Child 44 (2014)

- imdb

The cast for this political thriller adaptation of Tom Rob Smith's book is stacked—we're talking Tom Hardy, Joel Kinnaman, Vincent Cassel, Gary Oldman, Paddy Considine, Noomi Rapace, and Jason Clarke.

Daniel Espinosa is directing this whole thing, set back in the 1950s in the Soviet Union, with Richard Price handling the script and Ridley Scott stepping in as co-producer.

Hardy plays Demidov, a Soviet military policeman who ends up with a massive target on his back once he starts digging into a string of child murders.

Cassel is also set to star in Ariela Kleiman's debut project, "Partisan."

Filming for "Child 44" is actually happening right now, so expect to see it hit theaters sometime next year.

Casey Cox2 said: - imdb

The cast for this political thriller adaptation of Tom Rob Smith's book is stacked—we're talking Tom Hardy, Joel Kinnaman, Vincent Cassel, Gary Oldman, Paddy Considine, Noomi Rapace, and Jason Clarke.

Daniel Espinosa is directing this whole thing, set back in the 1950s in the Soviet Union, with Richard Price handling the script and Ridley Scott stepping in as co-producer.

Hardy plays Demidov, a Soviet military policeman who ends up with a massive target on his back once he starts digging into a string of child murders.

Cassel is also set to star in Ariela Kleiman's debut project, "Partisan."

Filming for "Child 44" is actually happening right now, so expect to see it hit theaters sometime next year.

It’s supposed to hit AMC Theatres in just a few days. The book it’s based on is actually a pretty solid thriller—a massive global bestseller and the first installment in a trilogy. To make things even more promising, you’ve got Ridley Scott producing, and a powerhouse cast featuring Tom Hardy, who’s basically the hottest thing in Hollywood right now, alongside Gary Oldman, Vincent Cassel, and Noomi Rapace. There was all this hype that this wouldn't just be a great standalone movie, but the launchpad for a huge franchise, especially since there were plans to adapt the other two books in the Lav Demidov series: "The Secret Speech" and "Agent 6." But honestly? This thing is shaping up to be one of the biggest flops we've seen in recent memory. They dropped $50 million on the budget, and so far, it has barely scraped together $1 million at the box office. Even recent disasters like Mortdecai and Blackhat look like minor hiccups compared to how badly Child 44 is tanking. Even the trailer doesn't look half bad, but I can't get past that unbearable, heavy accent everyone uses in the film. It's just grating.

Rachel Hall29 said:It’s supposed to hit AMC Theatres in just a few days. The book it’s based on is actually a pretty solid thriller—a massive global bestseller and the first installment in a trilogy. To make things even more promising, you’ve got Ridley Scott producing, and a powerhouse cast featuring Tom Hardy, who’s basically the hottest thing in Hollywood right now, alongside Gary Oldman, Vincent Cassel, and Noomi Rapace. There was all this hype that this wouldn't just be a great standalone movie, but the launchpad for a huge franchise, especially since there were plans to adapt the other two books in the Lav Demidov series: "The Secret Speech" and "Agent 6." But honestly? This thing is shaping up to be one of the biggest flops we've seen in recent memory. They dropped $50 million on the budget, and so far, it has barely scraped together $1 million at the box office. Even recent disasters like Mortdecai and Blackhat look like minor hiccups compared to how badly Child 44 is tanking. Even the trailer doesn't look half bad, but I can't get past that unbearable, heavy accent everyone uses in the film. It's just grating.

To write ruin.

it’s worth a look ☕

I mean, it’s pretty much a guarantee that it’ll be a masterpiece if you see Scott's name anywhere in the credits. 😁

R. Scott produces at least a dozen projects every single year, and let’s be honest, half of them are absolute garbage, so you really shouldn't read too much into his involvement.
My real anxiety, though, is what he’s going to do to "The Martian." The old man looks like he’s been coasting on fumes for ages.

interesting, looks like this one's banned too ☕

I’m currently scrolling through the IMDB reviews.

There isn't a sad face emoji available here, but I'll find a way to convey the vibe anyway 🙂

Honestly, those thick Soviet accents in the trailer were already a massive red flag for me, but it looks like that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how bad this movie is. Such a waste. 😢

I even checked out Rotten Tomatoes.

Now I feel even worse.🙂

Look, I’m telling you, the second you see Ridley Scott's name pop up, you know trouble is brewing. It doesn't even matter how much influence he actually has on the project; the guy has basically been wearing a "failure" label around his neck for years now. Honestly, anyone foolish enough to collaborate with him is just asking for it.

That’s just your perspective, man—you only think it’s a failure because you’ve been coasting on nothing but massive wins until now.👍

Is it actually possible for a movie to flop that hard? I was planning on catching it at AMC Theatres, but I just couldn't make the timing work. Now I'm just sitting here impatiently waiting for a decent torrent to pop up online.

Kate Martin9 said:Is it actually possible for a movie to flop that hard? I was planning on catching it at AMC Theatres, but I just couldn't make the timing work. Now I'm just sitting here impatiently waiting for a decent torrent to pop up online.

Honestly, it’s one of the biggest disasters we’ve seen lately. To even break even, they needed to pull in over $100 million, but instead, they barely scraped together $3 million at the box office. 🤦
I have a feeling any sequels they had in the works are officially dead in the water.

The uncompromisingly anti-Russian, anti-Soviet, and anti-communist stance maintained by Child 44 stands as one of its few redeeming qualities, and arguably its most significant. The decision to set the narrative strictly in 1953—the year of Stalin's death—is both deliberate and wise. Naturally, the film uses the past to comment on the present, though it does so with zero subtlety; there is an excess of heavy-handedness here, including certain early references to the Ukrainian famine that feel somewhat forced by the time they pay off later in the story. However, no one forced Putin's censors to rise up and defend Stalin's legacy. The issue, much like with any direct and blunt demonstration of ideology, might be that Ridley and his creative team leaned into this approach specifically to stir the pot. They focused so heavily on making a statement that the film itself begins to unravel at the seams. Beyond its rigid political stance and a barrage of loaded references—the famine, World War II, Stalinist paranoia, aggressive communist propaganda, a repressive society, and, for good measure, the killer Chikatilo—the movie offers very little else of substance. Noise and fury, as a rule, serve only to mask poor material and structural flaws.

more at:
http://film-na-dan.blogspot.com/2015/06/child-44.html

It’s honestly painful to sit through this; there is absolutely no rhythm to the editing. Making the Russian accent so heavy feels like wearing a cheap Venetian mask at a beach party—it's just completely out of place. Honestly, Austin is a masterpiece compared to this mess...

I mean, seriously, what even was that??? I’m having to dig through the deepest corners of my subconscious just to find something remotely resembling this absolute train wreck of a movie. Such a frustrating experience

Boring movie. Total snooze fest.

Jamie Turner80 said:The uncompromisingly anti-Russian, anti-Soviet, and anti-communist stance maintained by Child 44 stands as one of its few redeeming qualities, and arguably its most significant. The decision to set the narrative strictly in 1953—the year of Stalin's death—is both deliberate and wise. Naturally, the film uses the past to comment on the present, though it does so with zero subtlety; there is an excess of heavy-handedness here, including certain early references to the Ukrainian famine that feel somewhat forced by the time they pay off later in the story. However, no one forced Putin's censors to rise up and defend Stalin's legacy. The issue, much like with any direct and blunt demonstration of ideology, might be that Ridley and his creative team leaned into this approach specifically to stir the pot. They focused so heavily on making a statement that the film itself begins to unravel at the seams. Beyond its rigid political stance and a barrage of loaded references—the famine, World War II, Stalinist paranoia, aggressive communist propaganda, a repressive society, and, for good measure, the killer Chikatilo—the movie offers very little else of substance. Noise and fury, as a rule, serve only to mask poor material and structural flaws.

more at:
http://film-na-dan.blogspot.com/2015/06/child-44.html

Honestly, that specific year is huge in the book, but in the movie? It’s totally irrelevant. And that’s basically the whole issue here... all those subtle nuances from the novel that made it such a massive bestseller were just stripped away. You lose the impact of Stalin's death, the way those intelligence agencies actually functioned, the shift in power... they even tossed out the most important part of the hunt for the serial killer—the fact that he’s actually Lav Demidov’s brother. By simplifying everything like this, they turned it into this bland, textbook-perfect production that lacks any real soul. There’s no critique of the old Soviet system—it could have been set anywhere at this point—and it fails as a psychological thriller because the killer's motives and the actual chase are reduced to a few uninspiring scenes. It makes sense why the movie bombed. It doesn't offer anything fresh, and everything else about it is just... banal and monotonous.

I just finished watching this and... I have to say, I'm not feeling it at all.

The whole plot feels incredibly hollow, almost as if the serial killer element was just a weak excuse to string together a bunch of over-the-top, cliché anti-Soviet propaganda that completely loses its way...

If you actually enjoyed Citizen X, you should probably just skip this one entirely.

briskhound2 said:Honestly, that specific year is huge in the book, but in the movie? It’s totally irrelevant. And that’s basically the whole issue here... all those subtle nuances from the novel that made it such a massive bestseller were just stripped away. You lose the impact of Stalin's death, the way those intelligence agencies actually functioned, the shift in power... they even tossed out the most important part of the hunt for the serial killer—the fact that he’s actually Lav Demidov’s brother. By simplifying everything like this, they turned it into this bland, textbook-perfect production that lacks any real soul. There’s no critique of the old Soviet system—it could have been set anywhere at this point—and it fails as a psychological thriller because the killer's motives and the actual chase are reduced to a few uninspiring scenes. It makes sense why the movie bombed. It doesn't offer anything fresh, and everything else about it is just... banal and monotonous.

I thought the book was decent enough (though, for the record, I always felt it leaned a bit too heavy on the melodrama at times) until the plotline involving his brother started falling apart toward the end. Once that happens, the whole thing goes off the rails. Instead of a gripping story about Ted Bundy, the ending just feels incredibly cheap.
The movie, however, completely trashed even the good parts of the book. Honestly, as soon as I saw how the characters spoke in the trailer, I knew this wasn't going to be any good. Unfortunately, the film ended up being even worse than my low expectations.