False advertising lead to high hopes

Rating: 6/10 (24 August 2015)

Child 44, a movie that is centered around a small group of military "detectives" trying to find a child killer in the USSR in 1953. That was what the trailer suggested. The story is also based on a book, so the script had a background to rely on. All in all, high hopes were in play, and almost none of them were satisfied. To start form the obvious problems:
1) The story. The baseline presented in the trailer is just a small part of the whole story this movie has to offer. At first, it gave an idea that this would be a multi layered storyline with powerful characters and subplots. The only thing actually presented was one powerful character. It is unclear if this problem is related to the script or to the directing, but after watching Espinosa's "Safe house" the answer becomes vivid. The basic problem is the inability to convince the audience of the time-line (it is still unclear weather the entire movie took place in a few days or years) and the subplots. The story should have been approached more seriously and all aspects should have been directed better and presented in the same amount. The final product gave us an unfinished general storyline and unfinished subplots. In the editing process all that was mixed up and Child 44 was born. As you can imagine, a lot of elements seemed underdeveloped and way too linear for a movie of this kind.
2) The acting. An all-star cast generally gives a peace of mind because actors of this profile (Hardy, Oldman, Rapace, Cassel...) can turn mud into gold. Still, the director has to give actors screen time to pull that off. Oldman, Cassel, Dance, Clarke were used for cameo roles and all together had less than 20 minutes of screen time. Restraining these actors to one liners and 5 minutes of screen time is almost criminal. Hardy was, as usual, great, but as the movie progressed one can't help noticing the fall of enthusiasm he had. It felt that he just wanted to get all that over with and go do something else. Rapace was supposed to be the support Hardy had, but she failed at that. Her character suffered most from poor directing and a bad script, so even her acting couldn't save her character. Kinnaman was a surprise to see, and his career is rising like the tide, but in this movie, where he actually had to show us his acting abilities, he failed. Robocop was good, Run all night also, but there he had one or two emotions and a steady character. Here he needed to be treacherous, despicable and unlikeable. He managed to be unlikable.
3) The atmosphere. This is the only thing that saves this movie. It is vividly shown how the Stalin era functioned and how fear was the key element of everyday life. The problem is, at one point that becomes so overwhelming that it takes over the whole movie and one has to shake the feeling that the movie is just a criticism of that time. The production did a good job there but all in all, this is one element that was overdone so it clouded other underdeveloped elements.
All in all, not an experience worth while. Hardy saves it form a void it should fall into, and the atmosphere keeps it from falling. In better directorial hands and with a better script, this would have been a masterpiece.