for three films. He lost the Oscar sweepstakes to another patriarchal portrayal that which Burl Ives did in The Big Country.

After over 50 years The Brothers Karamazov holds up very well, it's a good film and a good introduction to the works of Doestoyevsky. Try and see it back to back to back with House Of Strangers and Broken Lance.

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

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's

personality;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.

The optimum method for bringing a major literary work to the screen is the mini series, (though the television adaptation of Dostoyevski's "Crime and Punishment" was not to my liking.) There's no possible way a novel of the length and complexity such as "Brothers Karamazov" can be done justice to by the cinema, even given 145 minutes.

This 1959 Hollywood version deserves full marks for summarizing and depicting the plot faithfully, but since so much of the essence of the book is missing one cannot help feeling the pointlessness of the entire exercise.

Director Richard Brooks manages to sustain the emotion intensity of the piece, keeping the proceedings on an intimate scale, (David Lean no doubt would have blown it up to epic proportions). The cast are largely satisfactory with Yul Brynner is at his charismatic best as Dmitri and Claire Bloom is spot on as Katya. Iridescent Maria Schell is far too genteel for the earthy Grushenka, a part Marilyn Monroe somewhat misguidedly felt she was born to play, according to Hollywood lore. Lee J. Cobb tends towards hamming it up and an almost unrecognizably young William Shatner is a pleasant surprise as the mystically inclined Alexi.

While there is some enjoyment to be gained from this movie, one can only wholeheartedly offer the recommendation – read the book.

Hollywood rendition of the classic novel by Feodor Dostoyesky deals about the Karamazov family. It starts in Ryevsk, 1870, the father named Fyodor is a selfish libertine , he brutalizes and mistreats his sons . His four grown sons are Dimitri(Yul Brynner), an attractive, wealthy officer who is betrothed to rich Katya (Claire Bloom), the monk is named Alexi(William Shatner), a writer named Ivan (Richard Basehart) and the bastard (Albert Salmi). Dimitri falls in love with a beautiful woman named Grishenka(Maria Schell), but she's the father's lover. Then emerge the tensions , drama and tragedy when brothers and father struggle with their desires for the same women.

One of the most interesting films based on the novels by the fascinating Russian writer Feodor Dostoevsky - Crime and punishment-. The writers Julius and Philip Epstein -Casablanca- kicked out most of the psychological undertones of the original. This overlong picture is confined by the demands of melodrama and packs some flaws and gaps. Nevertheless it is full of masterly touches and unexpected flashes of intelligence. Nice performances by all star cast , especially by Richard Bashehart, William Shatner and Lee J. Cobb does an overacting. And Maria Schell who does a sensible and smiling performance as Grushenka, whose role Marilyn Monroe attempted desperately to get. Colorful cinematography by John Alton, a noted cameraman expert on noir cinema.

Good and intense direction by Richard Brooks. He was a fine writer/director so consistently mixed the good and average which it became impossible to know that to expect from him next. Firstly he worked regularly as a Hollywwod screenwriter. After that, his initial experience of directing was one of his own screenplays called ¨Crisis¨. The Richard Brooks films that have the greatest impact are realized during the 50s and 60s as ¨Cat on a hot tin roof, Something of value, Elmer Gantry, Sweet bird of youth, In cold blood, Lord Jim and the Professionals¨ and of course ¨The brothers Karamazov¨ .

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.

Not really the travesty it might have been. If Richard Brooks was good at anything it was for making accesible big, classic novels that a cinema-going audience might otherwise have overlooked and for at least treating them with a degree of respect. I'm not sure this version of Dostoevsky's novel "The Brothers Karamazov" will have anyone rushing to read the original but it's a robust entertainment nevertheless. It's a family drama about the relationship between four brothers and their father, (like a Russian "Dallas"), and which, like all good family dramas, is a love/hate relationship.

Yul Brynner is the headstrong, black sheep of the clan, (he's actually very good here), and his brothers are Richard Basehart, (the clever one), William Shatner, (the saintly one), and Albert Salmi, (excellent as the illegitimate one) while Lee J. Cobb hams it up as the hated father. As the woman who throws herself at Brynner only to be jilted and as the father's mistress that Brynner falls for both Claire Bloom and, in particular, Maria Schell are outstanding. Of course, the novel is something of a door-stopper and all Brooks can do is zip through it making sure he gets in all the salient points and no-one would ever call this one of the great literary adaptations. By the time we get to the courtroom climax it all gets a bit silly but it's a juicy entertainment all the same.

I first read this novel as a 13 year old at my dad's recommendation! I loved it and reread it many times as a teen-ager. I was young, impressionable, and brought up in an "Orthodox" home...I was spiritually moved and felt a kinship with Dostoyevski's religiosity. I saw the movie at age 19 and was prepared to hate what Hollywood might have done to commercialize my favorite novel! Instead I was transported to 19th century Russia and was totally mesmerized. I forgave the "deletions," I forgave the "alterations"...Dostoyevski was still there and talking!!! I fell in love with Maria Schell and nearly swooned during her Gypsy dance! Alexei was the young monk who personified what it means to be a generous and forgiving Christian; Ivan the spiritually conflicted and deeply honest man of science; Dimitri the tortured deeply human soul who takes on suffering...I even understood and cried when the saintly Starets knelt before Dimitri in the powerful scene at the monastery and asked for his blessing! If only some of our US citizens who explain their draconian political notions as manifestations of their religious beliefs could learn spirituality from Father Zosima! I am now 68 years of age and thrill with each reviewing of this classic. All actors were perfect in their role and for me Schatner will always be vulnerable young Alexei...not the omnipotent Kirk!

A vulgar and unprincipled man, Fyodor Karamazov has three very different sons: Alexey is a man of faith, Ivan is a materialistic and atheistic intellectual, Dimitri is a soldier in whom vice and virtue fight a great battle. The tensions are strong between the father and each of his sons. Hollywood ruined a lot of great books through the years, but had some successes as well, including this strong adaptation, with a good cast, good music, good costumes and good sets that create the atmosphere of a small muddy 19th Century Russian town. It befitted, though, a Russian director (Fyodor Otsep) to adapt that masterpiece of literature to the cinema, in 1931 (Der Moerder Dmitri Karamazov). Surprisingly, MGM produced a rather solid version. Like with Crime and Punishment, much of the book could easily be excised. There are parts of the book that work well towards advancing a plot , while other parts could just be immediately ditched. An excellent movie derived from Dostoevsky? Yes. Le Notti Bianche, Une femme douce, Les possédés, among others were quite good. Richard Brooks' film works mainly because the cast was well suited for the roles. But he inexplicably gave the novel a happy ending, with Ilyusha practically rising from his deathbed and Dmitri & Grushenka escaping into the future. Yet his adaptation was partially successful. It is faithful. It does try to overcome the melodramatic family conflict level in order to restore the entire metaphysical dimension of the novel. We can feel the hesitations, the tugging of the consciousness of the characters. The questions about the existence of God and the foundation of morality are, however, only sketched out. The reconstruction is well done and we notice a masterful work on the color. The film has not been successful and is generally too severely judged today. A pity. After all Mr. Brooks succeeded even realizing that his personal usual universe as an American director couldn't be farther removed from the "Russian soul".

The admirable effort to squeeze one of the greatest novels of all time into a film has resulted in a controversial masterpiece of intensity, and Dostoievsky would have liked it. Maria Schell (Grushenka) and Lee J. Cobb (the murdered father) stand out of a congregation of an ideal acting ensemble. Yul Brunner as Dimitri, Claire Bloom as Katia, Richard Baseheart as Ivan, William Shatner as Alyosha and Albert Salmi as a perfectly loathsome Smerdyakov are all perfect in their performances leaving nothing out, the music is perfectly fitted into the constantly changing and dramatic moods of ever increasing tension, but the greatest credit goes to the writer/director Richard Brooks, who has succeeded with the impossible, to give one of the most complex and polyphonic novels a digestible cinematic form. He adds to the show by including some extra scenes to make the drama easier to grasp, like a considerable foreplay to where the real start of the novel, the family congregation at the Starets Zossima's. I saw this film some 40 years ago and have never been able to forget the performances of Maria Schell and Lee J. Cobb, and the pleasure of reviewing them in what could have been their best performances was a welcome return of a great delight. It was a special satisfaction to observe how Richard Brooks has succeeded in underscoring the romantic element of Dostoievsky, he is in fact the greatest of romantics although well covered under a massive outfit of humanity, intelligence, psychology and the faculty of anatomizing human nature. The romance here is that between Dimitri and Grushenka, totally hopeless because of the circumstances but therefore the more heightened. It is very interesting to compare this film version with the Russian complete screen adaptation of 2008, which will be reviewed later. They definitely complement each other.

I was reading The Brothers Karamazov when this movie came on TCM. I recorded it and then watched it after I finished the book. There is no way that any movie could have duplicated this long, rambling book full of digressions, religious and psychological discussions, Russian nationalism, and satirical descriptions of inept doctors and lawyers. As a movie, it follows the basic plot well enough, ironing out the complexities and complications to make it a movie. A basic movie plot.

Well, it's not all that much of a story by itself. The romance is unconvincing; there is little suspense or mystery. The production values are okay. It looks like we are in backwoods 19th century Russia, but, at the same time, it is hardly impressive.

Lee Cobb makes a caricature in the book into a real person. Maria Schell plays a character who is supposed to have an infectious smile, but she smiles so much in the movie that it seems like a psychiatric condition. The rest of the cast is okay. Without the book's long back stories the characters have no depth in this movie and their motivations can be bewildering.

Anyone who's read the novel, which I assume is upwards of 80 percent of its viewers, expect this movie to be lacking and inferior. It doesn't disappoint. The movie bowlderizes Dostoyevsky's work and omits large portions(arguably some of the most critical moments) despite running at an interminable two and a half hours. Richard Brooks is aware of giving this film a particular 'look' but the one he settles for just a dingy reinforcements that this is 50's Hollywood dressed up to be 1870's Russia. If he got anything right it would probably be the casting. In particular Yul Brynner as well as Lee J Cobb, Richard Baseheart and Willam Shatner is actually an okay choice in his part is which is sidelined.

Brooks' later slaughtered Conrad's Lord Jim which is worse than The Brothers Karamozov which teeters on mediocrity and plain bad. I understand the urge for filmmakers to adapt famous literature but maybe it's time we all understand those are the great works of that medium and they should create those in their own.

If you have not seen this-Please do. It has action,deceit,depravity,murder and all the things you might expect. The cast does a great job and after not having seen it for 44 years, it is STILL a great film.My wife asked me to order the film 10 days ago. I did. We both watched it today.Simply a great movie. Period. Enjoy.

In this classic Russian adaptation, audiences finally get to see Yul Brynner portraying his own nationality. No more faux Siamese, Native American, or Mexican characters for him; at last he can submit his audition for Doctor Zhivago. I know he didn't exactly have the acting chops to pull off the Omar Sharif epic, but I still think it would have showed class for the studio to at least consider him.

Alright, I'm off my soap box. As the story goes, Yul Brynner, Richard Basehart, and William Shatner are the titular brothers who start to turn on each other to inherit all their father, Lee J. Cobb, has to give. Lee has a very fun role, a larger-than-life patriarch who is loud, crass, and indulgent in all his yens. Among them are his mistress, Maria Schell, who basically serves as one giant piece of eye candy for the male audience. If you have a crush on her, gents, you won't want to miss this movie.

As is the case with classic Russian literature, each character has his own archetype, even though they have complexities within themselves. Yul is the oldest son who constantly locks horns with his father and believes masculinity can be defined by more than wine and women. He's married to Claire Bloom, but although Claire feels loyalty towards her husband, she's attracted to one of his brothers. Richard is the middle son, left to be the philosophizing radical in order to get attention. Bill, the baby of the family, has learned from his brothers' dynamics: he's a man of the cloth who likes to keep the peace.

If you like big Russian epics, you'll like this one. Russian literature is a distinctive culture that sometimes comes across as too wordy or philosophical. But fans of War and Peace and Doctor Zhivago will find a lot to appreciate in The Brothers Karamazov.

This movie, which I first saw 65 years ago (!), held me in its grip during and long after my time in the movie theater. Still a high school student, I quickly went to the novel and consumed it in mere weeks, not months (including the section on "The Grand Inquisitor," which is missing from the film. The images of the movie stayed with me while reading the novel (after which, the same author's "Crime and Punishment" was slow, drawn-out, thoroughly boring.)

One of the themes of the movie is the classic Oedipal struggle between father and son, which entails manliness, money, religious faith, and sex. I was struggling with my father's meek ways (like the sick little boy whose father is humiliated by Dmitri (Brynner). I didn't realize it at the time, but as a father today I recognize a similar rebellion and rejection in my relation with my own "grown-up" son.

But the film's under-appreciated performance is that of Maria Schell as Grushenka. Within seconds of meeting her, Dimitri is smitten--and the audience must feel the same for the story to work. Schell lights up the screen with the most memorable, expressive face--signifying joy, sensuality, carelessness, indifference, ironic detachment, total commitment--all in the language of cinema--not of the theatrical stage (the problem with the negative review quoted in the film's Wikipedia entry). Rumor long had it that the part was first offered to Marilyn Monroe. Though I'm also an M.M. fan, Maria Schell is the one and only Grushenka--the heart of this remarkable film.

Richard Brooks was a talented and versatile director, well-versed especially in adapting literary works, concerning this I loved his movies based on Tennessee Williams' works and the movie adaptation of Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood" but this time he totally missed the point about the story.

This adaptation is almost exclusively focused on the adventurous and romantic side of the novel missing out more important aspects as the characters psychology (which is rough-sketch), the critical analysis of religion and the existence of God, the reflection about the human condition, moreover it's absolutely unbalanced in terms of characters treatment, Dmitri seems to be the absolute protagonist around which revolves the story so Ivan and Alexi are reduced to supporting characters with no substance and, interestingly enough, it's just Ivan Karamazov the most important and complex character of the book (the author himself speaks through him), although The Brothers Karamazov was conceived by Dostoyevsky as a biography of Alexi Karamazov so if there's a protagonist that's just Alexi Karamazov, however the novel is choral enough it can't identify an absolute protagonist.

There's two memorable moments in the book which don't find a place in the movie, both of them involve Ivan, I'm talking of the "The Grand Inquisitor" poem and the encounter with the devil towards the end, I consider them two key passages without which The Brothers Karamazov wouldn't be so great. On the other hand I can understand why they didn't include that kind of passages in the movie, due to their verbosity I think, however The Brothers Karamazov is a verbose novel, it's an inescapable aspect which makes this novel sublime, The Brothers Karamazov is mainly a philosophical and psychological work, let it be clear, it'a a lot of things, it's a crime story, it's a love story, it's a legal thriller, but all that is absolutely marginal compared to the depth and the authenticity of the characters, it's an amazing study of human nature, well this authenticity and this depth were totally lost in the movie; the characters turn out to be stereotyped and melodramatic, except the father played by Lee J. Cobb that I liked.

Richard Basehart, who played Ivan, was definitely too old for the role, Ivan is 24 years old whereas Basehart was 44 when the movie was filmed, he looked clearly older than Yul Brynner who was supposed to be the elder brother, even if the actual age of the actors is not so important it's necessary to keep a consistency with the original characters in my opinion. Yul Brynner was decent enough as Dmitri, Dmitri himself is the character more faithful to the original, however I found Brynner good in the action sequences but a little expressionless in dramatic ones. What to say about William "J. T. Kirk" Shatner? I don't consider his performance so bad, I think his role was just poorly written, this Alexi Karamazov is just without personality.

In short I consider this adaptation a sort of "The Brothers Karamazov" for dummies, in the sense that it was totally deprived of its "cerebral" content, what remains of this monumental masterpiece is the umpteenth Hollywood's melodrama with the classic "and lived happily ever after" ending (which was totally overturned compared to the book's) in Douglas Sirk style.

If I should indicate a director who would have been able to do a great job with this story at that time I'd say Ingmar Bergman and I'd have liked to see Marlon Brando in the role of Ivan Karamazov, only two geniuses like those ones would have been able to do justice to this story, but now they're passed away as well as the time when it was still possible to make this kind of movies.

This is the first time I've viewed this film and am quite impressed. Now I see why it's considered a classic. I got totally immersed in the storyline, even though I had laundry to do. I'm amazed only one actor was singled out for an award. Several of them deserved it, including Albert Salmi. Is it true this was his very first film???

It's impossible to make a film based on such a book as the "Brothers Karamzov" by F.M. Dostojevsky.

Richard Brooks is a great director, but that film is on a very low level.

The worst part of the film was the ending. Well, let's think of the book. In the end we have the "guilty" Dimitrij Karamazov. Afterwards they sent him to Siberia. In the end, the famous epilogues of Dostojevsky, the friends and family making a plan to save him. But that's it ... a nd now the film takes two steps more and shows us an illusion ending of the escape of Dimitry and Gruschenka(I think). just from the moral point I'm sure that Dostojevsky would finish the book with an open end because one the one hand he is not guilty(Smerdjakov is the real murderer) and so he have to be a free man. But on the other hand he goes to his father to kill him, so he has decided to commit the crime... that's a moral dilemma and so the following point is an open end...well, for real ,it's just not full open.

William Shatner as Aljoscha Karamazov... I'm sorry! --> NO!!!

The others characters playing in a good performance as we have to expect it from such great actors ... In front of course a superb performance of Yul Breynner as Dimitrij. I think that there are not many actors who can play this part in a better way.

But as I said in the beginning: This book is unadaptable. It never should be film in two hours that's impossible. I think that there are some 'longer films, so maybe they could do the right thing... But I just keep the opinion that this book can't be adapted.

So - 3 points:

A point for the great director Richard Brooks

A point for a superb performance of Yul Brynner

Finally: A point for one of the greatest writers of all time: Dostojevsky

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.

The earthy intense smoking emotional energy of the actors pulls in the watcher. It stamps the viewer forever. A visit through movie watching becomes a memory that stays stamped on the viewer for eternity or as in my case a lifetime.

Emotional fencing supported by the physical threat of violence wrapped in raw pure need and desire fired with a tight steal corset of greed. This movie is all of this and more. Why it is not higher in the rating is certainly a puzzle.

Yul Brynner is timeless, and nails his character. Yul Brynner .... Dmitri Karamazov Character of strength and entitlement nails this character.

Maria Schell .... Grushenka;Claire Bloom .... Katya, The female characters played well off each other.

Lee J. Cobb .... Father Karamazov Cobb unbending with favorites who anoints the chosen one with forgiveness

Albert Salmi .... Smerdjakov William Shatner .... Alexi Karamazov Star Trek Captain character is not to be seen in this role, but his promise does shine through. Richard Basehart .... Ivan Karamazov The Submarine Captain of the future TV series, his strong voice, in this role he is a great. Judith Evelyn .... Mme. Anna Hohlakov Edgar Stehli .... Grigory Harry Townes .... Ippoli Kirillov Miko Oscard .... Ilyusha Snegiryov David Opatoshu .... Capt. Snegiryov Simon Oakland .... Mavrayek Frank DeKova .... Capt. Vrublevski (as Frank de Kova) Jay Adler .... Pawnbroker I truly enjoyed this movie, it is one of my favorites, and has stayed with me over 40 years. That being said it definably struck a fiber cord with in my being

The Brothers Karamazov is a beautiful film with a solid script taking the most important parts of Dostoevsky's novel from the page to the screen.

Gorgeous cinematography with many scenes photograhed like paintings - the use of lighting is absolutely genius.

There's brilliant acting all-around from well-known actors to the unknown (the actor playing the dying little boy was perfect casting).

Realistic set designs from lush wealthy to charming middle-class to impoverished interiors - each setting evocative. Beautiful costumes (especially Claire Bloom's gowns) & wonderful gypsy music.

It's incredible to me that this fantastic film does not have a higher IMDB rating.