A stellar cast. A gripping real-world story. A director with genuine credentials. “The Wizard of the Kremlin” arrived in US theaters on May 15, 2026 carrying the weight of an awards-season contender. Instead, it landed with a quiet thud, scoring a rotten 46% on Rotten Tomatoes. How did one of the most anticipated political films of the year fall so completely flat?

The Story Was Always Worth Telling

The film is based on Giuliano da Empoli’s bestselling 2022 novel, which captivated readers across Europe with its fictional take on how Vladimir Putin was politically engineered from behind the scenes. At the center of the story is Vadim Baranov, played by Paul Dano, a character loosely inspired by Vladislav Surkov, the real-life figure widely described as the “grey cardinal” of Russian politics. Baranov’s arc is remarkable on paper. He travels from avant-garde theater director to reality TV producer to Putin’s most trusted spin doctor, shaping the narrative of an entire nation from the shadows. This is exactly the kind of real-world thriller that cinema rarely gets to tell. A fictional lens on one of the 21st century’s most consequential political relationships had every reason to be urgent, gripping, and vital. The problem, as critics quickly found out, is what happened when that story reached the screen.

Jude Law as Putin political thriller 2026 film

Too Much Talking, Too Little Drama

Director Olivier Assayas, who co-wrote the screenplay with award-winning author Emmanuel Carrère, is no stranger to ambitious political storytelling. His miniseries “Carlos” (2010) electrified audiences with a kinetic portrayal of Venezuelan revolutionary Ilich Ramirez Sanchez. His work on “Wasp Network” (2019) tackled Cold War espionage with real assurance. “The Wizard of the Kremlin” feels like neither of those films. The movie runs 136 minutes and spends a troubling amount of that time with characters explaining Russian history to each other in drawing rooms and on lavish sofas. Multiple critics described the experience as sitting through an animated Wikipedia article. The structure, built around chapter headings and a flashback framing device between Baranov and a fictional American journalist played by Jeffrey Wright, never settles into a natural rhythm. What the film needed desperately was more action and less explanation. There are brief moments where the political stakes feel genuinely high. Each time they appear, the film retreats right back into conversation. Assayas himself told press at Venice that he envisioned the film as “an exploration of the foundation of the modern political world.” That ambition is real. The execution simply does not match it.

Jude Law Is Brilliant and Barely Present

Here is the film’s deepest irony. Jude Law’s portrayal of Vladimir Putin is, by near-universal agreement, the single best thing in “The Wizard of the Kremlin.” His casting was confirmed in January 2025 and the performance more than justified the hype. When the film world-premiered in the main competition of the 82nd Venice International Film Festival on August 31, 2025, it earned a standing ovation of nearly 12 minutes. The film also earned a nomination for the Golden Lion. Law captures Putin with a cold, quiet stillness that is genuinely terrifying whenever he appears on screen. Critics at The Observer noted Law is “terrific” and generates “a choking sense of ominous tension” in every scene he occupies. His physical transformation, built around a specific haircut and carefully studied mannerisms, drew praise even from reviewers who were otherwise frustrated with the film. The painful problem is that Law’s Putin is barely in the movie. The sections without him are almost universally described as dull and listless. For a film that promises to explore the making of Vladimir Putin, allowing the actor playing Putin only an extended cameo is a fundamental structural failure. Alicia Vikander also steals every scene she appears in as Ksenia, the one person Baranov cannot manipulate. She too vanishes from the film far too quickly. Here is a snapshot of how the main cast landed with critics:

The Paul Dano Debate Gets a New Chapter

Dano’s performance in this film arrives at an unusually charged moment for the actor. In December 2025, Quentin Tarantino appeared on The Bret Easton Ellis Podcast and called Dano “the weakest f–king actor in SAG,” attacking his work opposite Daniel Day-Lewis in “There Will Be Blood.” The comments exploded across social media and ignited immediate industry outrage. George Clooney, Reese Witherspoon, and Ben Stiller all publicly defended Dano in the weeks that followed. At the Sundance Film Festival in January 2026, Dano finally addressed the firestorm, telling press he was “incredibly grateful that the world spoke up for me so I didn’t have to.” His co-star Toni Collette was far less measured, saying of Tarantino, “He must have been high. Who does that?” The controversy matters here because it placed Dano under an unusually sharp spotlight heading into this release. The verdict on his performance is more complicated than either his defenders or his critics expected. Dano is not struggling in this film because he lacks talent. His work in “Prisoners,” “Love and Mercy,” and “The Batman” proves exactly what he is capable of given the right material. Here, the screenplay never gives Baranov a genuine emotional core. The character exists almost entirely to explain things to other characters and to serve as a passive observer of history. With pages of exposition to deliver and almost no room for real acting, even a performer of Dano’s caliber hits a wall. The numbers reflect the overall disappointment. The film holds a 46% critics score and a 55% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. Some viewers walk out genuinely engaged by its political ideas. Others, according to multiple reviews, walked out wishing they had seen a proper documentary instead. That may be the film’s most damning critique of all. Every time real archival footage of the Soviet collapse or Yeltsin-era chaos appears on screen, the fictional story around it shrinks by comparison. The real history is more gripping than the story written on top of it. “The Wizard of the Kremlin” is not a worthless film. Jude Law’s Putin alone makes it a worthwhile watch for anyone serious about understanding how a KGB man remade an entire country in his image. The film also carries genuine visual elegance, shot in Riga, Latvia, and produced by Gaumont with France 2 Cinema. But it is a film that had every possible reason to be great and settled for something far below its own potential. With Russia’s war continuing to reshape the world and the real story of Vladislav Surkov still waiting to be fully told on screen, the frustration goes deeper than a mixed review. A story this urgent and this timely deserved filmmaking that matched its moment. Have you seen “The Wizard of the Kremlin” yet? Do you think Dano was the right choice for Baranov, or did the film need a completely different approach? Share your thoughts in the comments below.