Child 44 (2014)

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

It is nothing more than foaming, hysterical garbage attempting to stitch together things that simply do not belong together—Ted Bundy and an investigation of that nature just couldn't have happened in the 1950s; it was far too early... you can't just pluck a serial killer out of his own historical context and plug him into whatever scenario suits your whim (though I suppose having Ridley in the credits helps somewhat...🤣
after witnessing this, Citizen X (which is actually a decent film) looks like a goddamn masterpiece.

Rebecca Peterson3 said:It is nothing more than foaming, hysterical garbage attempting to stitch together things that simply do not belong together—Ted Bundy and an investigation of that nature just couldn't have happened in the 1950s; it was far too early... you can't just pluck a serial killer out of his own historical context and plug him into whatever scenario suits your whim (though I suppose having Ridley in the credits helps somewhat...🤣
after witnessing this, Citizen X (which is actually a decent film) looks like a goddamn masterpiece.

I'd go as far as saying it's GREAT—it's a TV production, sure, but the casting is absolutely brutal.

Look,
*Child 44* isn't actually a biography of Ted Bundy—it’s more like he was just used as a template, mostly to give the novel some weight. His connection to the book and the movie is really just that he was the most infamous serial killer from the old USSR, maybe one of the only ones who actually grabbed enough headlines to be recognizable. The movie itself doesn't really focus on him... it just sprinkles in a few nods to the whole "serial killer" vibe and the setting of America...

briskhound2 said:Look,
*Child 44* isn't actually a biography of Ted Bundy—it’s more like he was just used as a template, mostly to give the novel some weight. His connection to the book and the movie is really just that he was the most infamous serial killer from the old USSR, maybe one of the only ones who actually grabbed enough headlines to be recognizable. The movie itself doesn't really focus on him... it just sprinkles in a few nods to the whole "serial killer" vibe and the setting of America...

But honestly, I feel like that choice was more of a loss than a gain, especially for the audience that watched Citizen X.

If the plot required a serial killer, there were plenty of others right here in America to choose from... using Ted Bundy felt completely unnecessary when they could have easily just crafted a compelling fictional character instead...

Casey Cox2, you've got a point there—'Citizen X' really is a perfect fit.

briskhound2 said:Look,
*Child 44* isn't actually a biography of Ted Bundy—it’s more like he was just used as a template, mostly to give the novel some weight. His connection to the book and the movie is really just that he was the most infamous serial killer from the old USSR, maybe one of the only ones who actually grabbed enough headlines to be recognizable. The movie itself doesn't really focus on him... it just sprinkles in a few nods to the whole "serial killer" vibe and the setting of America...

A serial killer, Russia, naked boys, train stations, locomotives... those references are certainly just "passing mentions," aren't they? 🍿

brightheron64 said:But honestly, I feel like that choice was more of a loss than a gain, especially for the audience that watched Citizen X.

If the plot required a serial killer, there were plenty of others right here in America to choose from... using Ted Bundy felt completely unnecessary when they could have easily just crafted a compelling fictional character instead...

It’s a bit like having a protagonist who is an Iranian mobster and deciding to name him Khomeini... quite pathetic and rather low-brow, really.

Rebecca Peterson3 said:Casey Cox2, you've got a point there—'Citizen X' really is a perfect fit.

A serial killer, Russia, naked boys, train stations, locomotives... those references are certainly just "passing mentions," aren't they? 🍿

It’s a bit like having a protagonist who is an Iranian mobster and deciding to name him Khomeini... quite pathetic and rather low-brow, really.

I totally blanked on the fact that Ted Bundy used to hunt right by those railroad tracks—those endless lines... Anyway, look, there are plenty of nods to him, but the movie itself isn't actually about Ted Bundy. And honestly, Smith isn't the only one playing with that archetype; you see similar vibes from Donald James in *Monster* and *The Shoemaker* (though *The Shoemaker* definitely leans harder into it), and even Hannibal Lecter was partially inspired by his MO. So yeah, the references to Ted Bundy are legit, but the guy in this film is just some random, no-name killer... By stripping away all the specific details from the book, they turned him into such a bland, forgettable character that he’s almost irrelevant to the actual plot...

briskhound2 said:I totally blanked on the fact that Ted Bundy used to hunt right by those railroad tracks—those endless lines... Anyway, look, there are plenty of nods to him, but the movie itself isn't actually about Ted Bundy. And honestly, Smith isn't the only one playing with that archetype; you see similar vibes from Donald James in *Monster* and *The Shoemaker* (though *The Shoemaker* definitely leans harder into it), and even Hannibal Lecter was partially inspired by his MO. So yeah, the references to Ted Bundy are legit, but the guy in this film is just some random, no-name killer... By stripping away all the specific details from the book, they turned him into such a bland, forgettable character that he’s almost irrelevant to the actual plot...

I should probably add a disclaimer here—I haven't actually read the book myself, but what I saw on screen was just pathetic (and honestly, I was looking forward to it so much because of such a talented cast...)

Rebecca Peterson3 said:I should probably add a disclaimer here—I haven't actually read the book myself, but what I saw on screen was just pathetic (and honestly, I was looking forward to it so much because of such a talented cast...)

Look, at the end of the day, he isn't even a more compelling character in the book. Those murders mostly just serve as a backdrop to highlight how incompetent the police forces were back then—all that cover-ups and negligence—plus a bit of personal redemption for the protagonist near the end since he was part of the cover-up himself. He’s only interesting because of his connection to the Lion, but even that link—the whole thing about what the killer did to get his attention—feels way too over-the-top and kind of pointless. The movie makes it even worse, turning him into this mediocre killer who basically has no purpose... One of the best parts of the book is when the Lion realizes that professor is actually setting up and framing his colleagues, but in the film, they dumbed that scene down so much it's almost unbelievable.

Rebecca Peterson3 said:Casey Cox2, you've got a point there—'Citizen X' really is a perfect fit.

A serial killer, Russia, naked boys, train stations, locomotives... those references are certainly just "passing mentions," aren't they? 🍿

It’s a bit like having a protagonist who is an Iranian mobster and deciding to name him Khomeini... quite pathetic and rather low-brow, really.

The killer shares a name with Andrew, just like how Ted Bundy did, and both of them were running their operations around the Rostov area. In both the book and real life, the police basically scapegoated some dim-witted kid just to make themselves look efficient. It’s classic. One of the investigators actually ended up breaking all the official protocols and "rules of the service" just to hunt down the actual culprit.

What a coincidence.

It feels as though two separate stories were forced together into one single mess—the first part, which I suppose I could have anticipated, even if my expectations were low, and the second part involving a serial killer, which ends up being the sole reason the entire movie exists. It’s such a waste of a talented cast... (I'm intentionally ignoring the Russian accent, because despite the thin and lackluster plot, that's easily the most grating thing about the whole production).

The sheer banality of this is giving me a headache! Everything feels so cliché and mashed together into this messy pile of textbook tropes about the post-war USSR, Stalin, and that serial killer. It’s just vodka, Cossack dances, Kalinka, Mr. Dzhugashvili, and all those old stereotypes. I suppose it isn't a total stereotype because they focus on the murders of children, but honestly, if you're making a movie in English, you should probably just let them speak English. I get the feeling the actors even sound ridiculous to themselves with that forced "Russian" accent, which is just another irritating part of the film.

Kind of a snooze fest, honestly. It starts off strong enough, but like someone else already mentioned, things just totally fall apart halfway through. All that subplot about the Child murders felt like a massive waste of time—I was way more hooked by the stuff involving the USSR bureaucracy and how that whole society functioned.

Such a massive waste of potential 👎. I was actually really hyped for this one; on paper, it looked like a winner, especially since I’m a huge fan of Hardy, and the rest of the cast is seriously top-tier.

I’m gonna need to treat myself to some serious comfort food to wash this taste out of my mouth—maybe a massive pepperoni pizza, or a damn Yankees jersey, or I don't even know... honestly, anything just to forget I actually sat through this whole movie until the end. 🙏

Seriously, what does Espinosa think he's doing with us? Screw him and screw Stalin, and screw Citizen X too, you greedy little jerk. Does he really think we haven't seen Citizen X? That movie is basically perfect, even on its own, but compared to this absolute trash, it’s an absolute masterpiece.

Espinosa even managed to take an actor like Oldman and turn him into a straight-up B-list hack. 🙏

Hardy is just tragicomic, though I guess that goes for everyone else in this mess. ☕

☆☆☆ ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆