Sort of confused about the massive chasm between ratings Seems you either love this movie or hate it. I thought it was good. Started off strong and had a reasonably strong story-line but got a bit lost midway through. Sort of seemed they needed to finish up the movie and just rushed it at the end like they lost track of time. Had potential to be much better but still considered it suitably entertaining.
325 Reviews
Intriguing and suspenseful thriller about a police investigates a series of child murders during the Stalin-era Soviet Union.
ma-cortes8 January 2022
Set in the Stalin era of the Soviet Union in the Fifties . Although it starts in 1945 with the conquest of the Berlin Parliament in which some soldiers raising the Russian flag . Some years later, horrible discovery of a maimed young boy near the railway tracks in Moscow is investigated by a suffered member (Tom Hardy) of the Russian military . After that, other killings occur here and there. The gruesome murders point to an invisible prowler who preys on the innocent children . However , the state would not hear of the existence of a child murderer let alone a serial killer . His thorny investigations and his suspicious wife (Naomi Rapace) accused to be a spy lead to his detention , as he disgraced police gets demoted and exiled on a remote location in Siberia. Nevertheless, he decides, with just the help of his spouse and to go on pursuing the case . He finds similarly strange deaths happen there , notably targeting the 'unthinkable' gay minority , and begins hunting for a serial murderer . How do you find a killer who doesn't exist? . Catch the killer. Expose the truth. How many more must die before the truth is exposed? . In a system where distrust is ever-present, what separates an accident from a killing ?.
Thrilling and chilling flick set in the Stalinist era , being based on the first of a trilogy by novelist Tom Rob Smith . In Child 44 there's a sharping depiction of the Stalinist society where people lived terrorized and chased , holding rigid and strict existence in which whatever unusual opinion and abnormal activity being relentlessly pursued and punished . The interesting plot deals with a police investigator decides to find out a series of child murders in a country where supposedly this sort of crime doesn't exist. Main and secondary cast are pretty good . Tom Hardy delivers a serious and nice acting as an idealistic pro-Stalin security officer whose life goes wrong , being demoted to the deputy chief of the local police, while his suffering wife is well played by Naomi Rapace . Support cast is frankly excellent , all of them giving splendind performances , such as : Paddy Considine , Jason Clarke , Vincent Cassell , Charles Dance , Tara Fitzgerald and special mention for Gary Oldman as General Mikhail Nesterov , while Joel Kinnaman and Fares Fares , Daniel Espinosa's regular actors, provide stunning interpretations , as well.
It contains a sensitive and memorable musical score by Jon Ekstrand . As well as evocative and adequate cinematography by the great cameraman Oliver Wood . Director Daniel Espinosa replaces a bit of bada-bing with class warfare in this thriller titled Child 44 (2015) . Daniel got big hit thanks to the international film ¨Snabba cash¨. As Espinosa earned critical acclaim and subsequently hired by Hollywood , where has directed other successful films as ¨Life¨ and the hit boxoffice ¨Safe house¨ with Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds. Rating : 7/10 . Better than average . The motion picture will appeal to historical thriller enthusiasts. Well worth watching.
Thrilling and chilling flick set in the Stalinist era , being based on the first of a trilogy by novelist Tom Rob Smith . In Child 44 there's a sharping depiction of the Stalinist society where people lived terrorized and chased , holding rigid and strict existence in which whatever unusual opinion and abnormal activity being relentlessly pursued and punished . The interesting plot deals with a police investigator decides to find out a series of child murders in a country where supposedly this sort of crime doesn't exist. Main and secondary cast are pretty good . Tom Hardy delivers a serious and nice acting as an idealistic pro-Stalin security officer whose life goes wrong , being demoted to the deputy chief of the local police, while his suffering wife is well played by Naomi Rapace . Support cast is frankly excellent , all of them giving splendind performances , such as : Paddy Considine , Jason Clarke , Vincent Cassell , Charles Dance , Tara Fitzgerald and special mention for Gary Oldman as General Mikhail Nesterov , while Joel Kinnaman and Fares Fares , Daniel Espinosa's regular actors, provide stunning interpretations , as well.
It contains a sensitive and memorable musical score by Jon Ekstrand . As well as evocative and adequate cinematography by the great cameraman Oliver Wood . Director Daniel Espinosa replaces a bit of bada-bing with class warfare in this thriller titled Child 44 (2015) . Daniel got big hit thanks to the international film ¨Snabba cash¨. As Espinosa earned critical acclaim and subsequently hired by Hollywood , where has directed other successful films as ¨Life¨ and the hit boxoffice ¨Safe house¨ with Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds. Rating : 7/10 . Better than average . The motion picture will appeal to historical thriller enthusiasts. Well worth watching.
Unfairly maligned serial killer mystery with a Russian backdrop
Leofwine_draca20 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Despite the multitude of negative reviews floating around the Internet, I thought CHILD 44 was a solid mix of the drama and thriller genres. The post-war Russian setting alone makes it worth watching and there's nothing wrong at all with the Russian accents which some commentators seem to moan on and on about. I'd rather this than seeing certain actors playing roles and not even attempting the accent, like Tom Cruise in VALKYRIE.
The story is based on a novel about a series of child killings taking place in Soviet Russia and the efforts of a top-ranking policeman to track down the serial killer responsible. The real star of the show is Daniel Espinosa, who previously made EASY MONEY and who brings the same level of stark beauty to his production here. The cinematography is excellent and brings the various action and dramatic set-pieces to life in a unique way. In addition, CHILD 44 boasts a fine ensemble cast to be enjoyed. Tom Hardy is the solid lead and the likes of Gary Oldman, Vincent Cassel, Jason Clarke, and Noomi Rapace bring fine support, with the scene-stealing Joel Kinnaman re-teaming with Espinosa after EASY MONEY.
The story is based on a novel about a series of child killings taking place in Soviet Russia and the efforts of a top-ranking policeman to track down the serial killer responsible. The real star of the show is Daniel Espinosa, who previously made EASY MONEY and who brings the same level of stark beauty to his production here. The cinematography is excellent and brings the various action and dramatic set-pieces to life in a unique way. In addition, CHILD 44 boasts a fine ensemble cast to be enjoyed. Tom Hardy is the solid lead and the likes of Gary Oldman, Vincent Cassel, Jason Clarke, and Noomi Rapace bring fine support, with the scene-stealing Joel Kinnaman re-teaming with Espinosa after EASY MONEY.
Good movie about a dark time in Russia.
TxMike19 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I found this movie on DVD from my public library. The theme is not pleasant, it is the rule of Stalin and in their attempts to make their country a "perfect state" they denied that anything such as murder could exist.
Tom Hardy is grown up Leo Demidov, he had been an orphan and now was an officer in the military. There is a strange death, a young boy is found dead and the "official" reason for death was being hit and killed by a train.
But the audience knows better, we see a glimpse of a man confronting the boy then luring him away. Eventually a number of other boys were found dead.
The story is about Leo taking an interest and investigating these deaths, even if it gets him on the wrong side of his superiors. One of the dead children turns out to be his brothers.
Hardy is very good in this role, characters speaking English with a Russian accent.
Tom Hardy is grown up Leo Demidov, he had been an orphan and now was an officer in the military. There is a strange death, a young boy is found dead and the "official" reason for death was being hit and killed by a train.
But the audience knows better, we see a glimpse of a man confronting the boy then luring him away. Eventually a number of other boys were found dead.
The story is about Leo taking an interest and investigating these deaths, even if it gets him on the wrong side of his superiors. One of the dead children turns out to be his brothers.
Hardy is very good in this role, characters speaking English with a Russian accent.
There is no Murder in Paradise
claudio_carvalho28 July 2016
The Ukranian orphan Leo is raised by a Russian family and becomes national hero during the World War II. In the 50's, Captain Leo Demidov (Tom Hardy), his best friend Alexei Andreyev (Fares Fares) and the coward Vasili Nikitin (Joel Kinnaman) join the Ministry of State Security (MGB) during the political regime of Stalin and Leo marries Raisa Demidov (Noomi Rapace). When Alexei's son is found murdered completely naked near the railway, the official explanation is that the boy was hit by a train since there is no murder in paradise since it is a capitalist disease. But Leo finds other similar cases and proceeds investigating, falling in disgrace with the Party. He loses his rank and is transferred with Raisa to Volsk to work with General Mikhail Nesterov (Gary Oldman). When a body of another boy is found near the railway in the same conditions of Alexei's son, Leo convinces Nesterov that there is a serial-killer and he agrees that Leo conducts a further investigation. Meanwhile the ambitious Vasili tries to persuade Raisa to leave Leo and move to Moscow to stay with him. What will happen to Leo and Raisa?
"Child 44" is a film with a promising storyline, great performances but not engaging. The political subplot is weird and raises the doubt whether it is true the premise that "there is no murder in paradise" or it is an anti-soviet propaganda as mentioned in the previous review. In a controlled political society by a dictatorship, it is expected low crime rates as consequence. But why not secretly investigate a serial-killer? My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Crimes Ocultos" ("Hidden Crimes")
"Child 44" is a film with a promising storyline, great performances but not engaging. The political subplot is weird and raises the doubt whether it is true the premise that "there is no murder in paradise" or it is an anti-soviet propaganda as mentioned in the previous review. In a controlled political society by a dictatorship, it is expected low crime rates as consequence. But why not secretly investigate a serial-killer? My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Crimes Ocultos" ("Hidden Crimes")
From Russia with Crime
kosmasp8 July 2015
Not sure how accurate some of the things are (this is based on a novel which is based on real events) we get to see in this movie. But you could believe that some of the things would have been possible to happen. It's no wonder that Russia was not really happy about the book of course (not the best depiction of authority or anything else going on there). Haven't looked up how the movie was received, but I can't imagine they welcomed it with open arms.
Tom Hardy is as straight an arrow as you can get in this one, but he gets major support by Noomi and Gary to name but two. The incidents occurring that the movie is about apart from the human side of it, are despicable, not that anyone was actually confirming them. It's a tough watch especially because of its pacing, but it's solid and suspenseful from beginning to end
Tom Hardy is as straight an arrow as you can get in this one, but he gets major support by Noomi and Gary to name but two. The incidents occurring that the movie is about apart from the human side of it, are despicable, not that anyone was actually confirming them. It's a tough watch especially because of its pacing, but it's solid and suspenseful from beginning to end
Doesn't quite come together right, I still enjoyed it though.
Hellmant28 August 2015
'CHILD 44': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five)
A mystery thriller film; starring Tom Hardy, Noomi Rapace and Gary Oldman. Hardy plays a security officer, that's investigating a child murderer, in 1950s (Stalin era) Soviet Union. The film was directed by Daniel Espinosa and written by Richard Price; it's based on the novel, of the same name, by Tom Rob Smith (the first of a trilogy of books). It also costars Joel Kinnaman, Vincent Cassel and Jason Clarke. The movie was a bomb at the box office, and got mostly negative reviews from critics, but I enjoyed it.
Leo Demidov (Hardy) is a former war hero, that now works as an MGB agent, in the 1950s Soviet Union. He's a strong supporter of Stalin, and his country's ideals, but when a series of children start turning up dead, his loyalty is put to the test; being that murder is not supposed to exist there (it's believed to be only a capitalism crime). When his partner's son is killed, he refuses to go along with the government's cover-up (of the crime), and he's exiled; along with his wife (Rapace). Despite their treatment, Leo continues to pursue the killer, and justice.
The movie is well directed, written and full of great performances; especially Tom Hardy (my favorite male actor). Some people have a problem with the fact that the actors all speak English, in the film, but with Russian accents; that didn't bother me. I actually like the characters (especially Hardy's) and the insightful political commentary of those times; I found the movie to be quite involving as well. Maybe one of the main problems, with the film, is that the first cut was 5.5 hours long; and now it's less than 2.5 hours. It's a lot of story, and character development, crammed into one movie. The film is actually pretty fast paced too, it just doesn't quite come together right. I still enjoyed it though.
Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/5zwAFiaOqq4
A mystery thriller film; starring Tom Hardy, Noomi Rapace and Gary Oldman. Hardy plays a security officer, that's investigating a child murderer, in 1950s (Stalin era) Soviet Union. The film was directed by Daniel Espinosa and written by Richard Price; it's based on the novel, of the same name, by Tom Rob Smith (the first of a trilogy of books). It also costars Joel Kinnaman, Vincent Cassel and Jason Clarke. The movie was a bomb at the box office, and got mostly negative reviews from critics, but I enjoyed it.
Leo Demidov (Hardy) is a former war hero, that now works as an MGB agent, in the 1950s Soviet Union. He's a strong supporter of Stalin, and his country's ideals, but when a series of children start turning up dead, his loyalty is put to the test; being that murder is not supposed to exist there (it's believed to be only a capitalism crime). When his partner's son is killed, he refuses to go along with the government's cover-up (of the crime), and he's exiled; along with his wife (Rapace). Despite their treatment, Leo continues to pursue the killer, and justice.
The movie is well directed, written and full of great performances; especially Tom Hardy (my favorite male actor). Some people have a problem with the fact that the actors all speak English, in the film, but with Russian accents; that didn't bother me. I actually like the characters (especially Hardy's) and the insightful political commentary of those times; I found the movie to be quite involving as well. Maybe one of the main problems, with the film, is that the first cut was 5.5 hours long; and now it's less than 2.5 hours. It's a lot of story, and character development, crammed into one movie. The film is actually pretty fast paced too, it just doesn't quite come together right. I still enjoyed it though.
Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/5zwAFiaOqq4
Read the book first!
Mary-Mary3 April 2022
We're already dead
baunacholi-8615920 May 2020
Child 44 is so much more than just crime. Yes the movie rotates about the killing of children however the actual drama, tension and horrific atmosphere lays in the system and society/politics during that time (true or fictional is not up to me to decide on). The movie managed to paint an intense picture of a very special era. Disturbing, and in its authenticity and accuracy plain awful to watch. Fear and paranoia washes out even the smallest bit of kindness.
despotism everywhere, no matter what u do or don't do, everything can be interpreted as wrong and used against u. condemn was only one vehicle for pure cruelty and destroying life after life after life.
The male lead said at one point:
We're already dead. Which was only one of many memorable situations which left me speechless and touched me deeply.
An excellent cast in an excellent movie.
Better Than I Expected...
landingwiz16 April 2015
OK, so before I watched this movie, I was reading reviews online and saw so many horrible reviews. Rotten Tomatoes gave it like 27%, so I thought this movie was going to be a disaster.
Luckily, it wasn't so.
Now, I'm not going to get into the propaganda and all that or how they got their facts and history wrong and stuff. American (and other nations) movies bend stories to their bias all the time, so we've come to take what we see with a grain of salt.
All I'll say is this:
If like me, you're a Tom Hardy fan and you're watching Children 44 because you can't get enough of Tom Hardy's acting, then you're actually in for a treat as you watch the guy attempt to handle his role as a Russian anti-hero quite successfully.
In fact, generally the acting from the cast was great. Gary Oldman didn't have much screen time but he was excellent as always.
The plot and many parts however, had their flaws, convenient plot devices and "Why the hell would he do that??!!!" moments. These, in my opinion, are the downside to this movie.
On a whole, this movie is definitely worth a watch for the appreciation of how some of our favorite actors and actresses handled their respective roles in Child 44.
And if you don't want to get your panties in a bunch over how this or that wasn't portrayed accurately, watch with an open mind, and you may actually enjoy this movie like I did.
Luckily, it wasn't so.
Now, I'm not going to get into the propaganda and all that or how they got their facts and history wrong and stuff. American (and other nations) movies bend stories to their bias all the time, so we've come to take what we see with a grain of salt.
All I'll say is this:
If like me, you're a Tom Hardy fan and you're watching Children 44 because you can't get enough of Tom Hardy's acting, then you're actually in for a treat as you watch the guy attempt to handle his role as a Russian anti-hero quite successfully.
In fact, generally the acting from the cast was great. Gary Oldman didn't have much screen time but he was excellent as always.
The plot and many parts however, had their flaws, convenient plot devices and "Why the hell would he do that??!!!" moments. These, in my opinion, are the downside to this movie.
On a whole, this movie is definitely worth a watch for the appreciation of how some of our favorite actors and actresses handled their respective roles in Child 44.
And if you don't want to get your panties in a bunch over how this or that wasn't portrayed accurately, watch with an open mind, and you may actually enjoy this movie like I did.
There is greatness here, muddled by inconsistency and superfluous subplots.
lnvicta16 September 2016
This is a movie I've kept my eye on ever since it was revealed. Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman are two of my favorite working actors, and having them co-lead a Russian serial killer film seemed like a slam dunk. Unfortunately, Child 44 is not the slam dunk it could have been. It has the talent, it has the story (based on the best-selling novel); all the ingredients necessary for greatness are there. But it also has a plethora of baggage that bogs it down to mediocrity.
Tom Hardy is the star of the film through and through. It's a story about his family life and professional life clashing over the case of a dead child. The officials want to pass it off as a train accident, but witnesses swear that it was a homicide. As more and more bodies start turning up and the higher-ups continue to look away, it's up to Hardy to find the killer and bring him to justice. Again, the acting in this film is great, as is the story. The problem is the way it's presented. Half of the movie is focused on the serial killer angle and Hardy's character going through the loops of finding the right person to help him on the case, and the other half is about Soviet officials exiling his family and stripping him of power for his disobedience. The way these stories intertwine is messy and confusing, for a number of reasons.
For starters, the tone is all over the place. What should be a dark, gloomy mystery among the cold streets of Soviet Russia ends up as a haphazardly arranged domestic dispute due to political interference with a child murderer lurking around somewhere. There's no time for momentum to build when it's constantly changing course. Gary Oldman being billed a co-lead is a huge stretch. He's in the movie for about 20 minutes total and his character doesn't do much to further the story. Mind you, it's Gary Oldman so he gives a fine performance, but as someone who was looking forward to Hardy and Oldman sharing the scene for two plus hours, I was disappointed to say the least.
And then there's the practical aspect. Hardy and Oldman are accent chameleons, there's no doubt about that. I didn't even know Oldman was British until I saw him in an interview. But why on earth are these Russian soldiers speaking to each other in English? For a wider audience no doubt, but it's such a basic matter of common sense that it bugged me continuously throughout the film. It's also far too long. A serial killer hunt stretched over the course of two hours and 15 minutes is exhausting. The tension becomes less and less dire as the movie progresses until you're just waiting for it to end.
Child 44 isn't a bad movie, but its flaws are glaring. It's not the dark, edgy thriller you'd expect. In fact, to call it a thriller would be a misnomer. Child 44 is a tone-deaf political drama filled to the brim with wasted potential.
Tom Hardy is the star of the film through and through. It's a story about his family life and professional life clashing over the case of a dead child. The officials want to pass it off as a train accident, but witnesses swear that it was a homicide. As more and more bodies start turning up and the higher-ups continue to look away, it's up to Hardy to find the killer and bring him to justice. Again, the acting in this film is great, as is the story. The problem is the way it's presented. Half of the movie is focused on the serial killer angle and Hardy's character going through the loops of finding the right person to help him on the case, and the other half is about Soviet officials exiling his family and stripping him of power for his disobedience. The way these stories intertwine is messy and confusing, for a number of reasons.
For starters, the tone is all over the place. What should be a dark, gloomy mystery among the cold streets of Soviet Russia ends up as a haphazardly arranged domestic dispute due to political interference with a child murderer lurking around somewhere. There's no time for momentum to build when it's constantly changing course. Gary Oldman being billed a co-lead is a huge stretch. He's in the movie for about 20 minutes total and his character doesn't do much to further the story. Mind you, it's Gary Oldman so he gives a fine performance, but as someone who was looking forward to Hardy and Oldman sharing the scene for two plus hours, I was disappointed to say the least.
And then there's the practical aspect. Hardy and Oldman are accent chameleons, there's no doubt about that. I didn't even know Oldman was British until I saw him in an interview. But why on earth are these Russian soldiers speaking to each other in English? For a wider audience no doubt, but it's such a basic matter of common sense that it bugged me continuously throughout the film. It's also far too long. A serial killer hunt stretched over the course of two hours and 15 minutes is exhausting. The tension becomes less and less dire as the movie progresses until you're just waiting for it to end.
Child 44 isn't a bad movie, but its flaws are glaring. It's not the dark, edgy thriller you'd expect. In fact, to call it a thriller would be a misnomer. Child 44 is a tone-deaf political drama filled to the brim with wasted potential.
Dark matter
Sleepin_Dragon3 October 2015
I watched this film with a definite unease, having read the description of the film I didn't find it hugely appealing, just because of the subject matter, which is particularly dark, but because Mr Hardy is in it, I had to watch it. They managed to take us back to Stalin's Russia, we see a brief glimpse of how tough life was for people back then, those poor people were living in horrendous conditions. The story in brief, The State have turned Russia into a Paradise, crime simply isn't possible, and the thought of a child killer unthinkable, but when young boys are being found murdered along the train tracks the unthinkable is happening. Security Officer Leo Demidov is disgraced, but believes a Serial killer is to blame, and despite the vast obstacles the state puts in place, he sets out to find the killer. Tom Hardy (of course) and Gary Oldman are particularly brilliant, and there are also wonderful performances from Paddy Considine and Petr Vanek and many others. As I've mentioned it is quite harrowing matter, but it's not overly done, mercifully the scenes aren't that gory, it could have been dreadfully overdone. I eagerly anticipate the next instalment. 9/10
Too many weak points
rubenm21 April 2015
A crime thriller, set in the Soviet Union during the Stalin era: it sounds like a good idea. And it probably is, but unfortunately 'Child 44' doesn't have what it takes to be a really good film. Some things are well done: the oppressing atmosphere of living in a police state, and the courage it takes to go against of the powers that be, are very convincing. That's partly because of the excellent cinematography, full of grey colours conveying the joyless society that Soviet Russia must have been; and partly because of Tom Hardy's convincing lead.
Hardy shows exactly the right amount of tenacity to make him believable as the Russian war hero who becomes an outcast because he refuses to denounce his innocent wife, against the will of the regime. Only after he exposes the incompetence of the police force in a series of child killings, he gets rehabilitated.
The weak point of the film is the script. It takes a long while before all elements of the story are clear, and the quick succession of events at the start is a bit confusing. Moreover, the story is spiced up with some action scenes that are not well executed and unnecessary. Also, the tear jerking scene at the end is at odds with the hard-boiled story.
What really annoyed me (and I think I'm not alone) is the language. The actors speak English with a mock Russian accent. This half-hearted way of solving a language problem makes some dialogue almost ridiculous. Just let them speak normal English. I know, that makes the film a bit less authentic. But nobody spoke English with mock Russian accents in Soviet Russia.
Hardy shows exactly the right amount of tenacity to make him believable as the Russian war hero who becomes an outcast because he refuses to denounce his innocent wife, against the will of the regime. Only after he exposes the incompetence of the police force in a series of child killings, he gets rehabilitated.
The weak point of the film is the script. It takes a long while before all elements of the story are clear, and the quick succession of events at the start is a bit confusing. Moreover, the story is spiced up with some action scenes that are not well executed and unnecessary. Also, the tear jerking scene at the end is at odds with the hard-boiled story.
What really annoyed me (and I think I'm not alone) is the language. The actors speak English with a mock Russian accent. This half-hearted way of solving a language problem makes some dialogue almost ridiculous. Just let them speak normal English. I know, that makes the film a bit less authentic. But nobody spoke English with mock Russian accents in Soviet Russia.
A Massive Disappointment & Wasted Opportunity
SteveResin29 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I was really looking forward to seeing Child 44. Being a fan of the extraordinary Citizen X I was pumped that such a disturbing and riveting story such as Chikatilo's was getting the big budget treatment with a stellar cast.
The bubble burst within the first few minutes, as I realised for some god-forsaken reason they'd decided to reinvent the story. The timeframe is completely wrong, the characters have newly invented pasts and worse of all Chikatilo's capture and fate is completely fabricated. Not only do they fail to arrest him and bring him to trial, he's assassinated in a forest by some tiresome agent with a grudge against the detective hunting the killer down. Utterly ridiculous and pointless.
Pointless because if ever there was a story that didn't need reinvention to make it more interesting than reality it's this one. Chikatilo's story is so macabre, absurd and fantastical it doesn't need ridiculous embellishments.
As for the movie itself, the acting is of a high standard, Hardy and Rapace in particular shine, but the faux-Russian accents of the whole cast are grating and another pointless decision. Why not just have them speak in their own accents, and credit the audience with enough intelligence to realise this is Russia and these are russians we're watching despite the accents.
Stick with Citizen X, it's far superior and more rewarding.
The bubble burst within the first few minutes, as I realised for some god-forsaken reason they'd decided to reinvent the story. The timeframe is completely wrong, the characters have newly invented pasts and worse of all Chikatilo's capture and fate is completely fabricated. Not only do they fail to arrest him and bring him to trial, he's assassinated in a forest by some tiresome agent with a grudge against the detective hunting the killer down. Utterly ridiculous and pointless.
Pointless because if ever there was a story that didn't need reinvention to make it more interesting than reality it's this one. Chikatilo's story is so macabre, absurd and fantastical it doesn't need ridiculous embellishments.
As for the movie itself, the acting is of a high standard, Hardy and Rapace in particular shine, but the faux-Russian accents of the whole cast are grating and another pointless decision. Why not just have them speak in their own accents, and credit the audience with enough intelligence to realise this is Russia and these are russians we're watching despite the accents.
Stick with Citizen X, it's far superior and more rewarding.
special
Kirpianuscus9 May 2022
The fair portrait of last years of Stalin reign can be the basic virtue of this very special film.
It is special for acting and for inspired storytelling.
In same measure, for atmosphere and for the levels of story.
For great work of Tom Hardy and for the inspired end.
For moral kicks to real punches, for unrealism of a fist of scenes, well used in context of story, for the image of fragility of emotions, for the sketches of fear and cruelty, for the back ground and for the roots of evil. Short, just special.
It is special for acting and for inspired storytelling.
In same measure, for atmosphere and for the levels of story.
For great work of Tom Hardy and for the inspired end.
For moral kicks to real punches, for unrealism of a fist of scenes, well used in context of story, for the image of fragility of emotions, for the sketches of fear and cruelty, for the back ground and for the roots of evil. Short, just special.
Confusing and bloated post WWII crime drama
george.schmidt18 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
CHILD 44 (2015) ** Tom Hardy, Noomi Rapace, Joel Kinnaman, Gary Oldman, Paddy Considine, Jason Clarke, Vincent Cassel, Charles Dance. Confusing and bloated post WWII crime drama about a Soviet military policeman (Hardy with a borscht thick Russkie accent) embroiled in a lengthy investigation of a series of child murders while the Stalin-set government attempts a cover up of a serial killer loose. The screenplay by veteran Richard Price is all over the place and never finding its exact groove: action thriller? murder mystery? hero redemption flick? Based on a series of novels by Tom Rob Smith the potential for a franchise shoots itself in the foot with a brooding sometimes clueless protagonist with brute force and very little else. (Dir: Daniel Espinoza)
An overly ambitious film, but still an interesting one.
filipemanuelneto17 December 2022
Honestly, I expected a little more from this movie. I found it on television, just by chance, but I had already heard about it, I'm not sure for what purpose, but I had the impression that it was a very good film. It's not as good as I expected, as it gets a little lost between politics and police mystery, and that ends up compromising the pace.
It all starts with a drama where an MGB agent named Leo Demidov tries to protect his wife after a political prisoner denounces her as his accomplice. The effort pays off, but it's so obvious that he wanted to protect her that his superiors send him to an industrial city on the outskirts of Ukraine. Meanwhile, he will have to tell a friend that his son died in an alleged train accident, but it is clear that the child was murdered. In the new city where he is posted, Leo discovers many more cases of children in the same situation, deducing that there is a murderer killing children along the railway line. The problem is to convince the Soviet police that these crimes are not exclusive to the capitalist world.
The film has good dialogues and the script is very good, but I felt that it is too ambitious and that it ends up not being able to handle it well. The difficulty in reconciling the two subplots (the criminal on the loose and the protagonist's conflict with the fanatical authorities), both equally powerful and relevant, is palpable. There is another plot point that leaves me with a lot of doubts, and that has to do with how Leo's wife changes radically, from someone passive and without relevance in the story to an active and cooperative figure, central to the following events. If this change, on the one hand, made it possible to put her back at the center of events, it also seems to be an inconsistency. The ending isn't bad, but it's inelegant: the atmosphere of tension and suspense gives way to more action, in absolute contrast to what the film had been doing.
The cast features several well-known actors, starting with Tom Hardy and Noomi Rapace in the lead roles. None of them were bad, they are both quite confidant and the interpretation they bring us is solid and well concepted. Joel Kinnaman is a convincing villain and plays the political fanatic well. Vincent Cassel and Gary Oldman are well-known veterans and pretty safe bets for the most prominent secondary characters. The only negative point I have to make (and I think it's not the actors' fault, but director Espinosa's) is that terrible pseudo-Russian accent that the actors tried to emulate, and which should never have been done. If the director wanted that kind of accent so badly, then he should have looked for Russian or Eastern actors who could speak in English.
Technically, the film relies heavily on cinematography and camera work. They tried as hard as they could for these elements to convey a variety of sensations to the public, from the biting Winter cold to the inhospitable, gray, unfriendly and distrustful atmosphere of Soviet cities during the 1950s. I also really liked the cars, the uniforms, costumes and sets, as there was a good effort at historical reconstruction, in general. The soundtrack does its job, but it doesn't stay in the ear.
It all starts with a drama where an MGB agent named Leo Demidov tries to protect his wife after a political prisoner denounces her as his accomplice. The effort pays off, but it's so obvious that he wanted to protect her that his superiors send him to an industrial city on the outskirts of Ukraine. Meanwhile, he will have to tell a friend that his son died in an alleged train accident, but it is clear that the child was murdered. In the new city where he is posted, Leo discovers many more cases of children in the same situation, deducing that there is a murderer killing children along the railway line. The problem is to convince the Soviet police that these crimes are not exclusive to the capitalist world.
The film has good dialogues and the script is very good, but I felt that it is too ambitious and that it ends up not being able to handle it well. The difficulty in reconciling the two subplots (the criminal on the loose and the protagonist's conflict with the fanatical authorities), both equally powerful and relevant, is palpable. There is another plot point that leaves me with a lot of doubts, and that has to do with how Leo's wife changes radically, from someone passive and without relevance in the story to an active and cooperative figure, central to the following events. If this change, on the one hand, made it possible to put her back at the center of events, it also seems to be an inconsistency. The ending isn't bad, but it's inelegant: the atmosphere of tension and suspense gives way to more action, in absolute contrast to what the film had been doing.
The cast features several well-known actors, starting with Tom Hardy and Noomi Rapace in the lead roles. None of them were bad, they are both quite confidant and the interpretation they bring us is solid and well concepted. Joel Kinnaman is a convincing villain and plays the political fanatic well. Vincent Cassel and Gary Oldman are well-known veterans and pretty safe bets for the most prominent secondary characters. The only negative point I have to make (and I think it's not the actors' fault, but director Espinosa's) is that terrible pseudo-Russian accent that the actors tried to emulate, and which should never have been done. If the director wanted that kind of accent so badly, then he should have looked for Russian or Eastern actors who could speak in English.
Technically, the film relies heavily on cinematography and camera work. They tried as hard as they could for these elements to convey a variety of sensations to the public, from the biting Winter cold to the inhospitable, gray, unfriendly and distrustful atmosphere of Soviet cities during the 1950s. I also really liked the cars, the uniforms, costumes and sets, as there was a good effort at historical reconstruction, in general. The soundtrack does its job, but it doesn't stay in the ear.
Tense Drama, 1st time will never bore you.
mahmoodsid13 August 2015
Child 44 was a good drama movie, not have too much thrill in it but one who is seeing, will never bore while watching. Movie start was a bit slow, get thriller in the mid but lack sometimes continuity of the main script.
Direction: Its an average direction of Daniel Espinosa. Some unexplained scenes make it more weaker. Have mistakes also.
Acting: Tom hardy, good at his role, by the way others acting was below average.
Overall Movie: A must watch average drama having some crime mystery and a little bit thrill about the life of a disgraced military officer.
Direction: Its an average direction of Daniel Espinosa. Some unexplained scenes make it more weaker. Have mistakes also.
Acting: Tom hardy, good at his role, by the way others acting was below average.
Overall Movie: A must watch average drama having some crime mystery and a little bit thrill about the life of a disgraced military officer.
"Child 44" is a grim but fascinating police procedural that peaks behind the Iron Curtain into the paranoia and dysfunction of the U.S.S.R. under Stalin.
CleveMan6619 April 2015
Sometimes it's tough to stand on the side of right. That's especially true when all those around you are more interested in perception than reality. And I don't just mean your family and your friends or your social circle. I'm talking about fighting against the abuses of power, corruption and cover-ups of an entire society. That's what Moscow-based secret police (MGB) agent Leo Demidov faces in the Soviet Union of the 1950s in British writer Tom Rob Smith's trilogy. The first book in that trilogy lends its title to the film "Child 44" (R, 1:37) and focuses on the real-life crimes of a Russian named Andrei Chikatilo.
Demidov is played by underrated British actor Tom Hardy. Hardy's character is a tough, but good man who wants to do what's right, but runs into a brick wall every time he tries. He's a cop in Stalin's U.S.S.R., a government that whisks away any citizen who expresses a point of view contrary to that of the authorities and holds fast to its denial of the existence of crime in their communist utopia. When the young son of fellow agent Alexi (Fares Fares) is murdered, Demidov is reminded that, according to Stalin, "murder is a capitalist disease." Or, as Vasili (Joel Kinnaman), Demidov's bitter rival within their secret police unit says, "There is no crime in paradise." As Alexi's friend and superior, Demidov is assigned to present the police report to the family. "Railway accident" is listed as the cause of death. Everyone, including Demidov, knows that this is a lie, but when the family argues with him about the official version of events all he can do is half-heartedly insist that they read the report. He pulls aside Alexi to tell him repeatedly that his son was not murdered. You can see how difficult it is for this talented investigator to deny his friend any hope of justice, but it's for Alexi's own good. Demidov knows that pursuing the matter any further would mean the end of both of their careers, or worse.
Demidov soon gets to experience an example of that "worse" for himself. When he finally takes an unyielding stand and refuses to toe the party line on another issue, he is demoted, and he and his wife, Raisa (Noomi Rapace), are basically exiled to a small town that is even bleaker than Moscow was for them. When Demidov is helping investigate the murder of another young boy, he encourages his new supervisor, General Nesterov (Gary Oldman), to investigate further. Nesterov soon discovers that there have been a total of 43 similar murders in the region. "44," Demidov corrects him. "My friend's son was murdered too." Nesterov does what he can within the confines of the Soviet legal system, while Demidov and his wife go well outside normal procedures in an effort to catch the killer. Vasili gets wind of what the Demidovs are up to and tries to use this to get his former boss out of the way for good.
"Child 44" is grim, but effective. The story is a disturbing but fascinating peek into life in the U.S.S.R. late in the Stalinist era. We get a look at the state of schools, orphanages, mental hospitals and even the treatment of homosexuals, but this film is mainly about the paranoia of a broken system which victimized its own people and allowed many criminals to go unpunished. The script is strong, but the acting is even stronger. Hardy plays Demidov as a confident and dedicated public servant who is barely holding the cork in the bottle of his righteous anger. Rapace comes off as proud and strong, but with a barely concealed vulnerability just beneath the surface. Oldman has been (and remains) one of the most talented actors of his generation and, anyone who remembers him as the terrorist leader in "Air Force One" (1997) can attest that the man knows his way around a Russian accent. Basically, this is the kind of movie you want to see if you're in the mood for a serious crime thriller which has the courage to approach the sub-genre of police procedural from a little-understood place in a nearly forgotten time. "B+"
Demidov is played by underrated British actor Tom Hardy. Hardy's character is a tough, but good man who wants to do what's right, but runs into a brick wall every time he tries. He's a cop in Stalin's U.S.S.R., a government that whisks away any citizen who expresses a point of view contrary to that of the authorities and holds fast to its denial of the existence of crime in their communist utopia. When the young son of fellow agent Alexi (Fares Fares) is murdered, Demidov is reminded that, according to Stalin, "murder is a capitalist disease." Or, as Vasili (Joel Kinnaman), Demidov's bitter rival within their secret police unit says, "There is no crime in paradise." As Alexi's friend and superior, Demidov is assigned to present the police report to the family. "Railway accident" is listed as the cause of death. Everyone, including Demidov, knows that this is a lie, but when the family argues with him about the official version of events all he can do is half-heartedly insist that they read the report. He pulls aside Alexi to tell him repeatedly that his son was not murdered. You can see how difficult it is for this talented investigator to deny his friend any hope of justice, but it's for Alexi's own good. Demidov knows that pursuing the matter any further would mean the end of both of their careers, or worse.
Demidov soon gets to experience an example of that "worse" for himself. When he finally takes an unyielding stand and refuses to toe the party line on another issue, he is demoted, and he and his wife, Raisa (Noomi Rapace), are basically exiled to a small town that is even bleaker than Moscow was for them. When Demidov is helping investigate the murder of another young boy, he encourages his new supervisor, General Nesterov (Gary Oldman), to investigate further. Nesterov soon discovers that there have been a total of 43 similar murders in the region. "44," Demidov corrects him. "My friend's son was murdered too." Nesterov does what he can within the confines of the Soviet legal system, while Demidov and his wife go well outside normal procedures in an effort to catch the killer. Vasili gets wind of what the Demidovs are up to and tries to use this to get his former boss out of the way for good.
"Child 44" is grim, but effective. The story is a disturbing but fascinating peek into life in the U.S.S.R. late in the Stalinist era. We get a look at the state of schools, orphanages, mental hospitals and even the treatment of homosexuals, but this film is mainly about the paranoia of a broken system which victimized its own people and allowed many criminals to go unpunished. The script is strong, but the acting is even stronger. Hardy plays Demidov as a confident and dedicated public servant who is barely holding the cork in the bottle of his righteous anger. Rapace comes off as proud and strong, but with a barely concealed vulnerability just beneath the surface. Oldman has been (and remains) one of the most talented actors of his generation and, anyone who remembers him as the terrorist leader in "Air Force One" (1997) can attest that the man knows his way around a Russian accent. Basically, this is the kind of movie you want to see if you're in the mood for a serious crime thriller which has the courage to approach the sub-genre of police procedural from a little-understood place in a nearly forgotten time. "B+"
A tough watch but a brilliant job by all concerned
reallaplaine3 October 2015
Child 44 isn't the movie you watch for light entertainment. It is gritty and tough, and I found myself feeling a sense of absolute disgust for anyone and anything connected with the old school communist state in the USSR. It really makes you look at just how bad that system was and how monstrous the people were who enforced it on the general populace. Nonetheless, the story is compelling, although sometimes the thread jumps around a bit. Tom Hardy's performance was his best ever. I think he warrants an Academy for it. Noomi Rapace was excellent - very authentic in her role. Child 44 is a dark thriller - and without giving anything away, the build up and hatred toward the serial killer really sticks you to this movie - you simply want the killer to get the most gruesome death conceivable for what he does. Apart from the Hollywood aspect, this film depicts reality. This is how life existed under Communism and I think that message is just as compelling and important as the rest of the story - because it really depicted the terror and the suppression that millions of people lived under in the name of some douche bag's idea of "ideology". May Stalin forever lay dead and remembered for only one thing - he was a murdering asshole. Watch the film folks - I notice that the ratings were low, and I think that is an unfair assessment about the quality of this production.
It's...hmmmmmm...
jakeandrews00719 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I went to see this film yesterday and... well... it could've been better. When I say better however, i'm not saying the film bad. It's pretty good but there are many small faults that pulled the film down.If you think about it, not many films have been made by Hollywood set in Stalin's Russia, I went into the cinema hoping this would be good through being set somewhere new to Hollywood that personally haven't seen in a film before. However the director of the film did a poor job to a film that was set up well and had an excellent leading actor in Tom Hardy.
What pulled the film down was its directing most of all, many of fight scenes were done in a poorly executed shaky cam which made it impossible to tel who was shooting or hitting who. This was made further difficult by the final scene with the fight in the mud, that you could tell which was was Tom Hardy. The poor directing was further evident with an overly long running, and after a 2 hour wait to see the killer, the last 15 minutes roughly are very rushed and full of plot holes including the Russian soldiers finding Tom Hardy and Noomi Rapace in the forest at the end after not being in Moscow in the shot before.
Furthermore, the dodgy Russian accents take the realism of the film away and the film doesn't capture the true brutality in Stalin's Russia which could of been explored.
However the film is saved y Tom Hardy's excellent performance which was unconventional to a movie antagonist through showing traits of the bad guy in film. Plus although the setting could of been explored more, the originality of it compared to most Hollywood films makes the film interesting to watch.
To of made this film better,more time should of been taken in using the platform the cast and setting could of given, but were restricted in poor directing. As the film carries so many small flaws i give it 6 out of 10. This film we be forgotten in 10 years sadly and no trilogy will be made from the books meaning this will be the last time we will see this again.
What pulled the film down was its directing most of all, many of fight scenes were done in a poorly executed shaky cam which made it impossible to tel who was shooting or hitting who. This was made further difficult by the final scene with the fight in the mud, that you could tell which was was Tom Hardy. The poor directing was further evident with an overly long running, and after a 2 hour wait to see the killer, the last 15 minutes roughly are very rushed and full of plot holes including the Russian soldiers finding Tom Hardy and Noomi Rapace in the forest at the end after not being in Moscow in the shot before.
Furthermore, the dodgy Russian accents take the realism of the film away and the film doesn't capture the true brutality in Stalin's Russia which could of been explored.
However the film is saved y Tom Hardy's excellent performance which was unconventional to a movie antagonist through showing traits of the bad guy in film. Plus although the setting could of been explored more, the originality of it compared to most Hollywood films makes the film interesting to watch.
To of made this film better,more time should of been taken in using the platform the cast and setting could of given, but were restricted in poor directing. As the film carries so many small flaws i give it 6 out of 10. This film we be forgotten in 10 years sadly and no trilogy will be made from the books meaning this will be the last time we will see this again.
Has NO ONE read the book? Pile of W**K.
inspiredbystuff24 May 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The writers of this film owe Tom Rob Smith money and a heartfelt apology. If you have not read the book, this film will be any other crime film with some brutal violence and a bit of naked Tom Hardy.
If you have read the book? You will be presented with a film that is NOTHING like the book, but still manages to send the odd 'f*ck you' to remind you it is MEANT to be based on it.
The whole incredible twisting ins and outs of the book with the separate stories that begin to come together are completely ignored. Vasili, who in the book was a twisted cruel jealous protégé, is for some reason now an underdog younger brother we're meant to root for. WHAT? The traumatic past Raisa based on true events is non existent, and her coin that causes so much internal struggle for Leo and is a key part of the story is forgotten. As a special f*ck you to any audience members who have read the book, the opening scene is of 12 year old Leo playing with the coin. No explanation is given throughout the film. The past of Leo/Paval is also completely ignored. Instead they just show him running from an orphanage and getting adopted by his new father (Gary Oldman) who just happens to be a military general who is willing to adopt a child. (Yep, that heart wrenching story about the dead Leo is also gone.)
Remember the awesome plan Leo and Raisa have to do to escape the gulag transport train? With the thousands of hooks under the train forcing them to use a dead mans tooth to break a floor board, jump under the train and use the dead body to protect them? the way they had to convince all the other prisoners to help them because they were going to stop a serial killer? F*CK IT! Instead, they just OPEN A DOOR AND JUMP OUT. Yep. The selfless help of the prisoners aboard is ignored, and the following scene in the village which explains their escape properly is yet again non existent.
Oh, did I mention the serial killer has NO REAL MOTIVE? The twisted logic of the book that creates an understanding of the serial killer trying to reach Leo because it is his brother, rooted in childhood experience and mental instability is scrapped. The only explanation of the mans crimes in the film? "I can't stop."
Overall, this festering turd of a film does not do the author or the actors justice. Avoid at all costs
If you have read the book? You will be presented with a film that is NOTHING like the book, but still manages to send the odd 'f*ck you' to remind you it is MEANT to be based on it.
The whole incredible twisting ins and outs of the book with the separate stories that begin to come together are completely ignored. Vasili, who in the book was a twisted cruel jealous protégé, is for some reason now an underdog younger brother we're meant to root for. WHAT? The traumatic past Raisa based on true events is non existent, and her coin that causes so much internal struggle for Leo and is a key part of the story is forgotten. As a special f*ck you to any audience members who have read the book, the opening scene is of 12 year old Leo playing with the coin. No explanation is given throughout the film. The past of Leo/Paval is also completely ignored. Instead they just show him running from an orphanage and getting adopted by his new father (Gary Oldman) who just happens to be a military general who is willing to adopt a child. (Yep, that heart wrenching story about the dead Leo is also gone.)
Remember the awesome plan Leo and Raisa have to do to escape the gulag transport train? With the thousands of hooks under the train forcing them to use a dead mans tooth to break a floor board, jump under the train and use the dead body to protect them? the way they had to convince all the other prisoners to help them because they were going to stop a serial killer? F*CK IT! Instead, they just OPEN A DOOR AND JUMP OUT. Yep. The selfless help of the prisoners aboard is ignored, and the following scene in the village which explains their escape properly is yet again non existent.
Oh, did I mention the serial killer has NO REAL MOTIVE? The twisted logic of the book that creates an understanding of the serial killer trying to reach Leo because it is his brother, rooted in childhood experience and mental instability is scrapped. The only explanation of the mans crimes in the film? "I can't stop."
Overall, this festering turd of a film does not do the author or the actors justice. Avoid at all costs
Hardy us amazing, movie is amazing
A_Different_Drummer5 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
You are having a bad day at the office.
You are a senior government policeman and a hero of the revolution. Then you are told that your wife has been named as a traitor. The solution is simple -- denounce her, she will be killed, your career will soar.
Wait, it gets more complicated. While having a heart to heart with your wife, whom you love, about your predicament, she reveals that the only reason she married you in the first place is because she was afraid you were onto her, and figured you were blackmailing her into marriage.
You actually were not. And you still love her anyway.
And your day gets worse. Now that you and your wife are effectively fugitives, you learn that the investigation of the murders of children you investigated in your glory days were sabotaged by the state (because "there are no murders in Paradise") and the killer is still out there...
I could go on but you get the point. Superb and compelling and wonderful. Hardy uses his whole face to deliver dialog -- I have never seen that before. Scenes with Oldman and Hardy are priceless.
Wow.
You are a senior government policeman and a hero of the revolution. Then you are told that your wife has been named as a traitor. The solution is simple -- denounce her, she will be killed, your career will soar.
Wait, it gets more complicated. While having a heart to heart with your wife, whom you love, about your predicament, she reveals that the only reason she married you in the first place is because she was afraid you were onto her, and figured you were blackmailing her into marriage.
You actually were not. And you still love her anyway.
And your day gets worse. Now that you and your wife are effectively fugitives, you learn that the investigation of the murders of children you investigated in your glory days were sabotaged by the state (because "there are no murders in Paradise") and the killer is still out there...
I could go on but you get the point. Superb and compelling and wonderful. Hardy uses his whole face to deliver dialog -- I have never seen that before. Scenes with Oldman and Hardy are priceless.
Wow.
Flawed but entertaining
bonheura21 October 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't know what to expect from this movie when I came across it but in the end, I liked it very much.
The story is quite familiar, unattended children are lured and killed by a stranger, amidst what looks like general indifference but turns out to be general denial, because of the place (former USSR) and the time (Stalin period). We follow the story of a policeman, member of the tough MGB (later KGB), his sour marriage, his professional disgrace and the way he accidentally investigates the crimes.
It clearly reminded me of another movie with Donald Sutherland (Citizen X), I discovered later that they are actually related (same real-life story of a serial killer in Russia).
I think the movie should have been a bit longer, more looked into. Characters (except the hero) are a bit superficial, we don't get to see what drives them. The end of the investigation is thus a bit hurried. It looks like the murderer knows the hero? In such a big country I found it hard to believe.
Nonetheless I got into it. Unlike some, I didn't mind with the (fake) Russian accent, on the contrary it helped me focus on the place. The actors are not so likable, but there's some kind of redemption (and payback for the villains).
Interesting, challenging... In short, it's a good movie.
The story is quite familiar, unattended children are lured and killed by a stranger, amidst what looks like general indifference but turns out to be general denial, because of the place (former USSR) and the time (Stalin period). We follow the story of a policeman, member of the tough MGB (later KGB), his sour marriage, his professional disgrace and the way he accidentally investigates the crimes.
It clearly reminded me of another movie with Donald Sutherland (Citizen X), I discovered later that they are actually related (same real-life story of a serial killer in Russia).
I think the movie should have been a bit longer, more looked into. Characters (except the hero) are a bit superficial, we don't get to see what drives them. The end of the investigation is thus a bit hurried. It looks like the murderer knows the hero? In such a big country I found it hard to believe.
Nonetheless I got into it. Unlike some, I didn't mind with the (fake) Russian accent, on the contrary it helped me focus on the place. The actors are not so likable, but there's some kind of redemption (and payback for the villains).
Interesting, challenging... In short, it's a good movie.
The two stars is for the only two performances in this thing.
paulmcuomo17 May 2015
Warning: Spoilers
OK. As someone who'd known about this movie for a solid 9 months before its release - namely due to the powerhouse of acting talent involved - I saw despite the somewhat mixed reviews on it. Rotten Tomatoes didn't look great BUT critics gave good reviews. Those critics smegging lied to my face! The only two people who come out of this thing without a blemish on them are Tom Hardy and Noomi Rapace; not only is the relationship between Leo and Raisia an ever-evolving, three-dimension thing and literally the only good characterisation to movie offers, but on their own they give performances that give depth and nuance beyond the surface. But I'm going to target the three things in this movie that are god awful.
DIRECTING: The action scenes in this movie combine many things that action-movies do too much of: shoot too close to the action, cut away at moments that should be held, shaky cam for days AND a hero who gets a beaten silly and shrugs it off like it was nothing. This makes the film completely fail as an action movie, especially when some of the stuntwork is laughable. There's a scene where a guy of average build and fairly short sature throws Tom Hardy over his head like he was throwing a sleeping bag; you can just imagine the audience reaction. The final fight scene is Leo, his arch-nemesis Vasili and Raisia fighting in a mud-pit, with shaky-cam, too many cuts and shooting too close...who hired this guy? VILLAIN: I have to talk about this because this movie does something unbelievable. The titular murder of 44 children makes up the B-plot of the movie, and the actual child-murderer is the secondary villain. I'm not joking; the child murderer played by Paddy Considine is not well developed, characterised or shot and once he actually comes face-to-face with Leo, the film drops him like a bag of s**t and instead replaces him with Joel Kinnaman's Vasili, who is by far the most stupid, predictable, unlikeable, 1D villain I've seen in a while. This guy does stuff for literally no reason other than to be a villain. His only reason to be nasty to Leo is at the beginning of the film, Leo and his gang (which Vasili's) part of, try and find a fugitive, and after the aforementioned fight scene where Leo is chucked around, Vasili shoots the owners of the farm WHO WEREN'T EVEN HIDING HIM in front of their children, so Leo punches him and calls him a prick. Following this, he goes to insane levels to get back at him, including having him shamed and expelled from the secret police, trying to force his wife to sleep with him, killing and terrorising his friends FOR NO REASON. This is not a good villain in anyway; the only thing he could be is threatening, but he's too stupid to outsmart the heroes and not strong enough in combat to match Leo physically.
WRITING: The complete failure of this film is the script. Even at 2 hours 17 minutes, it does not come close to fitting anything in well, with the poorly characterised characters other than Leo and Raisia, the insulting motives of the child murderer, the bad pacing. Basically it all sucks.
Part of my anger is the fact I wasted a lot of time watching this AND I paid to see it - yes, out of the 3.3 million it grossed, some of that was me. I wish I got a refund. If you do still want to see this, see it if its on TV.
DIRECTING: The action scenes in this movie combine many things that action-movies do too much of: shoot too close to the action, cut away at moments that should be held, shaky cam for days AND a hero who gets a beaten silly and shrugs it off like it was nothing. This makes the film completely fail as an action movie, especially when some of the stuntwork is laughable. There's a scene where a guy of average build and fairly short sature throws Tom Hardy over his head like he was throwing a sleeping bag; you can just imagine the audience reaction. The final fight scene is Leo, his arch-nemesis Vasili and Raisia fighting in a mud-pit, with shaky-cam, too many cuts and shooting too close...who hired this guy? VILLAIN: I have to talk about this because this movie does something unbelievable. The titular murder of 44 children makes up the B-plot of the movie, and the actual child-murderer is the secondary villain. I'm not joking; the child murderer played by Paddy Considine is not well developed, characterised or shot and once he actually comes face-to-face with Leo, the film drops him like a bag of s**t and instead replaces him with Joel Kinnaman's Vasili, who is by far the most stupid, predictable, unlikeable, 1D villain I've seen in a while. This guy does stuff for literally no reason other than to be a villain. His only reason to be nasty to Leo is at the beginning of the film, Leo and his gang (which Vasili's) part of, try and find a fugitive, and after the aforementioned fight scene where Leo is chucked around, Vasili shoots the owners of the farm WHO WEREN'T EVEN HIDING HIM in front of their children, so Leo punches him and calls him a prick. Following this, he goes to insane levels to get back at him, including having him shamed and expelled from the secret police, trying to force his wife to sleep with him, killing and terrorising his friends FOR NO REASON. This is not a good villain in anyway; the only thing he could be is threatening, but he's too stupid to outsmart the heroes and not strong enough in combat to match Leo physically.
WRITING: The complete failure of this film is the script. Even at 2 hours 17 minutes, it does not come close to fitting anything in well, with the poorly characterised characters other than Leo and Raisia, the insulting motives of the child murderer, the bad pacing. Basically it all sucks.
Part of my anger is the fact I wasted a lot of time watching this AND I paid to see it - yes, out of the 3.3 million it grossed, some of that was me. I wish I got a refund. If you do still want to see this, see it if its on TV.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
