User Reviews

You might think The Death of Stalin was a parody or a black comedy or a farce. We know that the actors are playing actual people some of whom lived until the late 1980s. The weird thing is the actual events depicted in the movie happened in some form.

In real life, when Stalin was lying on the floor in his soiled pajamas after he suffered a stroke. They needed to call a meeting to decide whether to call a doctor. Stalin's personal physician was unavailable as he was being tortured at the time for suggesting Stalin needed more bed rest.

Armando Iannucci mines comedy gold in an absurd, surreal, darkly violent tale of who wants to be the next leader of the Soviet Union. It is not a historical tale, it is a story of what can happen in any society where dogma and the bullet become the main currencies.

... and yet this film does just that. It revolves around the power struggle that occurs at the death of Stalin in 1953, a man who had an iron grip on Russia for 30 years and enforced his will with terror, often randomly.

So when the sycophants who surround him are suddenly bereft of his soul, they are all jockeying for power while finding it very difficult to do the one thing that would get you tortured and killed as long as they can remember - independent thinking, or even making suggestions for that matter. A simple show of hands vote becomes a hilarious demonstration of group think. They all have a collective case of Stockholm Syndrome when it comes to Stalin, still afraid of a man who is dead.

Jeffrey Tambor is doing his character Hank from the 90s sitcom "The Larry Sanders Show", and Steve Buschemi, as Nikita Khrushchev, doesn't look like any picture of Khrushchev that I ever saw at any point in his life. Plus he's basically doing his "funny looking guy" schtick from Fargo, and yet it all works.

When Lavrenti Beria, head of the secret police and probably responsible for untold terrors, gently tells Stalin's daughter that she needs to leave Russia because people who are strange like she is don't live very long, it is practically a sweet intimate moment that runs counter to everything we know about the guy.

This is a bleak yet hilarious comedy built around real events. I'd highly recommend it.

There's no avoiding truths rapidly passed over in this depiction of chaos following the death of an evil dictator. Stalin had charm...to those who were not his subjects and were never a threat to his authority. He fooled many so-called intellectuals in the West but everyone around him knew the truth, and, most managed to tip-toe over eggshells in order to stay alive. To thrive in such an environment requires a certain kind of callous ruthlessness...perfectly depicted with suitable crass humour here. The cast is perfectly chosen...each very accomplished actor adding their particular star dust. There's more than a single sittings' content in this film which deserves another viewing. Impressive and engaging story-telling based on real life events. Bravo all.

Taking his lead from the farcical absurdity which he has always done so well, director Iannucci turns to Soviet politics and the days after the death of Stalin. In doing so he produces a film that seems like a bit of a hard sell; truth be told it took me a minute to be motivated to watch it on the basis that it didn't "sound" good. From the opening scenes though, the tone is clear and strong. The uneasy actions of the inner circle are played out in a "relaxed" meal, while at the same time an entire orchestra frantically try to save their own lives by simply complying with a request from Stalin. These opening scenes are funny and absurd but yet they have a genuine menace and fear to them.

It is hard to describe but neither of these aspects undercut the other. The film manages to work as it plays out a massacre but yet has wonderfully funny dialogue and performances. This combination is deftly balanced and I wish I even had the skill to explain it, far less do it. The cruelty of the clamber for power, and the ruthless callousness of those who have it is chilling even as you laugh, but it is the laughter that is more impressive. The absurd but witty dialogue, combined with plenty of genuinely funny comedic touches in the small details (the accents, the pyjamas, the phrasing), all make the film very funny and had laughs where I least expected it at times. The cast are well served with the material, and are very good at making the most of it. Buscemi, Tambor, Beale, McLoughlin, Palin, Whitehouse, Friend, Isaacs, and really all the cast get the tone of the film just right. The comedic timing is spot on for all, but so too are the performances of men scheming and manipulating all the time while knowing the firing squad may be just around the corner.

Well worth watching. It has moments as funny as Thick of It etc, but yet has a darkness that makes it much more satisfying and engaging to watch.

Joseph Stalin rules the Soviet Union with an iron fist. He produces a constant stream of enemy lists which his soldiers round up nightly. He is surrounded by yes men. After a laughable threat from pianist Maria Yudina, he has a stroke. Soon, he's dead and various leaders struggle for dominance. The most ambitious are Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) and NKVD head Lavrentiy Beria. Molotov is the fumbling Foreign Minister. Field Marshal Zhukov is the bombastic war hero. Svetlana and unstable Vasily are Stalin's children. Beria uses his secret police, stealing Khrushchev's liberal reforms, and blackmail with Khrushchev's mistress Yudina's threatening note.

This political satire has a few funny moments. It's oddly light in a dark world. That's the central problem which holds it back. The historical events are dire. The dictatorial police state is apocalyptic. This movie tries to have some light fun with it. The clash between comedy and reality is never far from the surface. The other issue I have is that Buscemi always looks like Buscemi. He never strikes me as Khrushchev. I see the historical Khruschev as a big, boisterous gangster. Buscemi always looks little. I can't see him as Khrushchev. This has plenty of quirky fun but those couple of things keep pulling me out of the movie.

This is an excellent film. And its treatment of the Stalin Era of the Soviet Union is both darkly humorous and actually very unflinching in its depicting the monsters and their monstrosities for what they were.

I was worried that, in an attempt to extract humor from the situation that they might've glossed over just how monstrous the key characters actually were. To Iannucci and Schneider's credit however, there was absolutely no glossing over at all. Beria, for instance, is portrayed as every bit the monster in human form that he was - this, even as that portrayal is also made darkly and delightfully humorous at times.

The whole cast played their parts well and played them "straight" - which only heightened the humor and the horror of what life was like under Stalin in the Soviet Union. Even the nominal "hero" of the tale, Nakita Khrushchev, is realistically portrayed as being just as conniving and callous and power hungry as everyone else. Buscemi would seem an odd choice for that particular role but he pulls it off with style and excellence. So too does Simon Russell Beale in his portrayal of Beria.

This is a nicely done film with excellent production values, a great script, fine acting, excellent pacing, and a compelling tale that is well told.

I highly recommend it!

The Death of Stalin is a comedy for historians. I applaud this movie for the satirical take on a serious subject, but I have to admit that a lot of the humor went over my head. The jokes are so dry that, at times, it feels like you're watching a straightforward drama. If you're interested in the history of Soviet politics, you'll probably enjoy this spin on it.

"The Death of Stalin" is a somewhat fact-based film. In other words, it tries its best to recreate the events around the time of Stalin's death, though the sources aren't exactly unbiased or 100% truthful....and sometimes the writers needed to infer what was said and done behind closed doors. Look at it as the best guess as to the events instead....and in this sense and many others the movie is marvelous and very well made.

The story begins shortly before Stalin's death from a cerebral hemorrhage. The machinations before and especially after are what is intriguing about the story....and how various evil scum surrounding Stalin all vied for power after his demise. It culminates with a very vivid and bloody scene...of a man who truly deserved his fate but watching it is NOT for the faint of heart.

Apart from a bit of violence that might be off-putting (after all, the Stalinist regime was one of the most brutal and bloody in history), the film is a delight to watch. Excellent acting, amazing makeup and an interesting story all work together to make a really exciting film...well worth seeing.

I'm on my fourth time watching this film and I continue to catch so many little things that I've missed. The swings between dark humor and frightening drama followed by outright slapstick are brilliant. And having the actors keep their British and American accents just adds to the originality. If you're looking for something better than the same old formulaic schtick coming out of Hollywood, then watch this. Should get an Oscar nod.

Armando Iannucci is widely acclaimed for his political satire comedies ("The Thick of It", "Veep", "In the Loop") but here comes the project that might just become his first magnum opus.

Chances are that even if one is not interested in politics, one is at least a bit intrigued by the dark comedy about the notorious Soviet leader's death and power struggles that followed it.

Every big player in the vicinity, of course, wants a piece of the pie, including Khrushchev (played by Steve Buscemi), Beria (Simon Russell Beale), Malenkov (Jeffrey Tambor), Molotov (Michael Palin), and Tarasov (Richard Brake).

Also appearing, Jason Isaacs, Olga Kurylenko, Paddy Considine, Adrian McLoughlin as the great papa Stalin himself, plus Rupert Friend and Andrea Riseborough as his drunkard son and hysterical daughter, respectively.

You read it right, the movie has a bunch of talented actors at the height of their "game", re-enacting one of the most large-scale power wars in Soviet history.

Not to mention a superb attention to historical detail which concentrates not only the Soviet glamour but how crumbly and shabby everything was behind the facades. What's not to like, eh?

As expected of Iannucci, the style is theatrical - relatively small and closed sets, a lot of fast dialogue and not many events or setpieces to speak of - but the humor is sharp and you can't really get anything less than great performances out of the cast this awesome.

To highlight some names, Isaacs is magnificent as the military leader, predatory and threatening as always in this kind of roles. Beale is superb as Beria, always out for blood and ready to bite, very playful, very mobile energy-wise. Tambor is doing his famous "greedy but cowardly" shtick, which I just love ever since first seeing that in "The Larry Sanders Show"...

There's only one reason that I have not rated this tasty piece of entertainment higher than 7. I liked it a lot but there's something to be said about Iannucci's breathless, tempo always up-to-eleven approach to storytelling which gets a bit exhausting in a piece that long.

Fast tempo would probably work well for a shorter period of time, but I felt that 106 minutes is too long for endless sprint. It needs some calmer interludes to let the viewer breathe and let all the greatness sink in.

Having said that, I want to find time to watch "The Death of Stalin" again in the near future, to reconsider its strengths and possible deficiencies. Because it feels like a movie that will grow on you.

I'd watch any movie just to see Tambor, Buscemi and Isaacs on screen together. But speaking in general, this was one of the most praised ones released in 2017. Go see it. A rare piece of entertainment that makes you google the historical facts later, just to know more about the real story.

It must have been very daunting to make a film revolving around the period during the death of one of the world's most notorious dictators and mass murderers Joseph Stalin and its aftermath, and make it one that was entertaining, clever and beautifully produced and acted while not trivialising the horrors of the time.

'The Death of Stalin' embraced this challenge and fully succeeded in its goal. 'The Death of Stalin' was one of those films where expectations were high (considering there are some truly great actors here) and those expectations were only met but exceeded. It won't be for the faint hearted, it can be violent in a very gruesome sense. While it is very evocative and well-researched, it is history but not quite as we know it (kind of like a more sophisticated version of Horrible Histories). Some may have a problem with the film not having authentic Soviet accents, and instead a mix of English and US ones, to me this was not a problem as there are many adaptations of Russian literature that mostly don't attempt authentic accents and when they are attempted it has wildly variable results.

2017 has been a very hit and miss year from personal opinion for films. Some very good to great films and also some less than average to rubbish ones, as well as ones that fall somewhere in between. Some may say that for any year in film, but to me 2017 was one of the most hit and miss. 'The Death of Stalin' is a clear highlight. Didn't find that much wrong with it, the character of Svetlana is not as interesting and doesn't have the same depth as the rest of the characters perhaps but this is compensated by Andrea Riseborough still making the most of what she has. The occasional clunker in the writing too but they are vastly out shadowed by the rest of the script being so good.

Even with a couple of minor reservations, 'The Death of Stalin' as said succeeds in achieving a very difficult task and achieving an ideal balance. Despite how it sounds it is not even close to being as offensive as it easily could have been, making something funny out of one of the darkest (maybe the darkest though it's not in a particularly good, if nowhere near as terrible, state now either periods for Russia/The Soviet Union)on paper does not sound tasteful, but 'The Death of Stalin' splendidly works its way around that potential issue.

Visually, 'The Death of Stalin' looks beautiful. The settings and costumes are meticulous in detail and evocative, a lot of homework went into recreating this period, looking both sumptuous and atmospheric. The cinematography is fluid and natural and has the right amount of grit and audaciousness. The music has a mix of the rousing and understated.

Armando Iannucci directs with complete command and control of the subject, his trademark touches of political amorality and dark and sometimes broad but witty and offbeat humour come through loud and clear. He doesn't try to soften reality, nor does he try to make it one big joke, he could easily have done that but he doesn't and he deserves a lot of credit for that.

Further good things are a clever script that has genuinely funny moments and also some truly thought-provoking ones. As soon as the opening sequence begins and happens one knows they're in for a treat. 'The Death of Stalin' is never dull and is hugely entertaining but also has a darker edge in exploring the full terror of Soviet life during the Great Terror, struggle for power and the purge and not trivialising it, it's actually pretty harrowing and poignant.

One cannot talk about 'The Death of Stalin' without mentioning the uniformly outstanding cast, the standouts being Simon Russell Beale giving a performance of almost Shakespearean complexity and Steve Buscemi who bags some of the best moments.

Jason Isaacs steals scenes when he appears (and Paddy Considine delights in his), Andrea Riseborough makes the most of her role and Rupert Friend being this good was a pleasant surprise. Michael Palin is indeed more subdued form than usual but it suited the character and he does it perfectly, personally like that side to him. Jeffrey Tambor is great fun and Olga Kurylenko is expressive.

Summarising, really great and one of 2017's best films. 9/10 Bethany Cox

The Death of Stalin

This is not a bit politically incorrect-in fact, the thing that drives this movie is the understanding (and belief) that Stalin was terrible, that his cronies were terrible, and that it's all no joking matter. So what better subject for satire? And for the first half hour, this rolicks! It doesn't sustain belly laughs all through (the second half gets more chaotic and starts to wear thin) but it is hilarious in some many parts you can't help appreciating it. The writing and acting combine to make a sharp, smart, enjoyable romp. What about the millions of younger viewers who don't know a twig about Stalin? I think the absurdist humor will still work, if there is at least the basic sense of a bad man surrounded by power hungry graspers. A lot has been said about Steve Buscemi's great performance-and it's great, surely-but there are several actors who really come forward. And who combine to make a band of horrible misfits. Simon Russell Beale is great as the smart insider, Beria, and Jeffrey Tambor is also great in his caricatured excess (this movie is before his fall from grace). Smaller parts grow in importance, like Olga Kurylenko's blazing strength as Maria, and Rubert Friend and Andrea Riseborough as Stalin's unpredictable son and wild daughter. The director, Armando Iannucci, is one of my favorites for this kind of smart, fast humor (he directed "In the Loop" which I love). The writing isn't afraid to step on toes or be inappropriate, which is part of what makes it funny. You can ask, I suppose, whether the movie makes any sense in aligning the history or making us see Stalin (and 1953) any differently. But who cares? The result is a funny movie that uses an historical moment as a silly launching point. That's all.

I can't say I'm disappointed because it was exactly as expected. While I like most of Iannucci's comedy this particular subject I felt might not really work, and in an interview about the film he outlined his efforts to treat the subject of the Stalin era with the due care and attention it deserves, but in his capacity as a film director I fear he lacks the emotional maturity and imagination to give this important period proper consideration.

The performances were generally good (some very), it was the overall tone of detached irony which brought the film down. In rendering a period of such horrific injustice I think it is hugely important to become immersed in the era and it's people and to find the story through an emotional connection to something/someone that jumps out during the research process. That for me is where the tragedy and comedy begins.

From what I could see the jumping off point of the film (and perhaps the graphic novel though I haven't read it) came from a story about Stalin's favourite pianist, but this was changed to be less interesting than the reality and hammered into a niche to get the story going. Iancucci's emotional detachment hovers over this film like an irritating puppeteer, careening away from real stories into farce and randomised stereotyping in order to shoe-horn cross-cultural parallels into it. Having Stalin as a cockney Guy Ritchie style linchpin for example, when I suspect Stalin would have had a keen understanding of history and his place within the sociopolitical environment which would have driven him to such farcical self-aggrandisement, and in that respect could be more interesting and funnier to explore.

Above all though, I just didn't get the feeling Iannucci knows how to care that much anymore. A man of the people he isn't (at least not anymore), and in this film it's nearly impossible to get purchase on any of the characters and truly follow them because the director isn't connecting with them either. There's also a whiff of blokey camaraderie about the ensemble cast which makes me think the set might have been a nauseating daily churn of egotistical one-upmanship.

Without spoiling it, people die in this film, and nobody cares, not even the director. I no longer want to watch post-modern satire fumbling through world events with a sardonic detachment reserved for those unaffected by those events. In this era of absolute farce governed by mass hysteria what I want is an almost zealous commitment to a story and it's people. The world we currently live in has been labelled post-truth, but I regard it as more of a post-trust world. In this respect I'd like to see artists that defy this cynicism and immerse themselves in the real and the tangible (and us with them).

Dig deep, that's all I ask for. Please.

This is not the film I was expecting. Knowing that it was both written and directed by the British Armando Iannucci who gave us the outrageous delights of "In The Loop", "The Thick of It" and Veep", I thought that I was going to encounter a full-blown, satirical comedy (and the trailer had confirmed this impression), but instead - while there are certainly plenty of laughs from a sharp script - this is an altogether darker work, full of foreboding, terror and casual slaughter, than I was anticipating. It is not just the tone that is off-kilter; the brilliant cast makes no attempt to effect a Russian accent but offers everything from a Yorkshire accent to an unashamedly American one.

Several of the characters (the dictator himself played by Adrian McLoughlin) and his eventual successor Khruschev (Steve Buscemi) are known to everyone, but others - like war hero Zhukov (Jason Isaacs) and spy chief Beria (Simon Russell Beale) - will be less-known and still others - such as Malenkov (Jeffrey Tambor) and Molotov (Michael Palin) - will be unfamiliar to many viewers, so you need to be something of an enthusiast for Soviet history to pick up on all the allusions. And real historians will rightly challenge some of the detail because there are some major errors (although these might rather be deliberate distortions to enhance the plot). Iannucci has moved from contemporary Whitehall and Washington to take us to Moscow in 1953 but, if we were expecting "Carry On Up The Kremlin", we have something much more gut-wrenching and all the more effective.

A few weeks before the release of this film, I was in Georgia and visited Gori, the town near where Stalin was born. The year after Khruschev denounced Stalin, a museum was opened in the town to venerate Stalin's leadership and essentially (and astonishingly) the messaging remains unchanged to this day. Oh, how I wish they could show this chilling movie at that museum.

Watched this at the cinema last night and although I was looking forward to it and was expecting it to be good I was still pleasantly surprised.

Firstly: the actors all put in very believable and impressive performances. A joy to behold. Secondly: the plot is as intruiging as it is funny and really keeps you glued to the screen. Thirdly: this made me laugh out loud at least five times during it's run-time. You know: the sort of laughs you just can't hold back even if you try.

In essence this is a very dark film that makes light of the crimes against humanity all these people were actually guilty of comitting. Some people might find it offensive that they are portrayed as quite funny and engaging characters. But I think Iannucci does such a good job reminding the audience of the nature of these people that he keeps a balance and really succeeds with this movie.

Very enjoyable. One of the best movies of the year. I really enjoyed this - and if you like whitty dialogue, good acting and an intelligently unfolded plot - you will too.

Staliin dies, and chaos breaks out. The leading men of the Soviet Union now try to get the biggest possible bite of the apple. There's Malenkov, who fears for his life the one day, after accidentally asking for a companion who has been sent to the Gulag years ago. A few days later, he finds himself in Stalin's position. There's Beria, the boss of the secret service, now the inofficial leader and most powerful man at the table. A quite unstable position, though,as there's also Krushchev, who will eventually end up as Stalin's successor after the events occur. The plot is delivered with dark humor, not really trying to dig deep into Soviet history rather than delivering a political satire than from time to times becomes grotesque. The events linked to the main plot are at times truly shocking and dark, yet held humorously by the main plot of Krushchev and Beria intriguing around Malenkov in a political arm wrestling which will put one of them in charge of being the new political leader, and the other one dead.

A dark comedic depiction of the terror inflicted by Stalin and those around him. As utterly bizarre and bad taste as that sounds, this is utterly fantastic. The cast as incredible as you'll see in any film, Buscemi and Beale especially, but really, everyone is flawless. The dialogue is hysterically delivered without even the hint of a Russian accent and the whole thing has an air of farce, but one surrounded with firing squads, power struggles and gulags. Only Simon Russel Beale as Beria really terrifies, with back stabbing, double crossing and a plot as twisted as the deceptions on screen, but really it's Jason Issacs that steals the show, his entrance and performance is nothing short of majestic! Hello!!

8/10

Moscow, 1953. After being in power for nearly 30 years, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin takes ill and quickly dies. Now the members of the Council of Ministers scramble for power. At the forefront of the machinations is NKVD chief Lavrenti Beria, after Stalin the most feared man in the USSR. Council member Nikita Khrushchev does his best to maintain order and thwart Beria's plans.

Written and directed by Armando Iannucci, who gave us the brilliant political satires 'The Thick of It', 'In the Loop' and 'Veep' this movie has Iannucci's trademark political intrigue combined with satirical humour. Very funny at times.

However, while the drama and the comedy of his previous efforts meshed perfectly together, largely because the comedy was making fun of the drama, here it doesn't work well. The drama - mass executions, torture, a callous disregard for life - is at odds with the comedy. It becomes difficult to laugh at the antics of the Russian ministers when just a second previously you saw someone executed at their whim.

It would have worked better as a straight drama, showing the fall-out of Stalin's death. Making this a straight comedy would have been impossible.

Overall: watchable, for the comedy moments.

The Death of Stalin is one of those films you will either love or just not get at all. Being someone with a big interest in Politics, and an interest in the events of the Soviet Union this was always going to be must watch.

The material itself is almost frightening, some pretty horrific real life events happening, but performed in a way that you can't help but laugh at, albeit sometimes with a little dread.

Superbly written as you'd expect by Armando Iannucci, if anyone knows political satire it's him! Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale shine particularly.

It's one of those films I want to see again. 9/10

Stalin's death hasn't been this amusing since "Children of the Revolution" (1996), which isn't something I though I'd ever write. Armando Iannuci and company transplant their brand of political farce from liberal Western democracies lampooned previously, with "In the Loop" (2009) and the HBO series "Veep," to the transition of authoritarian power in the post-Stalin Soviet Union. As others have criticized, "The Death of Stalin" is riddled with historical inaccuracies, but Iannuci's prior, aforementioned work isn't amusing for fidelity or even cutting satire, either. It's always a bunch of cruel numbskulls yelling at and backstabbing each other. But, now, it's in the USSR, so people are slaughtered, too. The result is an uneven black comedy.

Gallows humor works well enough, I suppose, when members of the politburo are executed, but it's another thing entirely when the masses are being shot and trampled to death. The movie is given too much credit by some for being supposedly insightful; it's not. Obviously, the USSR and Stalinism was a disaster, and making the men in charge into caricatures doesn't really lend any enlightenment upon that. Don't get me wrong, though; politics is worthy of mockery. After a slow start (the opera stuff seems particularly irrelevant and unfunny) and despite a lot of misfires, "The Death of Stalin" can be humorous at times. The tempo especially picks up after Steve Buscemi, leading a well-rounded cast, begins to take over as Khrushchev. With him, one moment, joking around with his cohorts that he would just as soon have shot in the head if it were to his Machiavellian interests, Buscemi could just as well be playing his gangster parts in "The Sopranos" or "Boardwalk Empire" than as a would-be national dictator. Meanwhile, the British actors could just as well be enacting a drawing-room comedy of manners or performing a Monty Python sketch (Michael Palin, after all, is here, too, and as absurd as ever). None of this trans-Atlantic cast attempt foreign accents, but what would be the point had they, or had the cast been mainly employed of actors from the former states of the USSR. "The Death of Stalin" doesn't bother to reflect history or politics in profound, or even accurate, ways. It merely reinterprets it all for easy laughs.

"Mordant wits and biting repartees are Iannucci's forte, and in TDoS, they are aplenty, the whole Politburo is made up of the targets of ridicule and contempt: Tambor's deputy chairman Georgy Malenkov is a tinpot dunderhead; Beria, a sadistic wheeler-dealer who are prone to hectoring; Khrushchev has that particular political acumen, and cunningly adept in conniving and conspiring; Palin's Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov is a party maximalist, but barely has any say-so in the game. As for Stalin's two heirs, Svetlana (Riseborough) is at the end of her tether, and the plastered Vasily (Friend), a lost cause liable to nonsensical babbling, they are not veritable successors of their father's legacy."

read my full review on my blog: cinema omnivore, thanks

Armando Iannucci has a reputation for comedy gold but, in my opinion, his gold definitely appears tarnished with this production.

Despite having high production values and a wonderful cast, this film struggles to raise a cynical smirk. The cinema auditorium remained deathly silent - perhaps in embarrassment - not knowing quite what to make of this very uneven piece of work. Perhaps it was the way that the film lurched between Stalin's victims ears full of blood and the sporadic sound of shooting and an uninspired slapstick carrying of Stalin's ailing body that left the audience unsure of how to react. Whatever the reason, it didn't work.

Simon Russell Beale excels as the casually evil Beria, but Michael Palin - who normally steals any scene - lacks his usual mischievous waspishness. Even they can't rescue this dark drama. The settings are very convincing, however.

With uncertainty and few laughs, this ill-conceived concept failed to grab my interest and became only the second film that I have walked out of after an hour during the last fifteen years. It felt wrong to laugh during the violence.Tarantino and Bond are one genre - that is fictional violence and gore. Ultimately I felt that it was offensive to try to create laughs over a background of terror, torture and murder that actually happened and was an appalling time for humanity.

What next. 'Holocaust - the Musical' ?