The “Dark Knight” trilogy remains one of the great superhero movie success stories. Christopher Nolan proved that a serious take on comic book source material can not only work but also become massively profitable while winning over critics. As such, both Gary Oldman and Tom Hardy — who played detective/commissioner James Gordon and villain Bane, respectively — were fortunate to have been involved, even with the former’s already formidable filmography in mind. When the pair re-teamed for 2015’s “Child 44,” however, they suddenly found themselves a long way from the box office promised land into which Nolan had ushered them just three years prior. In fact, they found themselves in snowy Russia, investigating a string of child killings in a film that’s neither Hardy nor Oldman’s best. Amazingly, audiences weren’t interested. Neither were critics, for that matter.
“Child 44” was directed by Swedish filmmaker Daniel Espinosa, who previously made his English-language directorial debut with the Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds-led thriller “Safe House” in 2012. Prior to that, he directed fellow Swede Joel Kinnaman in the 2010 crime thriller “Easy Money.” But by far the most well-known entry in Espinosa’s filmography is 2022’s “Morbius.” Yes, the Sony Marvel blunder that proved you can’t force a cult classic into existence was Espinosa’s handiwork.
Back in 2015, however, he was yet to tarnish his career so conspicuously. As such, the commercial failure of “Child 44” is one of the few things you can’t blame on “Morbius.” Still, “Child 44” is just as horrific as Jared Leto’s ill-fated superhero outing, just in a different way.
Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman investigate a Soviet-era serial killer in Child 44
“Child 44” is based on Tom Rob Smith’s 2008 novel of the same name, which was, in turn, loosely based on the case of real-life Soviet serial killer Andrei Chikatilo, aka “the Rostov Ripper.” Between 1978 and 1990, Chikatilo murdered at least 52 victims — all of whom were women or children — before being captured, convicted, and executed for his crimes. “Child 44” takes its cues from the investigation into Chikatilo’s killings but frequently deviates from the real-life story.
The film is set in the Soviet Union of the 1950s, where Tom Hardy plays Ministry of State Security (MGB) agent Leo Demidov (don’t worry, Tom Hardy does indeed give us one of his weird accents, though it’s not quite as spellbindingly bizarre as his Bane voice). After identifying a series of child murders that seem linked, Demidov is met with disinterest from his superiors, who dismiss outright his suspicions of a serial killer. Soon, Demidov’s wife Raisa Demidova (Noomi Rapace) is accused of disloyalty to the state, and Demidov begins to suspect his enemy, Senior Lieutenant Vasili Nikitin (Joel Kinnaman), is to blame.
Demidov is reassigned to the town of Volsk shortly thereafter, where he meets Gary Oldman’s Colonel Mikhail Nesterov and convinces him and his wife to help investigate the child killings. Together, the quartet launches their investigation while Nikitin does all he can to break up Demidov and his wife, eventually hunting them down as they try to solve the case.
Sounds alright, doesn’t it? Well, as it turns out, audiences weren’t all that excited about a tale of mass child murder, even if it did feature two stars of the “Dark Knight” trilogy and was produced by Ridley Scott.
Child 44 was a critical and commercial katastrofa
“Child 44” made $12.9 million on a $50 million budget, which is about as bad as it gets. Correction: the 2026 box office flop that was “Desert Warrior” is as bad as it gets. Still, Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman’s chilly thriller lost a lot of money, which would be bad enough, but it also failed to win over critics.
On Rotten Tomatoes, the film only managed to nudge the Tomatometer to 30%, with critics praising Hardy and Oldman but not much else. At least, most critics praised Hardy. Jonathan Romney of The Observer gave the film one star and wrote, simply, “Hardy is very odd, as usual.” On the other hand, The Times’ Wendy Ide was impressed by the British star, writing, “he inhabits completely the part of Leo Demidov.” Donald Clarke of the Irish Times, meanwhile, found the film to be “a confusing bore.” That last opinion is representative of the general critical response to “Child 44,” which makes its ban in Russia and several other former territories of the USSR seem like an act of mercy.
It wasn’t, of course — more like an act of cowardice on the part of an authoritarian government to crack down on anything even remotely critical of the Russian government. Still, at least the Russkis didn’t have to sit through a film Chris Nashawaty of Entertainment Weekly found to be “as tedious as a bottomless bowl of borscht.” Not that anyone sat through it outside of Russia. Still, compared to some of the streaming slop we’ve seen in recent years, I bet “Child 44” plays better than it did back in 2015. If you want to launch your own investigation, the film is available to stream for free on several platforms, including YouTube and Pluto.
Leave a Reply