While I walked in the theater I expected a good movie. Because I liked the concept of the story as it was set-up in the trailer. But mostly because I 'trusted' Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman to pick a good movie to play in. While I walked out the theater I had different thoughts unfortunately. The film was disappointing to me and I will try to explain why. It wasn't the acting and 'world building' but I disliked the directing, screenplay and filming.
First of the directing and filming, all of the action scenes where flooded with shaky cam. This was handled very badly in my opinion. I couldn't figure out what was happening most of the time. Due to the shaky cam, number of cuts, close-ups and the peace of all that. That was the main reason why I disliked 'Safe House', which is also made by Daniel Espinosa. It almost felt like he was trying the make the filming and directing 'not perfectly on purpose' to make it 'real' but it didn't worked out at all! It all felt kinda clumsy and there were way to many meaningless shots overall. There were some exceptions, some shots of the cities and area's they visited where beautifully. They really landed the rough and dark tone that they successfully tried the show. Although they over did it sometimes.
Then the screenplay or script, which is based on a 'best selling novel', again! First of you get a nice back story of Tom Hardy's main character, which felt real to me. All of the other characters felt a bit empty, like they were there to fill a place that was written for them. That made it almost impossible for my to understand the characters and the decisions they make. I also missed the whole balance in the story. The first part was way to long ( set-up ), the middle was rush ( plot kicks in ) and the final party ( ending ) was also rushed and kinda unbelievable. I think because of this I wasn't sucked in to the story. The second and third party felt way to easy and straight forward. Like solving a child murder case which is spread over thousand of miles is easy. I think the story could be told in a better and more interesting way.
Overall I was disappointed by Child 44. The dark Russia after WWII was displayed intense but the story lagged suspension and balance. The action scenes sucked even more than the conversations because of the directing and filming methods they just. Tom Hardy did is part good but not brilliant and unfortunately Gary Oldman's characters was barely in it. I give Child 44 an 5 aka 'Meh'! Thanks for reading!
for over 2 hour, the movie still couldn't figure out what it's trying to be.
Unfortunately this felt really rushed. It would have made a great limited or mini-series. There was just too much ground to cover from the excellent book.
Not a bad drama, not a thriller. Rivet counters who do not tolerate other people’s opinions, let them remember what the USA looks like in our cinema? From the Stalin era, everything is now a narrowly defined canon, keep your hands off and close your mouths! It’s only been 8 years since the film was released from distribution, but the path has been traveled such that there is a way back?
I couldn't watch more than 15 minutes. It's a waster of a really good cast.
The movie is not very good. Actually, it's pretty disappointing. It had such a big name cast to it but even they didn't do anything special in this movie. I'm going to forget about this movie and so will you at the end of year. I'm not going to waste my time or your time taking about this movie, as do you really care about me going into detail about a film that's not good. Nobody cares.
Hollywood: Hey, let us make a story that has NOTHING to do with America BUT let's hire American actors that will speak in English throughout the movie no matter the place BUT! throw in a fake accent!
Producers: I love it!
It's one thing for an English-speaking Australian to fake an American accent, but a non-English accent for English is always an annoying caricature. I can’t stand watching films set in foreign countries with English speaking actors with fake accents and not speaking the real language of the country. I know US audiences are wary of subtitles but come on.
This was such a mixed bag. Tom Hardy's performance was fine, and I enjoyed the overall atmosphere of the film. It certainly did evoke Soviet Russia.
But the pacing is just so off. The movie is slow where it should be moving along to get to the point, and rushes through the good parts. Combine that with underdeveloped characters whose motivations are more or less completely opaque, and you have a recipe for boredom in the midst of what should be an interesting story.
Some elements, like the homosexuality bit that other reviewers mentioned, were simply unnecessary. As a whole, the script could have been much tighter and leaner. And I'm unclear on what happened in several places due to the shaky, "realistic" camera work during action scenes.
I don't understand Raisa. She openly admits that she married Leo out of fear, but when given the chance to leave him and be with someone she does love, she doubles down and stays with Leo? For this character-related reason (and many others), I might have to seek out alternative versions of the story (the book, or the other film Citizen X) to understand it.
5.4 for me. Not quite boring enough to be "Meh", but too poorly paced to be truly "Fair".
The most underrated movie of this decade. It isn't prefect, has its holes in the plot, but nonetheless a masterful depiction of the soviet society.
You'd think this was the worst movie ever made if you believe the critics. They liked Tom Hardy and Noomi Rapace but hated every single other thing about the film. 25% on Rotten Tomatoes. Well I'll admit the film has its flaws, but hell I've seen waaaay worse movies. In terms of 2015 films, I'd certainly rate it higher than, for example, Jurassic World or Minions. The bad: As others have noted, the film become a bit muddled in the second half, and the romance/change of heart is never really justified, and it does go through the mechanics of a standard thriller to some extent. However, none of these are crippling flaws in my opinion. The good: Tom freaking Hardy. You could legitimately argue the man is the best actor on the planet right now. He is great in this. The rest of the cast is good too, especially Rapace. The gritty, grimy atmosphere of Soviet Russia is well evoked with vivid cinematography, and the music score is very good. The film held my attention and I was invested and am glad I ignored the reviews and watched it.
Definitely one of the good movies I have had the opportunity to enjoy. I love the story behind it and the politics although it was severely dramatized also I love how they didn't ruin the real true story of Andrea Chikatilo
The procedural aspects of the film and the investigation into a number of murders are pretty standard fare, but the setting of the film and a great central performance from Tom Hardy as well as a great cast of supporting characters make it worth watching. Espinosa creates an atmosphere of paranoia and fear throughout the film and it is this aspect together with the development of Hardy's character and the depiction of Russia in the 1950s that are the strongest elements. Despite the horrible nature of the crimes being investigated however, the story eventually devolves into pretty standard thriller territory, with a resolution that feels rushed and undeveloped and an epilogue that wraps things up a little too tidily. It is a shame this storyline is constantly competing for time with the more interesting elements involving Hardy's relationships with the other characters, the result being that neither fully satisfy.
Not a bad movie per se, but all in all not a very good one mainly because of the directing choices. The story and atmosphere was good, but why on earth have the actors all play with a fake Russian accent ? if you're aiming for authenticity, have them speak Russian, use Russian actors.. But of course that wouldn't sell, but the half measure of having the comedians speaking in Russian accented english felt just contrived not to mention distracting.
The rendering of events and how Russia was a police state inserting itself in everyday life and up into the people's bedroom (the short subplot where a guy gets caught for being gay and ultimately commits suicide), instilling fear at every level of the society of a knock on the door, was on the other end quite good.
The characters interaction, their motives where sketchy at best, which, is paradoxical, with a set-up this long. But again, the acting and direction made it quite impossible to engage at an emotional level with either character and you endup watch the plot unfold with as much involvement as you would watching an ad for some banking company.
So an interesting plot, mostly butchered by a second rate director with the wrong aspirations. The movie nonetheless has some highlights along the way, but would in no way deserve a second watching.
Not what I was expecting, the pace in parts was a little slow and the events hard to follow; ultimately I enjoyed the movie but I'm mystified as to why they felt they had to inject a Homosexuality subtext; that seemed to have no real reason for being included, other than showing law enforcement stopped at nothing to kill a few innocents.
The movie itself is good enough and it's worth watching but having read the novel made me feel that it could be much more else given the events depicted in the novel and its great narrative of the soviet-era Russia. The characters are decent but while the novel develops them in great lenght, the movie only touches some interesting aspects and left many others out. This makes the viewer feel that there are "acts" in the movie and one needs to fill in the missing parts somehow.
I recommend the movie for fans of the genre but don't pass on the novel. It's really good.
I liked it, but communist or capitalist, trying to hide what you do not like it, either way. Well by Tom Hardy and Naomi. action scenes, confusing
Shout by Bo KrogsgaardBlockedParent2015-07-25T12:31:25Z
Child 44 is a mockery of true events drowned in a mediocre love story. If you want the true story about Andrei Chikatilo, you should leave this alone and try Citizen X instead, a 1995 movie with Stephen Rea and Donald Sutherland.