Skip to main content

Stalin tells us that murder is strictly a capitalist disease.

Child 44
(2015)

(SPOILERS) I’m unable to attest to the quality of Tom Rob Smith’s best-selling airport novel of the same name, but Child 44 carries with it the sort of sterling cast that screams “prestige adaptation”. Certainly, that’s what I hoped for, despite the resoundingly scathing reviews. Unfortunately, they aren’t wrong. Maybe the actors were somehow hoodwinked into signing up, as this movie is a woeful piece of unmitigated pulp, its potential drowned in an unwieldy plot (one that seems to forget what it’s supposed to be about half the time) and directed with the same indiscriminatingly flashy eye that actually benefited Daniel Espinosa’s previous Safe House.


Given the lurid subject matter (it’s based on the 1980s case of the first officially identified Soviet-era serial killer Andrei Chikatilo, albeit set three decades earlier, with activities here confined to the murder of boys) and the oppressively totalitarian fear-based setting, perhaps everyone thought something diligently observed and astutely told was in the offing. Provided they hadn’t read the script, that is. Most of the reviews seem to have focussed on the cast’s accents, but really there’s such a history of this kind of thing it’s a bit baffling that critics were so fixated on such peripheries. It’s a rather facile aspect to take pot shots at, and short of making the whole thing in Russian one I don’t think that could have been satisfactorily addressed. Making it in Russia certainly wouldn’t have happened, since the country (wisely, in retrospect) refused Child 44 a showing there.


Ridley Scott, a vulture for anything vaguely cinematic and also much that isn’t (see Monopoly, if he ends up not making it), produced the picture through production company Scott Free, although presumably plans for the rest of Smith’s Soviet trilogy are on the backburner, or will emerge entirely disconnected now this has bombed (something similar looks to be happening with Lisbeth Salander). The Guardian review of the novel commented that “the desire for the plot to encompass every element of Soviet history eventually overrides any sense of artistic seriousness”, and Richard Price’s adaptation doesn’t appear to have done nearly enough streamlining to bring it into workable form. Everything about this picture’s structure is so suffocating, it loses sight of its essential status as a detective story. As such, tracking down the killer becomes incidental and haphazard. A couple of perceptive insights and that’s it.


The over-extended introduction should have suggested what a slog this would be, taking in child Leo Demidov (Tom Hardy) surviving the Holodomor in the 1930s and then becoming a war hero. Cut to 1953 and he’s working for the Ministry of State Security (the MGB), dealing misery and torture to Soviet citizens as a matter of course. His wife Raisa (Noomi Rapace) comes under suspicion due to inter-departmental rivalries, and Leo’s adoptive parents are very matter of fact about his need to denounce her; “And so you calculate. One dead. Or four”. But, believing she is pregnant, Leo professes his wife’s innocence and so is reduced to the role of militia officer and sent to Volsk, where Raisa goes from teacher to janitor.


Which is all well and good, if your main thrust is a tale of the fear and paranoia instituted by the Soviet apparatus, where there is no guilt until proven innocent; there’s only guilt, and guilt by association. Hardy is typically robust and haunted, neither a saint nor the monster he fears he has become, but such investment is wasted on him. Rapace, reteaming with her lead actor following The Drop, is solid, but their marital strife dynamic goes around in circles; the picture is two hours-plus not because of how intricate its murder storyline is but because everyone is so distracted by the tribulations of the Demidovs, and the depiction of the Russian establishment really doesn’t require Hollywood fireworks to over-garnish the dish.


This is at its most ham-fisted in the supporting turn from David Carradine Joel Kinnaman as the psychotic Vasili, a former subordinate to Leo who, because he went and shot a couple in the head in front of their children (Leo has a big heart like that; why, he even adopts the little scruffs at the end, which is very neat, tidy and groan-inducing) and Leo threatened to kill him for it, now nurses unending malice towards his former “brother”. Kinnaman’s character is so shamelessly puerile and ridiculous, I half expected him to turn out to be the child killer.


So Price, who as well as being a respected novelist worked on other (far superior) thrillers such as Sea of Love, Clockers and Ransom (and, er, the Shaft remake) resists any urge he may have had to turn Child 44 into an outright procedural. The potential is so strong, with a state that refuses even the possibility of a killer being out there (“Stalin tells us that murder is strictly a capitalist disease”; as such, even suggesting a murder has been committed is a treasonous act), but the whole remains unrefined and stodgy. 


Paddy Considine is the killer Vladimir Malevich (the “Werewolf  of Rostov” moniker of the real life case is namechecked), but there’s little he can do with the part. When he has the chance to talk about his crimes to Leo it’s the tritest of killer-and-captor treatises (they were both in orphanages, “We are both killers, you and I”). There’s a notable fake-out where the serial killer’s latest victim turning out to be his son waiting for him at the station, but that’s about as memorable as his scenes get.


I’m guessing Esponisa saw the vastly superior Citizen X (concerning the Chikatilo case) as the same sequence with a boy putting an object – a spoon – on the rails for a train to flatten it is shown in both (“You tried that with a kopek?”, which is used in Citizen X). That picture is more than half an hour shorter, but stuffed full of superlative character work and commentary on the Soviet system and never once strays from point in catching the criminal.  


One had to find nuggets where one can in a mess like this. Hardy is always a commanding presence, so any scene with him in is at least watchable, but anyone hoping for electricity when he’s playing against Gary Oldman will be disappointed; nothing here can compare with their encounter in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. In any other scenario I’d be itching to see them team up again (they’re all set up for the sequel) but the kibosh can only be a relief.


It gets so that at one point Leo and Raisa head back to Moscow to follow a vital lead (as a husband and wife investigating team, like a Soviet era Hart to Hart), a pointless detour (admitted by Leo) that merely enables yet more skulduggery from the MGB and its informants. It culminates in a bloody train fight, in and of itself well executed, but by this point you’re wondering what movie you’re supposed to be watching.


Likewise, the theoretical apprehension of the killer is completely destroyed by the choice to turn scene into a wild mud fight when Vasili turns up; it might as well be Riggs fighting Mr Joshua at the end of Lethal Weapon for all the dramatic import it provides (scratch that, as Lethal Weapon’s climax towers over it; for a start Richard Donner knows exactly what kind of movie he is making).


There are decent scenes, sequences and performances in here (the opening section, with Jason Clarke as a wanted felon, pretty much establishes the context the picture will labour over another two hours; “I run because you are following me... and when you are arrested you are already guilty”), but one quickly loses patience with its rambling plot. This is at once too closely an observed milieu and setting and too demanding of deference to its subject matter to get away with the shoddy genre tropes littering it. Child 44 shouldn’t have been a slam-bang thriller with liberal doses of action, where a crude race against time to catch the killer is threaded in, in the most transparent and risible manner, no matter how much Espinosa and Price (and presumably Smith) wanted to treat it that way. That Leo gets everything back, a promotion, and his own division is the icing on a terribly crafted cake.



Actually, Leo’s near final scene, with Charles Dance’s Major Grachev (perhaps it’s just Chance bringing gravitas) works pretty well for all its chocolate box neatness, as he persuades Leo to admit Malevich acted as he did because of a “poisoned foreign heart”. Like another of Hardy’s starring roles this year, Legend, there’s a fundamental mishandling of the basic material, but at least there Hardy’s performance was able to rise above the movie’s limitations. Child 44 is sloppy, unfocused, failing to achieve even achieve the status of a passable Hollywood thriller, and entirely wasting its setting, story and cast. "This is not the work of some average idiot", someone says of Malevich; if only that were true of the film. If you want to see a great movie about the Andre Chikatilo case, you should check out Citizen X.




Popular posts from this blog

Ziggy smokes a lot of weed.

Moonfall (2022) (SPOILERS) For a while there, it looked as if Moonfall , the latest and least-welcomed – so it seems – piece of apocalyptic programming from Roland Emmerich, might be sending mixed messages. Fortunately, we need not have feared, as it turns out to be the same pedigree of disaster porn we’ve come to expect from the director, one of the Elite’s most dutiful mass-entertainment stooges, even if his lustre has rather dimmed since the glory days of 2012.

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

All I saw was an old man with a funky hand, that’s all I saw.

The Blob (1988) (SPOILERS) The 1980s effects-laden remake of a ’50s B-movie that couldn’t. That is, couldn’t persuade an audience to see it and couldn’t muster critical acclaim. The Fly was a hit. The Thing wasn’t, but its reputation has since soared. Like Invaders from Mars , no such fate awaited The Blob , despite effects that, in many respects, are comparable in quality to the John Carpenter classic – and are certainly indebted to Rob Bottin for bodily grue – and surehanded direction from Chuck Russell. I suspect the reason is simply this: it lacks that extra layer that would ensure longevity.

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

I work for the guys that pay me to watch the guys that pay you. And then there are, I imagine, some guys that are paid to watch me.

The Day of the Dolphin (1973) (SPOILERS) Perhaps the most bizarre thing out of all the bizarre things about The Day of the Dolphin is that one of its posters scrupulously sets out its entire dastardly plot, something the movie itself doesn’t outline until fifteen minutes before the end. Mike Nichols reputedly made this – formerly earmarked for Roman Polanski, Jack Nicholson and Sharon Tate, although I’m dubious a specific link can be construed between its conspiracy content and the Manson murders - to fulfil a contract with The Graduate producer Joseph Levine. It would explain the, for him, atypical science-fiction element, something he seems as comfortable with as having a hairy Jack leaping about the place in Wolf .

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un