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.

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

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.

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.