Review: Child 44

by Trevor Kirkendall

★

Everyone’s always after that next big book franchise. With so many successful book series turned into hit movies, studios are trying to jump on the next big thing. They’re wise to be looking at the teen and young adult novels, since those are the ones that seem to do so well. A series on the MGB in Stalin-era Soviet Union? That might be a little hard to sell. Such is the case with “Child 44," which is based on a the first novel in a series by Tom Rob Smith.

Rapidly rising star Tom Hardy stars a Leo Demidov, a Soviet war hero during World War II and member of the Soviet MGB (the Ministry for State Security, precursor of the more infamous KGB). During this Cold War era, the Soviet Union prided itself on having no crime within its Communist state. “There’s no murder in paradise,” they say quite often. Even with a serial killer on the loose, the state chooses to ignore it and not publicly address it. Yet day after day, dead boys appear along train tracks throughout the county, and they keep getting listed as accidental deaths.

Leo doesn't believe this, though; especially after the son of his friend Alexei (Fares Fares) is found dead. But no one in the state wants to admit that these deaths are because of murder. Meanwhile, Leo is told that his wife Raisa (Noomi Rapace) may be  a spy for the west. Leo has the opportunity to turn on her, but instead stands by her side. They’re run out of town by Leo’s protégé Vasili (Joel Kinnaman) and sent to the abysmal Volsk where he works alongside General Nesterov (Gary Oldman). There, Leo continues to track down the perpetrator of these grisly murders behind the back of the MGB’s ever-watchful eye and Nesterov, who doesn't want to have any part in this crazy investigation.

The overly dense plot of “Child 44” is probably much better served as prose rather than a film. To cut down all the details pertaining to the inner workings of the Soviet secret police and put it into a film that’s just shy of two-and-a-half hours is pretty much impossible. And given how poorly put together this film is, that point is proven correct. Could you imagine if each book in the popular “A Song of Ice and Fire” series was made into one movie?

There’s a lot wrong with “Child 44,” but the lack of regard toward the film’s direction is the most sinful. What is this film trying to be? At times it seems to want to be a serial killer procedural. Other times, it feels like an anti-Soviet film. That, of course, makes it feel horrendously outdated since the Soviet Union doesn't actually exist anymore. Director Daniel Espinosa (“Safe House”) doesn't seem to know the script is weighted down by dead weight. This may be a faithful adaptation of the novel, but I’m sure each and every scene didn't have to be in here like this. The film is way too long as it is. A few simple cuts here and there wouldn't have hurt.

Hardy’s Leo is the only positive thing worth mentioning, if you can get over his goofy Russian accent. The book no doubt provides an enormous amount of character development to this character. Being the exceptionally polished performer that he is, I’m sure Hardy read the novel and based his character around that rather than what was written in the script. He’s fine here and I have no problems with him; however, the supporting roles are so undefined that the actors have resorted to all the stereotypical clichés that infect so many other films. Especially Kinnaman, who parades around his co-stars with same arrogant strut he had on the TV series “The Killing,” coupled with an atrocious accent as well. Vasili is a flat character encompassing every cop-drama villain cliché imaginable. Just a little more attention to character development would have gone a long way. Again, I’m sure the novel addresses this, but the film does not.

“Child 44” could very well be a faithful page-to-screen adaptation, but the movie by itself can barely stand on its own. I’m sure something this complex would be better suited for a television season rather than a movie. If the goal was to appease the fans of the book with a faithful adaptation, then they may have accomplished the goal. But pandering to one small demographic like that isn't enough to build the foundation a film franchise. There are two more books in this series. If they do make them, maybe it will be a Netflix Original Series. That’s probably the best possible medium for a story like this. But this doesn't have any business being in a theater.

Review: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★★

“Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” takes place about 10 years after the events of the first film. You’ll remember from the first film that James Franco’s lab assistant inhaled some of the drug they were using on the apes – the drug that ultimately gave the apes super-intelligence – and started coughing up blood. This is the beginning of the end for the human race. When the film opens, we learn that this virus has killed off a large chunk of the human population. The small pockets of survivors are scattered about and most blame the outbreak on apes, even naming the sickness after them.

Caesar (Andy Serkis) lives with his family and all the rest of the apes in the redwood forest north of San Francisco. They’ve created a peaceful habitat for themselves and don’t miss any human interaction. But one day, they run into a group of humans lead by Malcolm (Jason Clarke). Malcolm – along with his lady friend Ellie (Kerri Russell) and son Alexander (Kodi Smit-McPhee) – is looking to reroute the power from a dam in the forest to get the lights back on in San Francisco. They’re part of small group of survivors lead by Dreyfus (Gary Oldman) who just want to reconnect with the outside world and see how many other survivors there are.

Most of the apes, especially Caesar’s right hand Koba (Toby Kebbell), don’t trust the humans. Koba believes that the humans will try to attack them now that they know they’re living in the woods. Based on the scaring covering most of Koba’s body, he has a reason not to trust them. But Caesar has seen the good side of the humans and believes that if they get their dam working, they’ll leave the apes in peace.

“Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” is everything you’d want in a summer movie mixed with everything you’d want in the prestige award-contending films that open at year’s end. Director Matt Reeves (“Cloverfied”) has taken an exceptionally written screenplay (by Mark Bomback and Rick Jaffa & Amanda Silver) and turned it into one of the year's finest films by focusing on what makes movies great: story and characters.

This easily could have been as flat and two dimensional as just about every other summer film we typically come across. But a focus on character and story turns what would have been a mildly entertaining popcorn flick into something much greater. I’m reminded of the films many people consider to be the greatest sequels ever made (“Aliens,” “The Empire Strikes Back,” “The Dark Knight”). A new place will need to be made for “Dawn.”

The script is about as polished as anything you’ll see this year. And I’m not just talking about the summer movies either. The script is void of contrived plot devices, clichéd moments and stale character developments. The setting is a post-apocalyptic world, which we’ve seen numerous times before, but seems so original here. Reeves has been given so much to work with that he’s able to focus on all the different human/ape emotions and empathy with such ease. One of the best parts is the duality of human and ape built into the story. Each camp has its own protagonist and antagonist. And each camp is so similar in terms of empathy and rooting interest that it makes the outcome of the film difficult to anticipate.

How anyone can say what Andy Serkis does isn’t acting isn’t paying close enough attention. He is one of the most talented performers in film and very few probably know what he looks like in real life. From his work in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy to “King Kong,” the man is a master of conveying emotions in every facet of his performance. Reprising his role as Caesar might be the best we’ve ever seen him. He channels Brando’s Don Corleone with shades of Eastwood’s Man With No Name in his performance. Every emotion in Caesar’s face – and especially in his eyes – is all Serkis. A computer animator can only bring so much emotion to the character being created. The genuine emotion in someone’s eyes cannot be artificially duplicated. That’s what Serkis does so well. He breathes life into his characters by completely embodying them. The level of detail to the apes in the post-production animation is virtually flawless that you forget you’re watching something completely fabricated. Combine that with the masterful motion capture performance by Serkis and you forget what you’re watching isn’t real.

It'll be difficult for the major studios to produce a better film than “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” this year. Reeves has delivered an unforgettable adventure thanks to stunning visual effects and a solid screenplay. Combine it with some of the best acting from an ensemble we’ve seen this year, “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” transcends the genre to become a masterwork of what all sequels should aspire to be in Hollywood.