The film arrives as a major entry from director Olivier Assayas, an adaptation of Giuliano da Empoli’s novel that maps a turbulent chapter of post-Soviet history. Starring Jude Law as Vladimir Putin and featuring Paul Dano, Alicia Vikander, Tom Sturridge, Will Keen and Jeffrey Wright, the picture was shown in Venice and later secured distribution with Vertical for a May 15 release. The first public trailer has generated debate, inviting audiences to weigh the film’s formal choices and political stance alongside its star-driven marketing.
Assayas collaborated on the screenplay with Emmanuel Carrère to translate a roman à clef into cinema, balancing factual events with fictionalized storytelling. At its core the story follows the ascent of a former KGB officer into national prominence and the strategist who shapes his public image, a relationship that probes how spectacle, media and power can be engineered. Reviews and festival response have emphasized the film’s dense mixture of drama, satire and historical reconstruction, prompting conversations about responsibility when portraying still-unfolding political realities.
What the film depicts
Set amid the confusion of the 1990s, the narrative examines the interplay between a calculating public-relations architect and an ambitious former security agent who together alter Russia’s trajectory. The plot traces the adviser’s move from avant-garde theater and private television into the orbit of oligarchs and the Yeltsin administration, ultimately positioning him as the communications force behind a rising leader. Assayas’ adaptation foregrounds the construction of consent through staged narratives and broadcast theatrics, highlighting communications strategy and propaganda techniques as instruments of statecraft. The film asks whether political legitimacy can be manufactured when spectacle eclipses substantive governance.
Performances and direction
Assayas stages this tale as a broad canvas that mixes intimate scenes with sweeping political tableaux. His approach alternates between the observational and the self-conscious, often letting camera and performance collide to produce an effect that is at once cinematic and theatrical. Production design and casting choices underline the contrast between public image and private calculation: lavish interiors and media studios stand against impoverished streets, reinforcing the film’s interest in surface versus substance. The director’s handling of tone—at times ironic, at times elegiac—has been a focal point for critics assessing whether the picture clarifies or complicates the events it dramatizes.
Jude Law’s portrayal
Jude Law opts for a portrayal that avoids slavish imitation in favor of an evocative creation, a choice that has divided viewers. Rather than focusing on exact vocal or physical mimicry, Law plays a constructed version of the public figure, shaping a presence built around stillness, calculation and strategic charisma. Some critics find this rendering unsettling and compelling, arguing it serves the film’s thesis about performance and power; others see it as tonal and ethical shorthand. Either way, Law’s turn remains central to how audiences interpret the film’s claims about leadership and the performative mechanisms that sustain authority.
Paul Dano and supporting cast
Paul Dano anchors the film as the manipulative kingmaker whose trajectory—beginning with art experiments and private TV success—culminates in political influence. Dano’s character is portrayed as both brilliant and morally compromised, a figure whose taste for spectacle and persuasion shapes national discourse. Supporting performances from Alicia Vikander, Jeffrey Wright and others add texture: Vikander as a personal touchstone, Wright as a reflective narrator, and Will Keen in the role of an oligarch figure. The ensemble’s chemistry and the uneven tonal swings have been highlighted by reviewers debating whether the film operates as indictment, satire or tragic chronicle.
Themes, reception and the trailer
Critical response ranges from admiration for the film’s ambition to unease about its ethical posture. Some commentators praise its examination of media construction and the emergence of a modern autocratic style; others argue the project risks simplifying or aestheticizing ongoing political harm. Reviewers have pointed to the film’s engagement with post-truth dynamics and the blurring of performance and policy, while also noting moments that feel absurd or deliberately exaggerated to provoke debate. The newly released trailer crystallizes these tensions, offering audiences a concentrated glimpse of the visual language and dramatic stakes that have made The Wizard of the Kremlin a lightning rod for discussion.