The Last Station (2009)

What is wrong with this movie? How could they go wrong with a cast like this? Take the excellent Helen Mirren who gives a tour de force, the unusually convincing Christopher Plummer and the fascinating James Mcavoy. There is a great historical subject together with a lovely score and pastoral setting. It's the story that disappoints.

The story here is not interesting and is actually quite unpleasant. Towards the end of his life Tolstoy wants to give his money to the people which brings about a conflict with this wife who understandably wants some money for herself and the children.

Of all the things to focus on, you basically have a movie about a great writer's fanaticism manipulated by the misguided Paul Giamatti into an ugly fight about money with his wife which hastens his death.

All you end up feeling is irritated with Tolstoy for being ungrateful and unrealistic in his treatment of his wife who bore him 13 children. It's actually quite depressing. And James Mcavoy the secretary's affair with a disciple of Tolstoy does not mesh well with the plot.

Overall - see it if you like the subject matter but be prepared to feel irritated and let down.

Fmovies: "The Last Station" should have been great, but it settles for being merely good. Despite its impressive cast and juicy subject, something about it just doesn't quite click.

Christopher Plummer and Helen Mirren play Leo Tolstoy and his wife in the days leading up to the writer's death, and the tumultuous relationship they shared, she feeling brushed aside by the author because of his commitment to his work and the Tolstoyan movement that developed around it. James MacAvoy plays a young man who scores the job of being Tostoy's assistant and becomes witness to this domestic drama and an unwitting accomplice to the machinations of Tolstoy's close friend and business adviser (Paul Giamatti) to wrest copyright of Tolstoy's works away from his wife upon the writer's death. If all of this sounds like a delicious set up for great acting and suspenseful intrigue, you'd be right; unfortunately, the movie is so much less than what it could have been.

Plummer and Mirren are wonderful in their roles, and the movie's best scenes are the ones of them together. However, they're not in the movie enough, and their relationship, which is the most interesting thing about the story, takes a back seat to the politics of the Tolstoy movement and MacAvoy's reactions to them. MacAvoy is a terrific actor and I've liked him in everything I've seen him in, including this. But I simply didn't care as much about his character as I did Tolstoy and his wife, and I spent the whole film itching for the screenplay to give Plummer and Mirren, two great British actors, more to do.

Paul Giamatti's character is oily and unlikable; indeed, there's something about Giamatti the actor that I find unlikable in general and actually makes it hard for me to watch him. Kerry Condon, on the other hand, in a smaller role as MacAvoy's love interest, is lovely.

Grade: B

I was out of the country when this film came out and so have looked forward a long while to watching it on DVD. What a disappointment. It was nothing but cheap melodrama. I don't know if that's how Jay Parini wrote it or if it was more how Michael Hoffman directed it, but in any case, it too often devolved into sentimentality. I understand that the tensions between Tolstoy, his wife, and the Tolstoyans that the film focused on are a historical fact. They may have been factually, in some instances, also as histrionic as the film represents. I'm quite willing to believe too that the histrionics were as much or more on the side of Chertkov and the Tolstoyans as on Countess Tolstoy's. Still, the portrayal of Chertkov as villain was so melodramatic that it's not an exaggeration to say that we see him twirling his mustache. Tolstoy was many things, but one of them was was the master of the realistic detail. Sorry, none here.

The Last Station fmovies. Silly, shallow, sleepy and slow, this sumptuous costume drama about the aging Leo Tolstoy and his long-suffering wife Sophy fails to do several things well.

It fails to give you any insight into why Tolstoy was one of the greatest writers who ever lived. Or why he wanted to give all his money to the poor. Or why he was so desperate to renounce sex. Or how any of this connected to what was actually happening in Russia at the time.

The movie spends hours and hours tittering and giggling over Tolstoy's earthy appetites -- as though it's so extraordinary that older people still enjoy having sex. But we don't get even five minutes of time with the people Tolstoy wants to help -- the Russian peasants. If we can't see them suffering, then Tolstoy's ideas just seem like charming whimsicality. Which is just what this movie wants -- to keep things shallow, so we can celebrate the joys of casual sex (and the gossip and glamor surrounding celebrity couples) and not get all hung up on heavy things like poverty, justice, and human suffering.

One moment sums up the whole problem. Early in the movie, Tolstoy and his wife actually have a rather interesting conversation about the people. Tolstoy says that if they give all their wealth to the peasants the peasants will embrace them as family and they'll all live peacefully in a world without hunger or injustice. Countess Sophy replies tartly that if the peasants ever got their hands on that much money they'd just spend it on whores and drink.

Neither of them brings up a third possibility -- that the peasants HATE them and do not WANT to live in brotherhood. The truth the movie ignores is that sooner or later the peasants will make the beautiful people pay for three hundred years of stealing their food, women, and land. The laziness, corruption, greed, and callousness of the Russian aristocracy -- which the real Count Leo Tolstoy knew only too well -- is entirely absent from this film.

As a result, we entirely miss the real tragedy of a flawed but courageous nobleman trying (too late) to make amends. Instead we get melodrama, sentimentality, and a lot of schoolgirl giggling about sex.

It's like reading PEOPLE magazine instead of War and Peace.

If you took a Leo Tolstoy class in college or read one of his works during your time at the library and wanted to know a bit more about the man, don't really look to The Last Station. Does that make it a poor film? Not by a long shot.

The film follows the story of Leo (Christopher Plummer) and Sofya Tolstoy (Helen Mirren), married couple for 43 years, and the battle that raged between them at the end of Leo's life. As Leo's health is ailing, his long time friend Vladimir Chertkov (Paul Giamatti) urges Leo to write a new will, renouncing his material possessions, leaving his wife and family with nothing. All of this is in order to have Leo's movement of peace to go to the majority. Chertkov sends a young follower of the Tolstoyan movement, Valentin Bulgakov, to investigate and inscribe all of Sofya's exaggerated and histrionic antics to work against her campaign.

Firstly, the film is A-typical period piece with all the correct elements of that type of film. Art Direction by Mark Rosinski and Heike Wolf, stunning costume design by Monika Jacobs, and a score to die for by Sergei Yevtushenko is pitch perfect and exalted brilliance. Nothing is wrong with this film technically.

An extraordinary narrative beautifully adapted by the director Michael Hoffman is one of the crowning achievements of his career. Dedicating his all for the sake of the art form, Hoffman writes and directs the screen with meticulousness and accuracy. Playing that extra special detail to smooth out an rough edges paid off for Hoffman immensely.

The cast presented in The Last Station is stellar and one of the best cast ensembles of the 2009. James McAvoy, proving once again, that you don't just lay down the words of your acting, you let the spirit fight its way through your soul and remain a tangible entity for your audience to engage. McAvoy proves he's one of Hollywood's most outstanding talents. Helen Mirren, riding the see-saw with her viewers, never declares any type of emotion until the bitter end. Mirren shows no apparent ambiance of mood or expression. She sizzles through the film, igniting every scene on fire along the way. Christopher Plummer as the lovable Leo is amiable, captivating, and entrancing. Plummer, a talent long overdue for Oscar recognition is enticing. Paul Giamatti, in a more villainous role we haven't seen of him before, is always dependable and alluring. Anne-Marie Duff and Kerry Condon are both enthralling in their roles respectively.

The Last Station is a definite contender for a Best Picture nomination. It's a delightful film full of heart, love, and heartbreak. The temptation of the films aura will lure you in and surely leave you in tears.

***½/****

Rather than present at least a GLIMPSE of Tolstoy's brilliance, Christopher Plummer depicts him as a one-dimensional, gruff, lovable old coot. He hardly has any lines throughout the movie, and the other characters are equally devoid of any depth. Helen Mirren's character is supposed to be self-centered and calculating, but even she breaks down into saccharine lightness at the end. The entire film is a descent into maudlin, pretentious sentimentality, and is only atmospheric, not substantive. Instead of being an accurate portrayal of early 1900's Russia, we are given "Russia-lite." We don't have a clue about Tolstoy's inner thoughts and motivations, because we see only an affable geezer. This was a squandered opportunity to reveal the mind of a complicated, social visionary. The director chose cute over interesting.