Child 44

Based on the dim memories of the events of the lost script, the second half of this film seems to have been filmed only by the clapper loader and the cameraman. Or by an editor on crack. The first half is OK. (05/24/2015)

I'm tempted to read the book to compare whether it already beats on the reader (viewer) or whether the film is the grandest burial of the overblown ambitions of the American big screen in a decade. A few notes: For all his popularity, Hardy doesn't pull off the lead role. His attempt to play an introvert is shattered by his blustering and considerably "limited acting register" [© Lima]; acting-wise, Oldman and Kinnaman are at their minimum, even though they play limited (Gary) or downright useless (Joel) characters; every time Kinnamann's Vasili appears, the film bombs the viewer with an absolute WTF moment, best exemplified by the entire ten-minute sequence where the lead pair are thrown into a cattle truck; out of a whole bunch of plot lines, not one of them works, and there's no meaningful denouement either, so there's an extra hour in the film and another hour missing; the actual investigation wouldn't have been allowed even by Schimanski's dramaturgists; Wood's cinematography drowns it in shadows - it's not dark, it's opaque; and most importantly, about halfway through, the main characters would have ended up in the gulag in real life, without mercy. I haven't been this embarrassed for a movie in a long time. (07/26/2015)

As a detective drama, it's pretty lousy; as a psychological drama about people who have to live a lie and can't even rely on their loved ones, and risk jail or a bullet in any attempt to leave the system, it's surprisingly fine. But the running time is excessive anyway. (05/29/2015)

It's a very enjoyably international film, but unfortunately it's torn between being a crime drama or a dark period drama, and maybe that works somewhere, but it didn't quite work for me here. The acting wasn't great, but the worst was the dark shaky camerawork where you couldn't really see what was going on during the scenes with more action. Too long, indecisive, with good and bad scenes. An average 55%. (10/02/2017)

I hope it's dawned on everyone far and wide that Daniel Espinosa is not a director of grim historical thrillers, because he's not very good at choosing his writers. He’s good with atmosphere and setting, but the stupid denouement isn't quite the same as the fact that he sinks the whole thing into dark grey fuzzy filters. Please someone get him to make a Bourne sequel, or another Rambo, because not many people can do harder, rawer action. There's not much of it, but it's delicious. (09/20/2015)

The primary things I look for in movies are the direction, editing, and camera work. Minor things like the script or the acting I can work with when the first items can properly stick their tongue in my ear. Child 44 was made by an excellent director, shot with excellent cinematography, cast with excellent actors (Hardy makes a scene just by sitting in it and staring at a wall), only to be defiled by constant over-cutting to the tolerable limit of 137 minutes. In the second half, scenes are stacked on top of each other with dreadful editing. Dialogue has obviously been brutally cut (you can tell as much from the ill-fitting inserts of various close-ups of hands or silent faces), you can tell by various elements that scenes should often have looked completely different and been devoted to nothing else, over half of the scenes lack spatial exposition and the introduction of some supporting characters, and the list goes on. Basically, the film treats the script the way a tabloid treats events – picking only the juiciest bits, taking them out of context, and using the source material only as a means to somehow hold it all together. Still, Espinosa is an excellent filmmaker and Wood a skilled cinematographer. The shot composition and lighting are absolutely incredible, and I hope the full-cut makes it out one day so I can truly, thoroughly enjoy the film. (09/14/2015)

Or how it turns out when Americans decide to shoot a political detective story in predominantly Eastern European co-production. They present the politics of the time to us as if we didn't know it ourselves. There is absolutely nothing new about it. After some time, you realize that it is primarily a crime thriller, where the political background is portrayed unnecessarily drawn-out. What I don't understand is the fact that American and British actors have to speak with such a stupid accent, which is no closer to Russian than classic English. (08/10/2015)