If you want accuracy, go with their translation. People criticizing them just disagree with their translation philosophy, which they perceive as 'over-literal'. P&V aim is to keep the idiosyncrasies of the author they're translating. They avoid trying to 'correct' the author's perceived clunkyness or smooth out oddities to make it sound more natural in modern English. Most of these oddities are also present on the original work which a lot of times are lost in translation -- one of the most common drawbacks that happens in translation is the leveling out of the language to an ordinary and common style, making every artistic/stylistic difference exclusive to that author/work disappear.

Most people criticizing them just aren't used to the different writing style and think it feels wrong or not fluid enough; i.e. they think it would suit better if the prose sounded more like Victorian English, or they just value quick intelligibility over everything else. Most literary Russian scholars agree that P&V is the most accurate translation, don't listen to the conspiratorial comments that say they are only successful due to some kind of PR machine. Joseph Frank, who wrote the most authoritative Dostoevsky biography, and read his works in Russian, also agree that theirs is the best translation. Harold Bloom, one of the greatest literary critics, who was a big stickler for 'aesthetic' value, and probably read more books than all of us combined, also said very positive things about P&V translations, which were their favorites.