Review: The Wizard Of The Kremlin

Image courtesy of Gaumont.

The latest film from the great Olivier Assayas is a political thriller that operates in the same vein as "The Last King of Scotland" in that it centers around a fictional character - although the one played by Paul Dano here is inspired somewhat by Vladislav Surkov, a helper to various Russian oligarchs - who is in the orbit of a sinister political figure (in this case, Vladimir Putin, portrayed in the film by Jude Law). The only difference is that Dano's character is nearly as corrupt as the man for whom he works.

The wraparound story in the picture involves a writer, Rowland (Jeffrey Wright), who is in Russia in 2019 to research the author Yevgeny Zamyatin, author of the dystopian novel "We." He is sent a note by Dano's Vadim Baranov, who has a memento of Zamyatin's that he wants to show him. But, of course, this is not the purpose of the visit.

Baranov regales Rowland with his story about how he started as a writer of avant garde theater and then became a Russian state newsman before getting drawn into Putin's orbit by oligarch Boris Berezovsky (Will Keen), with whom Baranov was familiar. At a party in the early 1990s, Baranov also meets the woman - Ksenia (Alicia Vikander) - who will be his on-again, off-again paramour. 

The picture chronicles the decline of Boris Yeltsin's health and his choice of former KGB officer Putin, who in the film is found languishing in the KGB's successor agency, to lead the country. As played by Law, Putin is a man who is always scheming and finds that projecting strength is more important than actually delivering for the Russian people. He's also a bit paranoid.

"The Wizard of the Kremlin" is an often fascinating - if somewhat condensed - version of one of the most catastrophic geopolitical events of the 21st century - Russian's newfound freedom as a democracy in the 1990s quickly devolving into an authoritarian state led by a corrupt and cruel man who remade the country in his own image.

Assayas has deftly brought captured geopolitical moments in the past - his chronicle of Carlos the Jackal in 2010's "Carlos" is probably his masterpiece, while 2012's "Something in the Air" was an engrossing tale set against the backdrop of France's student revolution in the 1960s and 1970s and his Cuban spy movie "Wasp Network" was also memorable. "The Wizard of the Kremlin" may not have been greeted with the same lauds as some of those previous films, but it's a very worthwhile addition to his oeuvre.

Law captures the mannerisms and look of Putin and is very good here, but Dano's soft-spoken portrayal is the performance that carries the film. While the former is a man who feels the need to speak loudly and announce himself in brutish fashion, the latter is comfortable talking quietly because he knows he has power and feels no need to flaunt it.

Our current political crisis - and the U.S. president at the center of it - is never mentioned, but Russia's aggression against Ukraine (here during the War of Crimea) is present, and while the 2016 election is never referenced, Russia's data centers populated by those sending out misinformation - spreading anti-vax views, for example - make an appearance. This is a chilling and engrossing movie about how easily a society can unravel when it falls into the wrong hands.

Review: Obsession

Image courtesy of Blumhouse Productions.

I'm probably going to be in the minority here, but I found Curry Barker's acclaimed horror movie "Obsession" to be a film that I occasionally admired, but by which I was mostly underwhelmed. The past few years has seen the release of a number of well-received horror movies of some depth - "Weapons," "Sinners," "28 Years Later: The Bone Temple," and "Hokum" - that have given new life to the genre. Barker's film has been mentioned alongside that crowd, but I found it to be the weakest link by far.

The setup is fairly simple - it's a new take on "The Monkey's Paw" in which a character comes to learn that what they wished for is certainly not what they wanted. In this case, it's so-called nice guy Bear (Michael Johnston), who has pined for Nikki (Inde Navarette), a member of his circle of friends, for some time but hasn't told her his feelings.

Bear's best friend, the abrasive Ian (Cooper Tomlinson), begs him not to confess his love to Nikki during the group's trivia night and possibly upset its balance, while Sarah (Megan Lawless), the group's other member, has an obvious crush on Bear.

After failing for the umpteenth time to tell Nikki how he feels, he buys a trinket at a shop that could best be described as selling mystical stuff that allows its purchaser to make a wish and requires them to break it in half to seal the deal. Of course, Bear wishes that Nikki would be infatuated with him - and his wish comes true, but in a deranged sort of way.

Suddenly, Nikki moves in and doesn't want to let Bear out of her sight. He recognizes that she is likely with him only due to the wish he made - and not for genuine reasons - and he overlooks this, that is, until her behavior turns increasingly disturbing (her movements suggest something otherworldly at times) and violent.

Navarette deserves credit for her completely committed - and often unhinged - performance as the girl under the spell. One of the film's biggest problems is that by making Bear, a misogynist masquerading as a nice guy, the protagonist and relegating Nikki to outlandish behavior, it robs her of agency. There's a brief moment at the film's end when we could have gotten a glimpse of Nikki's perspective, but we don't.

Worse, the film's nastiest death is perpetrated against another female character, who also happens to be the best person in the movie. A less likable male character is later dispatched so quickly that it barely registers. The film also falls into a repetitive pattern in which Bear leaves the house, comes home, and is treated to increasingly frightening scenarios involving Nikki.

Also, I often believe that the less said the better in the case of horror movies and their mythologies, but "Obsession" is a film that flirts with providing answers, but doesn't do so in a satisfactory manner. At one point, Bear calls a phone number listed on the back of the wish object's packaging and he speaks to someone who sounds like a bored office worker, but who seemingly has insight into how the object works. But we gain no insights. Then, another character makes a wish later in the film that is granted immediately in an unexplainably silly manner.

There are elements of "Obsession" that I admired - namely, Navarette's performance and the picture's memorably gloomy cinematography. The low lighting in nearly every scene helps to convey a sense of doom that never lifts. And the fact that the film's director is only in his 20s suggests that he could have a better movie in him next time around. I didn't dislike "Obsession," but I'm a little surprised by the mostly glowing reviews for a movie that I found to be, at best, only moderately effective.

Review: Blue Heron

Image courtesy of Janus Films.

Much like the recent film "Aftersun," Sophy Romvari's debut film, "Blue Heron," takes a quiet approach in delving into the sad memories of its lead character and much of the tragedy in the story is left to the imagination.

The film feels like - and could very well be - a reenactment of past traumas presented as semi-realistic home movies. Set in Canada at some point in the past - perhaps the late 1990s - the film follows a Hungarian family that includes a father (Adam Tompa) and three children that he has with his wife (Iringo Reti) as well as a teenage boy who was the only child of her previous marriage.

The film is told through the remembrances of the only girl among the four children, Sasha (Eylul Guven), whom we meet later in the film as an adult (Amy Zimmer) as she looks back with sadness and a sense of unknowing about the trials and tribulations of her family. 

Most of the drama revolves around Jeremy (Edik Beddoes), the bespectacled teen from the mother's first marriage. Jeremy clearly has problems - he is brought home by the police for shoplifting, he takes part in dangerous stunts such as walking on the family's roof, and at one point punches out a window, leaving his hand covered in blood. We also overhear a discussion that he once also threatened to burn down the family's home and keeps a gas canister in his room.

The reason why Jeremy engages in this behavior - which also includes intentionally annoying his siblings and refusing to listen to his mother and stepfather - is somewhat of a mystery. There's a scene later in the film in which grownup Sasha meets with a group of professionals in the psychology field who discuss how they would have gone about dealing with Jeremy if they had met him, but they don't provide any easy answers.

The film has a somewhat experimental vibe, with less of an emphasis on plot or traditional scenes and more of one on observance of behaviors among the family members as they idle around the house or spend a day at the seashore, where Jeremy mostly sits atop a large rock by himself.

Unlike her other brothers, Sasha seems at an early age to be more aware of Jeremy's increasingly darker behavior. His parents seem like good people, but they struggle and are frustrated as to how they should handle Jeremy, and a visit with a social worker who suggests they place him in a home only leads to more anguish.

The picture is from the perspective of Sasha, who is a young girl and is, therefore, an unreliable narrator. She tries to recall memories from the time when she was young, but they are insufficient in explaining what happened to she and her family at that time, and what we suppose eventually happened to her brother.

This is a sad movie that has its own unique rhythm and pace. It's the type of film to which the viewer must get onto its wavelength and see where it takes them, rather than trying to pick it apart and explain it in simple terms. 

There's a scene late in the film that requires some work from the viewer, but it's a particularly impactful sequence in which an adult Sasha travels back to the late 1990s - literally, though not in the way most movies would handle such a scenario - to sit in on a consultation between her parents and the social worker. The scene acts as a means of trying to understand and provide grace for all who were involved in that turbulent time - and it, ultimately, becomes the film's raison d'etre. "Blue Heron" is a solid and memorable debut.

Review: The Devil Wears Prada 2

Image courtesy of 20th Century Fox.

While "The Devil Wears Prada" might have seemed like a movie to which no sequel was necessary, this follow-up 20 years after the original is an enjoyable lark and a surprisingly impassioned plea about the importance of retaining historical and cultural outlets in the face of media conglomeration, buyouts, and AI.

The picture picks up two decades after the original with the sort of fairy tale plot that only happens in movies: Anne Hathaway's Andy Sachs wins a journalism award on the same night that her company lays her and her fellow employees off due to a buyout. Now jobless, she reads an article online about how Miranda Priestley (Meryl Streep) threw her weight behind a fashion company that utilized sweatshop labor and has come under fire.

Andy receives a call from Irv Ravitz (Tibor Feldman), who owns the media conglomerate that includes Runway,  offering her a position at that magazine that would enable her to steer its editorial direction. Miranda seems none too pleased, going out of her way to pretend that she doesn't even remember Andy. Stanley Tucci's Nigel - Miranda's right-hand man - gives Andy a warmer reception, albeit one replete with digs - "Look what TJ Maxx dragged in."

Andy writes a piece in which Runway takes responsibility for its actions, which goes down well with media critics, but is otherwise ignored by the public. To impress Miranda, she tries to land an interview with a reclusive billionaire's ex-wife (Lucy Liu) who has refused to speak to the media. She is also shocked to find Emily Charlton (Emily Blunt) working at Dior and that she is now seemingly a rival of Miranda.

Yes, "The Devil Wears Prada 2" still lays it on thick when it comes to the fashion shows, the frosty relationship between Miranda and Andy, and the cultural call-outs (Lady Gaga briefly pops up as herself). But the film also takes seriously its theme of a company with history that favors artistry, craft, and human endeavor - Andy is passionate about journalism that is not determined by advertising -  in the age of media consolidation and the takeover by AI.

At one point, Runway's operations are taken over by Irv's younger son, whose corporatized approach to running the magazine puts everyone's jobs on the chopping block, and an attempt to prevent the buyout with another buyout leads to an even worse scenario, though the film culminates with the type of happy ending that might not seem realistic in the current moment, but felt right for the purposes of this movie.

As always, Streep is great as Miranda and Hathaway is very good as her foil, while Blunt is fun as always to watch as the icy Emily. But Tucci's more subtle performance as the loyal Nigel is the glue that holds it all together. It's fun to watch a cast of talented people having a good time as they revisit these characters.

So, no, "The Devil Wears Prada 2" probably didn't need to exist, but the filmmakers have managed to find an enjoyable and surprisingly relevant reason for returning to this material. Regardless of its fairy tale ending and almost too pat means of solving the characters' problems, I couldn't help being a little moved as well as entertained.

Review: Hokum

Image courtesy of Neon.

While I enjoy horror films, there are few in recent years that I have actually found to be scary. The films of Irish director Damian McCarthy - at least, the two I've seen - are exceptions to the rule. His latest, the haunted hotel film "Hokum," is a great showcase for lead actor Adam Scott and an almost nonstop barrage of spooky moments.

The film opens with a scene from the final novel in Ohm Bauman's (Scott) conquistador series. As Ohm types away in a dark room, we get the sense that something is watching. Much like his previous film, "Oddity," McCarthy is not hesitant to rely on jump scares - but unlike most American horror movies that use them, they are utilized for maximum effect and actually make you jump out of your seat, rather than roll your eyes.

Ohm is haunted by the death of his mother - a somewhat nebulous scenario in which she was shot - and the subsequent death by alcoholism of his father. He plans to travel to Ireland to visit a small country inn where his parents once stayed and to spread their ashes somewhere within its environs.

From the moment Ohm arrives at the inn, he gives off a caustic vibe. This involves a humorous series of scenes in which he denies a bellboy who wants him to read his own manuscript and a man whose son is a fan of his work and wants an autograph. Ohm is off-putting, but his behavior comes off as a defense mechanism for reasons we'll later discover.

The one employee at the hotel to whom he takes a shine is Fiona (Florence Ordesh), who comes to Ohm's aid in a major way that I won't spoil. Later, he learns that Fiona has gone missing and comes to believe that she has visited the hotel's honeymoon suite on the second floor. He is told that the suite has been locked for years because the hotel's owner trapped a witch up there and keeps it closed off to ensure she remains imprisoned.

Ohm meets a strange man in the woods named Jerry (David Wilmot), whom the locals say has an unsettling history, and the two of them agree to visit the suite to look for Fiona. But Jerry gets detained and Ohm ends up in the suite by himself, leading to a night of horrors as he is plagued by creepy visitations - an individual who looks like part-donkey, part man; an actual corpse; and a basement that can only be reached by the world's creepiest dumb waiter and seems to lead into the bowels of hell.

McCarthy's previous film, "Oddity," is one of my favorite horror films of recent memory. It is likely the scariest movie I've seen in years (certainly since "Hereditary") and has a series of diabolically effective set pieces. It's still my favorite McCarthy film, though "Hokum" is a strong following act. Scott is great here as a sarcastic man who unpleasant facade hides a world of pain. The film's setting is unique and spooky and, as was the case with "Oddity," the atmospheric touches go a long way.

And like the best horror movies of the past decade - such as "It Follows" or "Weapons" - "Hokum" is thematically rich and has actual substance (its final scene especially), other than just trying to scare its audience. But for those who just want to be frightened, rest assured that this picture delivers in that department.

Review: Mother Mary

Image courtesy of A24.

David Lowery's surreal pop star saga "Mother Mary" is half of a good movie and half of a baffling one. If you're aware of my tastes, you'll know that I appreciate - and often love - movies that might be labeled as weird, but this one's purpose is somewhat nebulous. To quote Anne Hathaway's pop singer, after whom the film is named, at one point in the picture: "The metaphors are exhausting."

The film opens with Mother Mary (Hathaway) dealing with some sort of crisis by seeking out an old friend and collaborator, Sam (Michaela Coel), at the latter's secluded house, where it seemingly rains nonstop. Sam is a fashion designer and we learn early on that not only did she and Mother Mary once work together, but she is possibly the one who came up with the singer's wardrobe and look. It is also suggested that she was not given proper credit for her efforts.

Mother Mary needs a need dress for an upcoming performance and believes that the one designed by her team doesn't cut it. She seemingly only trusts Sam to do the job, but there's obvious tension between the two women as they sequester themselves in a large room on Sam's property, despite Sam having an upcoming fashion show for which she needs to prepare.

Sam refuses to listen to Mother Mary's music, so when the time comes for the singer to show Sam a dance that she plans to perform in the new dress, she does it without music. It's one of the film's stronger moments and it takes place during the first half, which is better than the second.

At about the midway point, Sam discusses what could best be described as a "ghost" - a large piece of red fabric that takes on different shapes - that she's been seeing. Oddly enough, Mother Mary has seen it as well. The film detours into Mother Mary's history with the "ghost," which began at a seance. As the film goes on, it becomes more symbolic and opaque.

Does the ghost symbolize the two women's partnership - as work collaborators - or is it representative of their friendship that has been lost? The film is often compelling visually, but during its second half, the filmmakers seem to have a difficult time expressing what this all means. Despite this, Hathaway and Coel - who was very good in last week's "The Christophers" - give strong performances, and the film's best scenes involve their monologues or squabbles with each other.

Lowery has delved into offbeat terrain before - namely, "A Ghost Story" and "The Green Knight" - but those films felt as if the strange goings-on merely complemented the overall style and story. Here, the film takes a sharp-right turn in its second half and it feels as if we are watching two distinctly different movies. The first one is compelling, while the second - although visually rich - might leave the viewer scratching their head. The film is a wild swing - the type I'm glad to see directors make - but it only connects about half of the time.

Review: Michael

Image courtesy of Lionsgate.

There has been a fair amount of invective hurled at Antoine Fuqua's "Michael" biopic - and some of it is fair. Some complaints should, perhaps, be saved for later, considering that the story of Michael Jackson is being broken up into two films.

I don't intend to make this the focal point of the review - but to be up front: No, the film does not tackle the allegations made against Jackson involving sexual misconduct. A number of critics have, as a result, blasted the movie for this reason, but they are criticizing a movie that doesn't exist - at least, not yet.

The picture starts in Gary, Indiana in 1966 and ends during Jackson's "Bad" tour in 1988, a period during which no allegations took place. Some might argue that ending the film at this point is a choice in itself - a means of avoiding the problem altogether. Then again, as I mentioned, this biopic is meant to be two films. Considering that the film has been Jackson family-approved, one might have reason to be skeptical as to what will be covered in the second film - but we're not there yet.

To get back to the film that currently exists, my biggest complaint is that, despite Jaafar Jackson's committed performance as his uncle, the film provides a mostly skin-deep portrayal of the King of Pop. Most of the information we get is what we already knew - that Michael was shy, probably lonely, and had a menagerie of animals - including Bubbles the chimp - that he considered friends; and that he had a difficult relationship with Joseph Jackson (Colman Domingo), who ruled over Michael and his brothers with an iron fist and, according to this movie, wasn't afraid to use his belt as an incentive.

But what ultimately makes "Michael" work well enough as a biopic is a combination of two things: the first of which is Jaafar Jackson's portrayal of Michael that, despite being underwritten, is an incredible act of mimicry. It's easy enough to make up someone - especially a relative of the subject - to look like someone else, but it's a whole other thing to capture their aura, their vocal tics, cadence, and dance moves - but Jaafar Jackson does this, especially during scenes recreating the making of the "Beat It" and "Thriller" videos.

It also helps that the movie is chock full of great music and performance sequences - though some might argue that the nonstop concert scenes are meant to pad out a movie in which background is kept at a minimum. There are some curious choices, however - other than the fact that Janet Jackson seemingly doesn't exist, the film barely pays attention to the music from the great 1979 record "Off the Wall," other than a recording session for "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough." The making of and publicity for the "Thriller" album makes up the bulk of the adult years - and I was glad that "Human Nature," my personal favorite Jackson song, makes an appearance.

While Jaafar Jackson is obviously the focus in the film, the supporting cast has its moments, from Miles Teller's John Branca to Larenz Tate's Berry Gordy. Nia Long has some strong moments as Katherine Jackson, Michael's mother. Domingo, who is very good in nearly every movie he is in, has his moments, but Joseph is written as the film's primary villain - and the role mostly requires him to be as unlikable as possible in every scene he's in, not leaving much room for subtlety. 

So, no, "Michael" isn't on the level of some of the best music biopics of recent years - Todd Haynes' "I'm Not There" and F. Gary Gray's "Straight Outta Compton" are high points in the subgenre - and follows the beats one would expect from this type of film. We don't learn much about Michael Jackson, but the film does a good job of capturing his aura, his meteoric rise to the top of the charts, and that moment during the 1980s when he was ubiquitous. 

It's a movie in which energy and music carry the weaker moments just past the finish line. As to what has been left out, it remains to be seen how that will - or won't - be handled in the next film. "Michael" works well enough and should please Jackson fans - for others with reservations, reactions are likely to vary.