When I saw this film in the TV listings, I thought "could be some good tack." It's much better than that. It starts off almost comedic like, culminating in Stalin singing. Then it enters into the emotional problems Anna has over killing Stalin. The film then focuses on her son Joe, and his problems in finding out he is the son of Stalin, and his gradual descent into Stalinism. The film serves as a warning against Stalinism, about how any abuse of power, no matter the end, is wrong. The interest is held with some superb acting by the cast and the idea of Stalin producing a child and "heir." The movie could use more of an ending, and it does treat itself as being "true" particularly at the end. Having said that this is well worth watching and I recommend it to anyone intrigued by Communism and Stalin.
28 Reviews
Unsettling and unsettled
Nat-217 February 1999
This movie has a promising premise: A near-fanatical pro-communist young woman travels to Moscow and has a dalliance with Stalin (and may have unwittingly killed him!). Upon her return to her native Australia and discovery that she's pregnant, she marries her eager, long-suffering suitor and continues in her work for the party.
The movie appeared to be two in one. The first half was promising, providing decent political satire in the form of black humor. But the second half developed into a dark drama devoid of any humor. In the end, I wasn't sure exactly what was being conveyed.
The movie appeared to be two in one. The first half was promising, providing decent political satire in the form of black humor. But the second half developed into a dark drama devoid of any humor. In the end, I wasn't sure exactly what was being conveyed.
This movie is kinda uneven.
Lumpenprole27 March 2002
The Pros
To me, the premise is hilarious - Stalin's love child.
I'm always happy to spend two hours watching Judy Davis. I think she's just great.
I saw this movie just before I got sick of seeing Sam Neil everywhere and I remember thinking he was neat.
The world of Stalin is absolutely hilarious. F. Murray Abraham pulls off a number of macabre gags with great presence.
Also, it's a wry look at political activism and some of the poses that resemble it.
The Cons
Gets boring after the first half and the premise doesn't add up to much.
Worth seeing just for the courtship of Stalin alone.
To me, the premise is hilarious - Stalin's love child.
I'm always happy to spend two hours watching Judy Davis. I think she's just great.
I saw this movie just before I got sick of seeing Sam Neil everywhere and I remember thinking he was neat.
The world of Stalin is absolutely hilarious. F. Murray Abraham pulls off a number of macabre gags with great presence.
Also, it's a wry look at political activism and some of the poses that resemble it.
The Cons
Gets boring after the first half and the premise doesn't add up to much.
Worth seeing just for the courtship of Stalin alone.
Interesting comedy
Gordon-119 June 2007
This film is about a woman obsessed with Communism, and her life after bearing Stalin's child.
The film is meant to be a comedy, and it should be viewed as so. Forget the political backdrop of it, and you will find it quite amusing. I find Judy Davis' performance as the obsessed woman very magnetic. She has this dedicated enthusiasm towards Communism, and she portrays it so well. Her despair towards the end of the film, when Communism experiences downfall, is also depicted well. Though it is a comedy, I find the pace rather slow, which is more like a drama. Overall, I think it is an intelligent comedy, much better than the average toilet joke films.
The film is meant to be a comedy, and it should be viewed as so. Forget the political backdrop of it, and you will find it quite amusing. I find Judy Davis' performance as the obsessed woman very magnetic. She has this dedicated enthusiasm towards Communism, and she portrays it so well. Her despair towards the end of the film, when Communism experiences downfall, is also depicted well. Though it is a comedy, I find the pace rather slow, which is more like a drama. Overall, I think it is an intelligent comedy, much better than the average toilet joke films.
not extremely funny, not bad either
jean-no5 February 2002
I heard a lot of nice things about this little film : good surprise, funny comedy... Well I'd gave it a 6, not more. The acting is very good, that's maybe the best point. The storyline contains some good ideas, but the whole thing seemed to me a little weak, even a little boring : every detail is shown ten times for who didn't watch well, it's not far from the telletubbies tv show. I'd advise best a 1993 very funny (but also poetic) movie called "Not Everybody's Lucky Enough to Have Communist Parents" that has a similar character : the mother, who puts her politic engagement upper than anything.
Who's your daddy?
lee_eisenberg23 April 2008
Quirky what-if flick about young Australian communist Joan Fraser Welch (Judy Davis), who gets impregnated by Joseph Stalin (F. Murray Abraham, who seriously does manage to look like the dictator) on the day that he dies, and has to raise the son without letting the boy know the whole story. "Children of the Revolution" gives one a sense of the sometimes tense situation down under in the '50s, which prompts Joan to go to the Soviet Union in the first place. But more than anything - in my opinion - it shows how, even though the USSR clearly betrayed its ideals, Joan maintains hers. She and her family never give up hope of a better future. Definitely worth seeing. Also starring Geoffrey Rush, Richard Roxburgh and Sam Neill.
Quirky Aussie comedy
safenoe22 December 2023
Warning: Spoilers
F. Murray Abraham plays Joseph Stalin in the Australian movie, Children of the Revolution which was released nearly 30 years ago. I saw Children of the Revolution in the cinema, and it's a quirky Aussie comedy that melds fact and fiction to form the quintessential quirky Aussie comedy. Richard Roxburgh stars as Stalin's lovechild, and this quirky Aussie comedy pretty much launched his career.
Peter Duncan directed this quirky Aussie comedy and we're kept guessing until the end. Rachel Griffiths also stars, just before she played a pivotal role in My Best Friend's Wedding, which is one of my favorite movies.
Peter Duncan directed this quirky Aussie comedy and we're kept guessing until the end. Rachel Griffiths also stars, just before she played a pivotal role in My Best Friend's Wedding, which is one of my favorite movies.
are you sure this is really a comedy?!
planktonrules28 November 2005
I knew absolutely nothing about this film before I saw it and I don't think I had any an preconceptions. The story sounded oddly interesting--a woman who claimed her son was the bastard of Joseph Stalin! Well, despite the quirkiness of the premise, it just bored me immensely. It certainly wasn't funny nor was it particularly entertaining. I think part of the problem is that IF it originally was meant to be a comedy (and I'm not sure that really was the intention), how can Joseph Stalin be funny?! You would think that the fact that he was one of the greatest murderers in human history would preclude any attempt at comedy! If that WAS their intention, it was a very sick joke and may perhaps illustrate a problem with whoever was responsible for this film. Was this film, perhaps, meant less as a joke and more as a homage to Stalin or to paint him as not such a bad guy? Who knows. For that matter, who cares? All I know is you shouldn't waste your time.
FYI--if you think I am being too narrow-minded or unfair to the picture, try substituting "Joseph Stalin" for Hitler, Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer as the focus of this movie. Do you think all their victims would find this movie a barrel of laughs?
FYI--if you think I am being too narrow-minded or unfair to the picture, try substituting "Joseph Stalin" for Hitler, Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer as the focus of this movie. Do you think all their victims would find this movie a barrel of laughs?
Well Done Comedy/Drama
stevergy200020 January 2005
As a son who grew up in a family of communists, I found this movie very insightful: the twists and turns of what fervent idealists took to be worker's paradise through the 50s, 60s, 70s and then to the end of the dream in the late 80s/early 90s was very well portrayed, especially with Judy Davis' stalwart commitment, which was portrayed quite sympathetically; the dark side of her family relationships was also poignantly sketched, as were her son's struggles with history: both global and personal; all in all, a superb blend of the comic and the dramatic: a genre it's very easy to screw up and is rarely, if ever, handled as deftly as it was here.
A failed black comedy
aberlour3623 April 2002
While Judy Davis and Sam Neill give their usual fine performances, the script is so weak that the entire film crashes. It's supposed to be a chronicle of a wild-eyed Communist who has sex with Stalin and gives birth to an extremist who enjoys being handcuffed. Sight gags (walking into a tree) and silliness (Stalin's successors act up like the three stooges at his death) provide the only comic relief from this dreary tale that seems to go on for hours.
wow...
Rob_L6 September 2000
...this is an extremely well-conceived, well-written, well-acted, and well-made film. The dialogue, in both its everyday scenarios and heated exchanges, is excellent; and the mockumentary style meshes perfectly with the nicely segmented, ever-twisting plot. Then, after making light of some serious history, the ending takes a dark, ironic turn to drive home its message that whatever political system you choose, the worst elements in human nature are here to stay...
Such Promise, Mostly Wasted
Wulfstan1024 March 2005
This film had so much promise. The basic idea of the plot, Stalin's love child trying to find himself, is incredibly funny and original. Some of the actors are great, in particular F. Murray Abraham, who does a wonderful job at Stalin. There are some really great, weird, darkly humorous parts to the film. This good part of the film especially centres around Stalin himself, in part since the whole idea of making a comedy about Stalin, a decidedly unfunny person, is itself hilarious and brilliant.
However, the film mostly falls flat. It has many really boring parts which seem thrown in because the makers didn't know what else to do while the funniest themes are left underdeveloped, with a failure to fully use the great comic potential within the film. Other aspects are just plain lame or fail to come together and much of the film seems to just drag on, stumbling aimlessly onward, lost and without any idea of where it should be heading. The result gives the impression that the makers of this film realised that this was wonderful premise but then had no idea what to do with it.
However, the film mostly falls flat. It has many really boring parts which seem thrown in because the makers didn't know what else to do while the funniest themes are left underdeveloped, with a failure to fully use the great comic potential within the film. Other aspects are just plain lame or fail to come together and much of the film seems to just drag on, stumbling aimlessly onward, lost and without any idea of where it should be heading. The result gives the impression that the makers of this film realised that this was wonderful premise but then had no idea what to do with it.
Not a drama, not quite a comedy. At any rate, oddly appealing.
MovieAlien20 June 2002
One unsettling attribute of this movie is that it presents itself as if it were based on a true story. Judy Davis plays a Socialist who allegedly had an affair with Josef Stalin (F. Murray Abraham), and when she gives birth to a son with all the revolutionary's traits, there is some dispute about whether he is who everyone thinks he is. During the film he gets into all sorts of trouble with the law and eventually falls in love with a cop that frequently arrests him (Rachel Griffiths). Only at the end does the whim tone down to a serious drama. Whatever this movie has to say, it kept my attention all the way through.
Promising Premise Wrought into a Cinematic Abomination
jrobertfleming20 December 2015
Perhaps you're like me. You'd just seen Reds and you want to wash the hopelessness out with some - any - evidence that there is a historical and moral conscience somewhere in the film industry with regard to Stalinism and Soviet Communism. You come across a little-known Australian production called Children of the Revolution which bills itself as a satire of the the western true-believers valorized in Reds; a comedy about a 'useful idiot' so starstruck by Uncle Joe, she flocks to Stalin as a groupie would and ends up pregnant and raising his love child.
Now, I, and I'm sure anyone, could imagine about a dozen ways this premise could be developed into a narrative coherent enough to be both cutting and entertaining. What instead ends up on screen is ... hard to explain. It seems like a pre-freshman effort, as if there were some producers with some money to make some movie and they selected the writer-director by opening the window and shouting down to the street, "Hey you! You wanna write and direct a feature film production?" and someone at the bus stop shouted back up, "Sure! I've seen at least a dozen movies!"
The movie starts out with the stated premise as a satire, but not very strongly. Then it changes form a half-dozen times as it slogs toward it's conclusion, becoming a romance, then a thriller, then a drama, then a tragedy then a thriller again and so forth. One thing follows the other in sequence only. Characters who have no natural reason to be in the same room with one another develop personal connections and weep together. There's a "race against the clock" thing in there which comes from nowhere and resolves to no consequence.
If there's some significant historical event connecting Australia to the Cold War, Children of the Revolution fails to make note of it. The movie is nonetheless set entirely in Australia and has an A-list cast of Australian actors. Taking this into consideration, an explanation for this cinematic abomination reveals itself. Children of the Revolution is the product of public grant money. The actors are fulfilling an obligation to whatever the Australian version of SAG is. We may assume that there was at some point a contest put on by the Australian Film Council, or something like that, and the 'auteur' who wrote and directed this thing was awarded a production grant and given carte blanc to make some kind of movie on the strength of his submission of a ten-minute short.
Now, I, and I'm sure anyone, could imagine about a dozen ways this premise could be developed into a narrative coherent enough to be both cutting and entertaining. What instead ends up on screen is ... hard to explain. It seems like a pre-freshman effort, as if there were some producers with some money to make some movie and they selected the writer-director by opening the window and shouting down to the street, "Hey you! You wanna write and direct a feature film production?" and someone at the bus stop shouted back up, "Sure! I've seen at least a dozen movies!"
The movie starts out with the stated premise as a satire, but not very strongly. Then it changes form a half-dozen times as it slogs toward it's conclusion, becoming a romance, then a thriller, then a drama, then a tragedy then a thriller again and so forth. One thing follows the other in sequence only. Characters who have no natural reason to be in the same room with one another develop personal connections and weep together. There's a "race against the clock" thing in there which comes from nowhere and resolves to no consequence.
If there's some significant historical event connecting Australia to the Cold War, Children of the Revolution fails to make note of it. The movie is nonetheless set entirely in Australia and has an A-list cast of Australian actors. Taking this into consideration, an explanation for this cinematic abomination reveals itself. Children of the Revolution is the product of public grant money. The actors are fulfilling an obligation to whatever the Australian version of SAG is. We may assume that there was at some point a contest put on by the Australian Film Council, or something like that, and the 'auteur' who wrote and directed this thing was awarded a production grant and given carte blanc to make some kind of movie on the strength of his submission of a ten-minute short.
LOVE COMRADE
Didier-Becu6 August 2003
This must be one of the most refreshing surprises I saw in a long time! Looks boring but it's ultrahilarious. In documentary style we learn something about Australia's dirty history (well this is a satire so don't check out the net for verification, okay?) We go back in the early fifties at where we find an Australian communist Joan Fraser (Judy davis) who really would give her life for the red star, it goes so far that she can arrange to meet the man Stalin himself (all of course before the public knew of his slaughters) and what Joan never expected...she ends up in bed with Stalin but as the man is walking on his last feet, he dies... Agent Nine (Sam Neil) tells her she's a hero who saved Russia and that same night she also ends up in his bed.... Not knowing what to do Joan returns to Australia finding out that she is pregnant. She doesn't tell her Australian boyfriend who the father of her child is....but the poor b*****d accepts. But soon trouble happens when agent Nine returns to the land of the kangaroos...cos the question is : who is the father? He or Stalin? Things of hilarious things are following and we follow the days of the child Joe welch (Richard Roxburgh). For communist mum he's a perfect child...always to be seen at manifestations against the Vietnamwar but then the nightmare strikes...Joe falls in love with a female cop! Really it's totally hilarious even if the personages always stay sober but it's the kind of script that leaves you not one minute in silence. A perfect film from a rather unknown director, see it!!!!
Through a comedic glass darkly...
Mitch-383 December 1998
"Children of The Revolution" is one of those well-executed dark comedies, that the Australian Film Industry excels at. If one enjoys dark comedy with a heady twinge of surrealism, you're really going to enjoy this movie. Our best scene (without spoiling it) is when the three start dancing and handing out flowers, with Louis Armstrong crooning Cole Porter's "You're The Top" in the background. My friends almost fell off the couch with laughter. It's a gem!
Very Good
babyzuul25 August 2012
As many of the other reviews suggest, if you have ever been a lefty or if your parents were lefties you will enjoy this film. You really do need to have some familiarity with the vocabulary of socialism in the 1930s and 40s to fully appreciate how good this film is. The German film "Goodbye Lenin!" (2003) touches the same sort of themes.
So, anyway, the script well written, literate and just a bit edgy, the way Australian films often are. The back story is wonderful and is ably developed by Sam Neil, Judy Davis and F. Murray Abraham. To my eye the cast has given a back story a wonderful 1940s or 50s feel. Sam Neil is good, as always, and remind me of James Mason. Judy Davis is good the way she is always good and reminded me of Betty Davis. F. Murray Abraham's performance actually reminded me of Claude Raines.
This film works on many levels and Richard Roxborough and Rachel Griffiths are very good but I as am more familiar with Russian communist dogma and American films from the 40s and 50s, I am sure I missed a lot when the film turned its attention to contemporary Australian politics and the civil service.
I loved the way the "International" was used in the sound tack. Of course it had to be there but I really liked the way it was used here.
So, anyway, the script well written, literate and just a bit edgy, the way Australian films often are. The back story is wonderful and is ably developed by Sam Neil, Judy Davis and F. Murray Abraham. To my eye the cast has given a back story a wonderful 1940s or 50s feel. Sam Neil is good, as always, and remind me of James Mason. Judy Davis is good the way she is always good and reminded me of Betty Davis. F. Murray Abraham's performance actually reminded me of Claude Raines.
This film works on many levels and Richard Roxborough and Rachel Griffiths are very good but I as am more familiar with Russian communist dogma and American films from the 40s and 50s, I am sure I missed a lot when the film turned its attention to contemporary Australian politics and the civil service.
I loved the way the "International" was used in the sound tack. Of course it had to be there but I really liked the way it was used here.
the best Australian comedy about communism ...ever
rep14 September 2000
Judy Davis is a young communist in 1950 Australia. She corresponds with Stalin and gets an invitation to Moscow. The trip changes her life (of course) which we get to follow for the next 40 years. You'll be hooked after the first two minutes of this very original film. Great performances (especially from Judy Davis) and unique plot twists made this film worth watching.
What a surprise!
ruthgee5 July 2000
I had never heard of this film, and so last night I had an unexpected pleasure in watching a clever movie. What a marvellous satire on communism. There were some very funny scenes, especially the dancing trio. Judy Davis was wonderful as the pro communist mother -- what a performance! This movie is a dark Australian comedy and worth seeing.
Brilliant funny and quirky.
judytan7 May 2008
This film brought tears of joy and laughter to my family when we saw it. I guess you had to be there or you had to be the child of Australian lapsed communist actors in the 1950s to see how wickedly apt Judy Davis' performance was- Lines like "Its hard to plan a revolution with six o'clock closing" had us rolling on the floor. Loved it. Loved Richard Roxburgh. Loved all the cast and in particular loved the premise and the plot. Joe Stalin as the father of this almost physcotic love child. All the innocence of Sydney in the 1950s. All those quirky characters and all those great one liners. I cannot believe that this film never really gained the recognition it deserved.Its a must see!
A satire on personal authority
eabakkum4 August 2010
Hello, I support the opinion, that "Children of the Revolution" is a drama film - however interwoven with absurd and impossible situations. These do not make a comedy, no more than the scene of Stalin perfuming his underpants. The choice of Stalin as the leading theme seems to be rather arbitrary. It is certainly not a film against left politics. We see the Vietnam antiwar demonstrations, and an Australian secret agent admitting that he is used to liquidate communist agitators. And the dictators Stalin, Beria and Chrutschov remarkably enthuse over American music. Actually the film seems mainly concerned with unconditional faith, human wickedness and relational collusions. The viewer is constantly reminded that things are not what they seem. In this respect the film strongly reminded me of "The Truman story" - but perhaps this association is purely personal. If any, the theme of the film may be a satire on personal authority (on the other hand, in "The Truman story" it is the immersion in the community, with in the end Truman sailing away to freedom and loneliness). I will now summarize the story, which seems allowed since the films lacks a climax or the building up of suspense. However, if you dislike being given away the clues stop reading now. Jane has been brainwashed into an ardent communist by her father, and for the rest of her life remains stuck into this pattern. She marries a man who is apparently attracted to strong women and without proper will. Her son Joe develops an uncanny desire for imprisonment, and gets married to the cop who repeatedly arrested him. During the story it remains unclear who is the real father of Joe. The suspicion that it might be Stalin completely changes Joes character and behavior. As a union leader Joe succeeds in taking over the power and control of the police force. And with the possession of the legitimated force, he gains control over the state. Eventually his mother brings about his fall after revealing to the public the name of his professed father (Stalin). Subsequently she is murdered by what seems to be an Australian fascist, and Joe is once again imprisoned. This final incident would signal that people are commonly held accountable for their parents deeds. I must admit that this unraveling puzzles me, since an obvious connection to the preceding events appears to be absent. This lack of coherence may be due to an unwise attempt to extend the film message, and thus a neglect of focus. It could be called a qualitative weakness of the film, but perhaps I am wrong and I welcome other explanations. Any way, basically the overall aim must have been to reveal the idiocy of unconditional authority, irrespective of its source, either family, communism, fascism or perhaps religion (with Jane as both the virgin mother and Judas). It rattles the belief in mans good nature, and urges to persevere in free and independent thought. Being a fan of realism, for me it was an interesting sidestep but not really my cup of tea. Sincerely yours, Emil Bakkum
What Stalin's love child does to Australia
The-Sarkologist12 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Some Australian movies are crap, but some are actually quite clever. This is one movie that I think is quite clever. It is about a fanatical communist woman who goes on a trip to Russia, sleeps with Stalin, and then returns to Australia and has his baby. It is not a drama but a comedy. This baby, Joseph, grows up to become the splitting image of his father and almost takes over Australia.
The thing I find interesting is how Joseph takes over Australia. He is in prison for draft dodging and rescues some people from a fire. For his bravery he is given a full pardon, and with that he makes a speech in favour of giving prison guards better working conditions. With the support of the guards and the police, he is elected head of the police union and uses his control of the police to increase his power.
The ending seems to be conclusive, but I think that there is more to it than not. Basically, fearing that her son may be killed, the Joseph's mother tells everybody that he is the son of Stalin. She is then assassinated by somebody that Joseph knew in prison. The connection is made and he is arrested. The problem with that is that with the newspapers printing that he is the son of Stalin is grounds for defamation, and in his position, he can manipulate the DNA tests and make it seem that he is not Stalin's son. Then there is the murder. The link is tenuous, and a guy that is as intelligent and as devious as Joseph will be able to beat the charge and return to his job, all the while eliminating his enemies.
This movie is a comedy, and it starts off as one, but as the end nears the pace becomes much less comical and much more serious. The idea about how Joseph takes over Australia is a very plausible one. The creator of the movie obviously put a lot of thought into how it might be done.
It is interesting to note how his life is very similar to that of Stalin's. He has a last name that should be changed (Hitler and Stalin), he is in prison for a short time as a political prisoner, and he works his way to the top through bureaucratic manipulation. Hitler and Stalin were both like that, though that is probably not the route of most dictators.
Still, I thought that this was a great movie and like some of the ideas that are raised in it.
The thing I find interesting is how Joseph takes over Australia. He is in prison for draft dodging and rescues some people from a fire. For his bravery he is given a full pardon, and with that he makes a speech in favour of giving prison guards better working conditions. With the support of the guards and the police, he is elected head of the police union and uses his control of the police to increase his power.
The ending seems to be conclusive, but I think that there is more to it than not. Basically, fearing that her son may be killed, the Joseph's mother tells everybody that he is the son of Stalin. She is then assassinated by somebody that Joseph knew in prison. The connection is made and he is arrested. The problem with that is that with the newspapers printing that he is the son of Stalin is grounds for defamation, and in his position, he can manipulate the DNA tests and make it seem that he is not Stalin's son. Then there is the murder. The link is tenuous, and a guy that is as intelligent and as devious as Joseph will be able to beat the charge and return to his job, all the while eliminating his enemies.
This movie is a comedy, and it starts off as one, but as the end nears the pace becomes much less comical and much more serious. The idea about how Joseph takes over Australia is a very plausible one. The creator of the movie obviously put a lot of thought into how it might be done.
It is interesting to note how his life is very similar to that of Stalin's. He has a last name that should be changed (Hitler and Stalin), he is in prison for a short time as a political prisoner, and he works his way to the top through bureaucratic manipulation. Hitler and Stalin were both like that, though that is probably not the route of most dictators.
Still, I thought that this was a great movie and like some of the ideas that are raised in it.
Wot exactly is the movie trying to say?
wombat_115 December 2003
I'm heartened to see that several other critics in this column were apparently as confused as I was by this movie. The individual gags are quite funny, but overall, what is this movie about? Is it a comedy? Certainly that's part of it, but is that all? Is it an anti-communist film that relies on comedy to make its point? Well, it might be, but if so, then I think it fails. Or does it have no overall statement to make at all? A bit difficult to believe, given some of the plot lines.
Odd but on-target and funny movie
SKG-217 February 1999
I'm a huge fan of Judy Davis, so I was eager to see her in a movie from her native land for a change, and this ranks with her best performances. It's odd to find a mid-90's film that's a satire on communism, but writer-director Peter Duncan and Davis do a good job here. Although Davis' character, Joan Fraser, is so single-minded, she and Duncan don't make the mistake of caricaturing her, instead making a strong, energetic person who happens to be a zealot.
The movie does stumble with F. Murray Abraham's portrayal of Stalin. In his hands, Stalin is a caricature, and so the potential unease we might have on Joan's behalf (though she's fiercely dedicated, she wouldn't stand behind a mass murderer) is passed over, and he comes off like a marshmallow. On the other hand, the ever-reliable Sam Neill is a perfect fit as the secret agent Joan comes in contact with, Geoffrey Rush is good as the long-suffering Zachary, who Joan dominates with the same fervor she dominates political meetings, and Richard Roxburgh is funny as Joan's son Joe, who, naturally, becomes a police leader. The best support, however, comes from Rachel Griffiths as Joe's girlfriend, also a cop.
The movie does stumble with F. Murray Abraham's portrayal of Stalin. In his hands, Stalin is a caricature, and so the potential unease we might have on Joan's behalf (though she's fiercely dedicated, she wouldn't stand behind a mass murderer) is passed over, and he comes off like a marshmallow. On the other hand, the ever-reliable Sam Neill is a perfect fit as the secret agent Joan comes in contact with, Geoffrey Rush is good as the long-suffering Zachary, who Joan dominates with the same fervor she dominates political meetings, and Richard Roxburgh is funny as Joan's son Joe, who, naturally, becomes a police leader. The best support, however, comes from Rachel Griffiths as Joe's girlfriend, also a cop.
Explores the sexual aspects of the motive to power.
peterj-814 September 1999
Brilliant performances from the whole cast set a unique story line ablaze with sparkling moments. Dark turns of plot are relieved by fascinating psycho-sexual revelations, and the whole effect is one of uplift as disaster is averted through enlightenment and personal sacrifice.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
