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.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

This is no time for puns! Even good ones.

Mr. Peabody and Sherman (2014)
Perhaps I've done DreamWorks Animation (SKG, Inc., etc.) a slight injustice. The studio has been content to run an assembly line of pop culture raiding, broad-brush properties and so-so sequels almost since its inception, but the cracks in their method have begun to show more overtly in recent years. They’ve been looking tired, and too many of their movies haven’t done the business they would have liked. Yet both their 2014 deliveries, How to Train Your Dragon 2 and Mr. Peabody & Sherman, take their standard approach but manage to add something more. Dragon 2 has a lot of heart, which one couldn’t really say about Peabody (it’s more sincere elements feel grafted on, and largely unnecessary). Peabody, however, is witty, inventive and pacey, abounding with sight gags and clever asides while offering a time travel plotline that doesn’t talk down to its family audience.

I haven’t seen the The Rocky & Bullwinkle Show, from which Mr. Peabody & Sh…

Espionage isn’t a game, it’s a war.

The Avengers 3.3: The Nutshell
Philip Chambers first teleplay (of two) for the series, and Raymond Menmuir’s second (also of two) as director, The Nutshell is an effective little whodunit in which Steed (again) poses as a bad guy, and Cathy (again) appears to be at loggerheads with him. The difference here is how sustained the pretence is, though; we aren’t actually in on the details until the end, and the whole scenario is played decidedly straight.

Set mostly in a bunker (the Nutshell of the title), quarter of a mile underground and providing protection for the “all the best people” (civil servants bunk on level 43; Steed usually gets off at the 18th) in the event of a thermo-nuclear onslaught, the setting is something of a misdirection, since it is also a convenient place to store national security archives, known as Big Ben (Bilateral Infiltration Great Britain, Europe and North America). Big Ben has been stolen. Or rather, the microfilm with details of all known double agents on bot…

I know what I'm gonna do tomorrow, and the next day, and the next year, and the year after that.

It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)
It’s a Wonderful Life is an unassailable classic, held up as an embodiment of true spirit of Christmas and a testament to all that is good and decent and indomitable in humanity. It deserves its status, even awash with unabashed sentimentality that, for once, actually seems fitting. But, with the reams of plaudits aimed at Frank Capra’s most enduring film, it is also worth playing devil’s advocate for a moment or two. One can construe a number of not nearly so life-affirming undercurrents lurking within it, both intentional and unintentional on the part of its director. And what better time to Grinch-up such a picture than when bathed in the warmth of a yuletide glow?

The film was famously not a financial success on initial release, as is the case with a number of now hallowed movies, its reputation burgeoning during television screenings throughout the 1970s. Nevertheless, It’s a Wonderful Life garnered a brace of Oscar nominations including Best Picture and…

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

He’d been clawed to death, as though by some bird. Some huge, obscene bird.

The Avengers 5.6: The Winged Avenger
Maybe I’m just easily amused, such that a little Patrick Macnee uttering “Ee-urp!” goes a long way, but I’m a huge fan of The Winged Avenger. It’s both a very silly episode and about as meta as the show gets, and one in which writer Richard Harris (1.3: Square Root of Evil, 1.10: Hunt the Man Down) succeeds in casting a wide net of suspects but effectively keeps the responsible party’s identity a secret until late in the game.

Ah yes, the legendary 007 wit, or at least half of it.

The World is Not Enough (1999)
(SPOILERS) The last Bond film of the 20th century unfortunately continues the downward trend of the Brosnan era, which had looked so promising after the reinvigorated approach to Goldeneye. The World is Not Enough’s screenplay posseses a number of strong elements (from the now ever present Robert Wade and Neal Purvis, and a sophomore Bruce Feirstein), some of which have been recycled in the Craig era, but they’ve been mashed together with ill-fitting standard Bond tropes that puncture any would-be substance (Bond’s last line before the new millennium is one Roger Moore would have relished). And while a structure that stop-starts doesn’t help the overall momentum any, nor does the listlessness of drama director Michael Apted, such that when the sporadic bursts of action do arrive there’s no disguising the joins between first and second unit, any prospect of thrills evidently unsalvageable in the edit.

Taking its cues from the curtailed media satire of Tomorr…

Dirty is exactly why you're here.

Sicario 2: Soldado aka Sicario: Day of the Soldado (2018)
(SPOILERS) I wasn't among the multitude greeting the first Sicario with rapturous applause. It felt like a classic case of average material significantly lifted by the diligence of its director (and cinematographer and composer), but ultimately not all that. Any illusions that this gritty, violent, tale of cynicism and corruption – all generally signifiers of "realism" – in waging the War on Drugs had a degree of credibility well and truly went out the window when we learned that Benicio del Toro's character Alejandro Gillick wasn't just an unstoppable kickass ninja hitman; he was a grieving ex-lawyer turned unstoppable kickass ninja hitman. Sicario 2: Soldadograzes on further difficult-to-digest conceits, so in that respect is consistent, and – ironically – in some respects fares better than its predecessor through being more thoroughly genre-soaked and so avoiding the false doctrine of "revealing" …

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …