The Death of Stalin (2017)

Bryan Taylor9 said:It says the movie runs 1:46 on IMDb

To those of you claiming the film is way too short—maybe this happened to you: The version I watched at home felt totally sped up (like some Benny Hill sketch), and I didn't even realize how fast it was going until it ended, and it had only been about an hour.

Or am I just losing my mind here? 😵🤦

Haha, that's just you. You likely hit the wrong button on your player. It must have been entertaining to watch it that way. 😁

It isn't exactly hilarious—nowhere near the level of Veep—but it’s an interesting watch, mostly because I either don't know much about these events or have simply forgotten them. There are a few funny moments scattered throughout, but honestly, there's way too much exaggeration for my taste.

cosmicgull52 said:Haha, that's just you. You likely hit the wrong button on your player. It must have been entertaining to watch it that way. 😁

I actually thought that was how it was supposed to be since it's a comedy, a parody and all 🤦

Doesn't matter, I'm not rewatching it anyway because I didn't even like the movie...

It’s satire, so you totally expect some exaggeration 😁 but honestly, it’s kind of wild how much truth is actually tucked in there 😬 I mean, halfway through, my laughing fits start to taper off a bit, but it’s still such a blast to watch...

I honestly had no idea what I was getting myself into with this movie, so it definitely caught me completely off guard in the most delightful way possible. The whole experience felt like one big, hilarious "what on earth is happening" moment...
That scene where the little girl is standing on the balcony next to the guy, and you can only see the very top of her head... it’s just so silly and incredibly funny...

I genuinely enjoyed this film. If you went in expecting nothing more than a slapstick riot, you’re probably going to be disappointed; the humor here is quite subtle and definitely isn't for everyone. It will likely resonate much more deeply with those who have an interest in the historical nuances of the USA. While the movie doesn't strictly adhere to the actual historical record, I feel the artistic liberty taken is entirely justified—just don't expect to walk away having learned anything factual about history.

For me, the absolute standout was Zhukov—he’s such a total badass that he could probably take a satnik Američanin, slap him upside the head, and toss him around like a ragdoll without breaking a sweat.🙂

I actually liked the movie (caught it in theaters a few days ago).
I feel like you need at least some basic historical context about that era to really get the irony and the dark humor the whole thing is built on.

Definitely worth a watch.

Zhukov is easy on the eyes, I won't lie—reminded me why he looked familiar... Captain Lorca from Discovery.

I enjoyed the film as well.
I think a series following those events in that same style would be great. Something spanning from when Stalin rose to power all the way to the collapse of the USA.

Such a great movie—I actually caught it just this past weekend, and man, it’s been ages since I’ve seen something so refreshing and genuinely good! 👍

Honestly, a solid 5/5. Really great flick.

I honestly had high hopes for Armando Iannucci, so I walked away feeling pretty let down. The movie doesn't really lean into the sheer absurdity of the actual historical events, which I get—the reality was dark enough on its own. But if you aren't going full grotesque, what are you actually doing? It ends up being this semi-serious drama about how brutal the Stalinist regime was and the subsequent power struggle after he died. Is that really groundbreaking? Not even slightly. When I watched *in The Loop* or *The Thick of It*, that specific brand of cynicism, heartlessness, and petty ambition actually landed for me. Maybe it’s because those stories felt contemporary, whereas pointing out the cynicism within the Soviet Union feels like stating the obvious.

On top of that, the film introduces a massive cast and sets up several interesting plot threads that just... lead nowhere. They don't really serve the main narrative at all (take Stalin's daughter, for example). You can tell this was adapted from a graphic novel, which probably offered much more room for actual character development.

I also found it a bit jarring that the film didn't even try to be self-aware about the fact that everyone is speaking English and is played by mostly American or British actors. To me, it just felt artificial. There was such an opportunity to play with that sense of artifice; for instance, having Steve Buscemi play Khrushchev or Michael Palin as Molotov should have been comedic gold, but instead, it just feels unearned and fake.

ruggedjackal46 said:I honestly had high hopes for Armando Iannucci, so I walked away feeling pretty let down. The movie doesn't really lean into the sheer absurdity of the actual historical events, which I get—the reality was dark enough on its own. But if you aren't going full grotesque, what are you actually doing? It ends up being this semi-serious drama about how brutal the Stalinist regime was and the subsequent power struggle after he died. Is that really groundbreaking? Not even slightly. When I watched *in The Loop* or *The Thick of It*, that specific brand of cynicism, heartlessness, and petty ambition actually landed for me. Maybe it’s because those stories felt contemporary, whereas pointing out the cynicism within the Soviet Union feels like stating the obvious.

On top of that, the film introduces a massive cast and sets up several interesting plot threads that just... lead nowhere. They don't really serve the main narrative at all (take Stalin's daughter, for example). You can tell this was adapted from a graphic novel, which probably offered much more room for actual character development.

I also found it a bit jarring that the film didn't even try to be self-aware about the fact that everyone is speaking English and is played by mostly American or British actors. To me, it just felt artificial. There was such an opportunity to play with that sense of artifice; for instance, having Steve Buscemi play Khrushchev or Michael Palin as Molotov should have been comedic gold, but instead, it just feels unearned and fake.

Look, it’s not freaking Deadpool where they can just break the fourth wall and go, "Hey, lol, Americans are playing Russians." In so many movies, characters are Russian but they either speak English with an accent or don't bother with it at all—you don't need to draw attention to it.

Otherwise, though? It’s an awesome movie. Honestly better than 90% of the comedies that drop every year.

Mark White11 said:Look, it’s not freaking Deadpool where they can just break the fourth wall and go, "Hey, lol, Americans are playing Russians." In so many movies, characters are Russian but they either speak English with an accent or don't bother with it at all—you don't need to draw attention to it.

Otherwise, though? It’s an awesome movie. Honestly better than 90% of the comedies that drop every year.

So, does a movie have to be Deadpool to break the fourth wall?

I mean, sorry, but when you've got Steve Buscemi and Michael Palin playing the most prominent Soviet Union politicians and assassins, it’s kind of impossible not to notice.

I mean, when Americans make an American movie with American actors, we’ll watch it too. But in the meantime, we have this one. It kills me how people expect a movie to actually make them laugh, almost like they're sitting through some old-school screwball comedy, and then they act all disappointed because they didn't crack a smile... Honestly, nobody bothers educating the audience anymore.

Emily Morris77 said:Honestly, this was epic garbage. Humor? What humor? The actors playing Stalin and Khrushchev look like they just escaped from a gulag. But even that jarring mismatch isn't the worst part: the humor feels forced and the plot is just painfully boring. I was actually embarrassed watching it.
I won't even get into the historical inaccuracies, because usually you can overlook them if they're minor, but here they've turned it into a total farce. For instance, they turn Beria's arrest and trial into some kind of joke, topped off with his body being burned in a courtyard—which I guess was supposed to be funny or something after he was liquidated by a bunch of witless clowns running Stalin's bureaucracy.
I expected a disaster, and that's exactly what I got. It's an unserious, pretty mindless movie, despite how hard it tries to pretend otherwise. Not surprised. 1.5/10.

I don't know what kind of nonsense you're talking about, but here's the actual rundown from Wikipedia:
On June 26, 1953, Nikita Khrushchev called a meeting of the presidency where he attacked Beria, accusing him of being on the payroll of British intelligence. It caught Beria completely off guard. He reportedly asked, "What's going on, Nikita Khrushchev?" At that point, Molotov and the others were also speaking out against Beria, leading Khrushchev to propose his immediate removal. Malenkov then hit a button on his desk, giving a prearranged signal to Marshal Georgy Zhukov and a group of armed officers in the next room. They burst in immediately and seized Beria. While some sources claim Beria was killed on the spot, that's not quite right—he actually faced a "special tribunal." When the death sentence was handed down, according to later claims by Moskalenko, Beria pleaded for mercy on his knees, but he and his subordinates were liquidated instantly. However, other sources, including his own son, suggest that military units raided Beria's house on June 26, 1953, and he was killed right there. Nikolai Svernik, a member of the special tribunal, later told Beria's son that he never even saw Beria alive.

To me, this film is a masterpiece. I'm comparing it to espionage thrillers because they share a similar vibe.
It's a black comedy that caricatures situations in such a fantastic way. On one hand, you see the plot being pushed to the extreme, but on the other, life under Stalin in the Soviet Union was essentially that exact kind of caricature. If anyone wants to dig deeper, check out Solzhenitsyn's Gulag—those kinds of absurd, mind-bending situations are documented right there.
My rating is a solid 9/10. It's been a long time since I've seen something this good.

Richard Wilson4 said:That bit about Molotov is pretty wild.

No matter how crazy his behavior seemed, reality was actually way worse. As soon as his wife got back from the labor camp, she immediately asked, "How is Stalin?" and honestly broke down crying when she heard he passed. In the movie, they don't even show them touching, just him. Both of them stayed hardcore Stalinists even after the USA officially kicked off de-Stalinization. Another intense detail is that people were literally shouting "Long live Stalin!" during the executions.

It’s like the leitmotif for the whole film—you constantly hear "Long live Comrade Stalin!" in the background. Bang!
I really wish they had included a nod to Pavlik Morozov, but instead, we just get this dad coming home from the Gulag while his son sits there stuffing his face with dumplings. 👍

I haven't actually seen the movie yet—though based on the Trailer, it looks a little bit dim-witted.

Finally sat down to watch this. Unfortunately, the trailer wasn't lying—it’s just too much buffoonery. There is more screen time dedicated to that pathetic little puddle where a rigged Stalin lies than there is to the actual Russian mindset. I gave up after the first third. After *Veep* and that space sitcom, it looks like Iannucci is in a serious slump.

By the way, I’m doubling down on my recommendation for that Nuriyev graphic novel the whole thing was based on.

I can't quite get behind all the negative reviews; I actually thought the movie was brilliant, so much so that I ended up adding it to my own thread on dark comedies. My only real gripe is that some of the casting felt a little off—for instance, Robert De Niro would have been the perfect choice to play Stalin:
https://static.dw.com/image/16501568_303.jpg
😁