Having read about 1 to 2/3rds through most of Dostoyevsky's books: I really believe they're over-hyped.
Same with Pushkin, Tolstoy, Bulgakov, and so on -- with the only exception of Solzhenitsyn.
I think the difference is I'm Slavic, speak a few of the languages, and come from the cultures that succeeded those authors; so they read mostly as sentimental, overly-emotional, and superstitious, i.e. what I feel are the worst parts of the mythologized "Russian soul." Their works don't feel new, novel, and original: I've seen parts and pieces of it, reflections of its essence, expressed all over the average Slavic person.
> Dostoevsky's genius lies in his deep understanding of human nature and of spelling out truths about it in ways that inspire reflection.
If you resonate with this statement, perhaps you should also watch Tarkovsky's The Mirror.
But for me, the only truth Dostoyevsky has shown me is that people are very flawed, are the source of all of their own problems, and that Fyodor was a deeply emotional person. But I am not, and I find his expression of those emotions to be grating.
I resonate more with the quotes in the Wikipedia article for Idyot:
> However the chief criticism, among both reviewers and general readers, was in the "fantasticality" of the characters. The radical critic D.I. Minaev wrote: "People meet, fall in love, slap each other's face—and all at the author's first whim, without any artistic truth." V.P. Burenin, a liberal, described the novel's presentation of the younger generation as "the purest fruit of the writer's subjective fancy" and the novel as a whole as "a belletristic compilation, concocted from a multitude of absurd personages and events, without any concern for any kind of artistic objectivity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idiot#Reception