Review of The Last Station (2009) by Julius C — 16 Jul 2010

A good movie? More than not yes; A poor movie? It has its moments; A great film? Sadly no.

Still, this movie is an actors wet dream. After seeing the film I can understand why such an established cast was drawn to the script. McAvoy, Mirren, Plummer, the budding gem in Kerry Condon, they were all drawn with just reason (unless they were merely drawn to it from each others attachment), yet still I imagine the script was the initial attractor. Centering on the aged Master of literature Leo Tolstoy in his waning years we see the romance and lives of those around him as they try to root their own futures and fortunes on the life work of their Master (not their own). Helen Mirren as his wife Sofya plots and schemes that his fortune he has accrued in life will be left to her as inheritance, despite his public social stances on personal properties and finances. His professed friend Chertkov also wants his Master's assured inheritance to stamp the ultimate seal of approval to Tolstoys public message, and to ensure the continued existence of the Tolstoyan cult-like sect to which he belongs, Chertkov has the help of Sasha (Anne-Marie Duff), Tolstoys daughter and the most visible of Tolstoys progeny in the film... much to the disdain of Sofya.

Only McAvoy's Valentin and Condon's Masha seem present for something other than their own interest in their Masters estate. They don't need to plot and scheme for it as the others do, that's not why they are drawn to the man, they are present for the ideal itself, yet unavoidably they are caught up in all the shenanigans of the others. Ultimately of course the two come together. In many ways we are meant to see life in the film through Valentin's eyes. Yet here the director is unsure how long to hold that view, the movie shifts its own viewpoint repeatedly, seemingly unsure of where to go next... from Valentin's eyes to Tolstoy's and back, to Sofya's view and back to Valentin's, to Chertkov's and back again. This is fine in a general sense... if it works, and here it doesn't. Still as I wrote before, an actors wet dream, I'm sure they ate it up.

One of the finest scenes in the film only made the cutting room floor. At the beginning we are meant to see Tolstoy and his family aboard a train chugging down the tracks. The train stops due to peasants who block the track, the only reason they do so is to catch a glimpse of their idol and hero. Tolstoy greets them, lifts their spirits and goes on his way. Among the peasants is Valentin and as the train leaves he runs after it screaming his adulation for the man aboard. I can see why they cut the scene in many respects, but wish they wouldn't have. I feel the director or producers might have felt it undermined Valentin's credibility as a qualified assistant to such an acclaimed man. Maybe so, but if so the same scene should have been shot without Valentin present, it establishes the Masters place with his people. The bold choice should have been made with the Director sticking to his guns. It could be argued the bold choice was indeed made by merely cutting the scene, but alas - this is not a bold movie, so it didn't stay.

All in all I did enjoy the film. But it never was great, and that did disappoint me because it so could have been. When the film began with all the backhistory paraphrased into subtitles I said to myself, "Oh no." And when the prologue subtitles continued towards the end of the film I thought "How amateur, and how disappointing.".

Good movie? Yes. But a letdown as well.