Remember around 2018 or so, when reviews on Rotten Tomatoes suddenly became suspicious?
Like movies that hit all the left-wing, DEI talking points would get 98% Fresh ratings from the critics, but then when regular people started weighing in, the audience meter would drop precipitously?
Paul Dano’s Baranov is fascinating. He’s the opposite of a typical Russian movie character. He’s sensitive, intelligent, creative, and socially aristocratic.
Or when a movie like “Sound of Freedom” came out and all the critics panned it because it was produced by a non-Hollywood Christian studio. But then, everyone who saw it loved it?
Generally, I still consult Rotten Tomatoes. But in any situation where a film can be seen as “political” or might touch on a controversial subject, I become skeptical.
Such was the case with “The Wizard of the Kremlin.” It was already getting roasted months before its release. Apparently, our brave American critics wanted to virtue signal their personal animosity toward Putin.
Because of this, I became interested in the film. If the critics hate it, it’s probably good.
RELATED: MacIntyre: The real reason journalists hate ‘Sound of Freedom’
Getty Images
Vive le cinéma!
Another aspect of the film I was excited about: It was made by French filmmaker Olivier Assayas. Not that the French are so independent-minded, but Hollywood filmmakers are literally incapable of addressing international politics above a sixth-grade level.
The French though. They’ve been through some stuff. They’re not afraid to talk about international affairs in a serious, adult manner.
Another thing that recommended the movie: the casting of Jude Law as Putin and Paul Dano as Baranov, his close personal adviser. (Baranov is a fictional character, almost everyone else is real.)
When I heard this, I thought: “Oh my goodness, this movie is going to be brilliant.”
Another good sign: The film was adapted from an acclaimed French novel by the same name. So the story was already established. The film just had to follow it.
Story of my life
The movie begins in the present, with an American journalist traveling to Russia to interview Baranov (Paul Dano) about his former role in the Putin administration.
Through this interview, Baranov tells the story of his life, which begins in the ’80s and moves through the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the emergence of Putin.
The film’s portrayal of life at the end of the Soviet Union was super interesting, in part because we rarely see this in films.
The avant-garde theater scene in Moscow in the late 1980s? Could you even picture that? I couldn’t. Until I saw it.
All the Russian interiors were super interesting. And the clothes. And the nightclubs. The supporting actors all looked very Russian. The whole thing was fun to look at. This was the end of the dowdy Soviet Union and the beginning of the reign of the gangster oligarchs.
No rush
It took 40 minutes for Putin to appear. This built suspense. You’re sitting there enjoying Paul Dano as Baranov, and then you remember Jude Law is still to come. Jude Law as Putin!
Meanwhile, Paul Dano’s Baranov is already fascinating. He’s the opposite of a typical Russian movie character. He’s sensitive, intelligent, creative, and socially aristocratic (his father and grandfather were high-level Communist Party members).
He speaks in a soft, unhurried voice. But with his big, wide, puffy face, he still looks totally Russian!
The whole “you’re in Russia” conceit was great. I don’t know if this was actually filmed in Russia, but it sure felt like Russia. (I noticed in the credits there were a few mentions of Latvia. So maybe they shot some of it there.)
Putin on the Ritz
So finally, 40 minutes in, we get our first look at Putin. In the beginning, it’s Baranov and his boss (they both work for Russian TV) who are recruiting the reluctant KGB agent.
They think Russia needs a new style of leader, someone young and energetic. They’ll help him. They’ll guide him. They’ll make sure he wins.
But Putin isn’t receptive. He’s happy where he is.
But once he gets a sniff of power, Putin rises quickly. Only Baranov is able to remain in his good graces, due to his low-key, soft-spoken manner.
Jude Law as Putin was hilarious. I laughed to myself when he first appeared. Not that it was intentionally funny. It was just a relief, and a little bit shocking, to finally see him.
It was actually a very good rendition. It was not politicized. Jude Law did the Putin scowl and facial and body expressions. It was really good. I was kind of blown away.
Smart art
Honestly, I was blown away by the whole movie. It was funny, moving, smart. It did have moments where plot points had to be explained to the audience, forcing characters to make little speeches of exposition. But that always happens when you adapt from a book.
There were also some historical/political plot points that I would maybe question. But this movie is designed for a European/American audience and has to adhere generally to our Western understanding of Putin and his crew. Because of this, Putin is ultimately “the bad guy.”
But he’s definitely a fully fleshed-out character in the film. When they show him hanging out with his old KGB buddies, you get a sense of the man behind the scenes.
“The Wizard of the Kremlin”: It was the most intelligent movie I’ve seen in years. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Highly recommend.
A version of this review originally appeared on the Substack Travels to Distant Cities.
Read the full article here
