LA BELLE ÉPOQUE (2019)

Victor (Daniel Auteuil), sixtysomething, has his life turned upside down the day that Antoine (Guillaume Canet), a flourishing entrepreneur, offers him a unique brand of entertainment. Using a combination of theatrical artifice and historical re-enactment, his company gives its clients the opportunity to delve back into the period of their choice. Victor decides to relive the most memorable week of his existence, 40 years earlier, when he met the love of his life.

There is always something fascinating about the wide array of narratives and stories to be discovered in foreign films. There is an experimental tone to them that Hollywood film studios are not brave enough to take a financial gamble with. The premise alone is titillating, with a unique outmoded response to a common occurrence, integrating modern technology with traditional theatre.

In fact, thanks to the often over-the-top and excessive physical humour on display in the majority of films show at the major cinema chains, it is refreshing to be reminded that comedy can be subtle. La Belle Époque exquisitely lines a dramatic storyline with a thin veil of comedy. Not something that will have you clutching your gut, laughing out loud, but it will frequently give you a chuckle, and keep a smile on your face for the majority of the run-time.

In what is a very relatable story, La Belle Époque revolves around the idea of those caught in the trap of nostalgia. No longer living for their current self, instead, constantly looking back at their past achievements and memories as if one’s life has already concluded. That depressive state of mind that drains the life of an individual. La Belle Époque forces its protagonist to confront change and evolution by recreating past experiences, providing an answer to the philosophical question of what one would do if they could go back in time and relive their youth with their memories still intact.

It is a curious intertwining of stories, with the method of time-travelling escapism having its own story arcs unbeknownst to the protagonist. It opens up a myriad of potential directions for the film to choose from outside of the typical formulaic rom-com direction. Many of the expected tropes are still present in the narrative, but they all have an extra layer of latent possibilities and meanings thanks to these “behind-the-scenes” arcs.

The colour schemes are very effective, with the 1970s scenes bathed in natural greens, and warm yellows and browns, increasing that feeling of nostalgia and comfort. This contrasts the scenes of reality which are often dark with blues, greys, and black, creating a cold, bleak, and detached mood.

The acting talent is exactly that; full of talent. Daniel Auteuil plays our ageing, depressed, male protagonist, Victor, rediscovering his spark thanks to the younger counterpart of his wife, the actress Margot, played by Doria Tiller. If there is one thing that the French do well, it is romance and passion, and the blossoming relationship between Tiller and Auteuil is adorably charming and impassioned. Victor’s wife Marianne, who detests the stale nature of her marriage is well-executed by Fanny Ardant, flippant and foxy, but desperate to recapture her own youth in a different manner.

The real fascination comes from the puppet-master Antoine (played by Guillaume Canet). His motivations are ambiguous, his goals seem kind-hearted, and his methods are downright manipulative and deceitful. Yet, these conflicting tones make his character all the more enthralling as we watch Antoine siting in the middle of his web, feeling for the disturbances in his interactions with most of the main cast. He controls the settings, the people, the interactions, the weather, the music, the lighting. All but one strong mind fall prey to his bidding. 

The level of intricacy and layers upon layers of planning are indicative of his controlling personality as he attempts to constrain and coordinate the chaos. This narrative goes deeper than a regular rom-com, with suspense, tension and more than one double-cross. It doesn’t simply throw a love story at the audience; it generates an intriguing story and mystery that exists outside of the romance. It isn’t so convoluted that it becomes pretentious, but it also isn’t so predictable that it loses the fun, energetic atmosphere. I’ve missed the subtlety of a well-written comedy, and La Belle Époque is definitely going to vibe well with its audience.

La Belle Époque is in cinemas from February 6, 2020

COREZ - CTRL (2020)

CTRL is the first single from the debut album of kiwi electronic artist, CoReZ. Hailing from Auckland, New Zealand, Corez Friedlander is largely known for his technical drumming in the alternative rock and heavy metal genre (most notably with City Of Souls, 8 Foot Sativa, and Fornax Chemica). Expanding into the electronic genres with drum and bass act, The Mechanism, Friedlander has more than wet his feet, now ready to burst onto the scene with his debut solo album.

Just shy of five minutes in length, CTRL slightly varies from drum and bass’ 22-second rule, using 11-second phases to build at a consistent pace, preventing monotony from taking hold until the drop at the 55-second mark, releasing the full energetic and frenetic vibe of organised chaos that is CTRL. From a balance standpoint, the mix has a low-bass output, which keeps everything light and bouncy, until you almost lose hope at the 99-second mark and the bass rolls in with a transition that sends shivers down the spine, thanks to a thick undulating progression.

The elements of the track are well-composed, not falling for the amateur trap of constantly building. Instead, CoReZ wisely chooses his moments to press forward, or recede back. A quantifiably competent first release that hooks you in deeper, the further in you go.

CoReZ' Social Media

Facebook | YouTube | Soundcloud | Bandcamp 

MIDWAY (2020)

On Dec. 7, 1941, Japanese forces launch a devastating attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. naval base in Hawaii. Six months later, the Battle of Midway commences on June 4, 1942, as the Japanese navy once again plans a strike against American ships in the Pacific. For the next three days, the U.S. Navy and a squad of brave fighter pilots engage the enemy in one of the most important and decisive battles of World War II.

A war film is one of the easiest genres to create an engaging film with. The constant threat of death, and the ease with which one can stack the odds against a character to create an "underdog" effect, there is huge potential. That potential is unfortunately wasted entirely in Midway.

Midway starts off on the back foot as its premise follows on directly after the events of Pearl Harbor, meaning it has to provide an exciting perspective on the events that have already been well dramatized by Michael Bay back in his 2001 adaptation. Providing a crash-course (pun unintended) on the attack on Pearl Harbor puts stress on by rushing into the film with a limited time-slot, without any development, and introducing the story of Midway with a very high energy, high-casualty event that creates a precedent that is difficult to maintain.

With a reasonable ensemble cast, including the likes of Ed Skrein, Luke Evans, Patrick Wilson, Woody Harrelson, Dennis Quaid, Mandy Moore, Aaron Eckhart, Tadanobu Asano, and Nick Jonas, Midway has shot itself in the foot, by sharing the spotlight so thinly, that there is little to no character development in the entire film. Despite a run-time of well over two hours, there is so little time spent with the characters outside of the action, that there is no character for the audience to care about. Do we care about the rebel that chews gum? Do we care about the intelligence officer that works too much?  Do I care about the mechanic that isn't afraid of death? Do we care about the wife...who is a wife? No, we do not. The characters are so one-dimensional that there is nothing for the audience to invest in. What makes this so much worse is that these characters are based on real people. No matter the quality of the actors portraying them, with no development, they cannot do the person justice.

The direction of the film tries to manipulate the audience into caring through strong orchestral music and cinematography choices, but the introductions are hollow. It is as if the script was based on a Wikipedia article, with no research done into the actual people involved, something made increasingly apparent in the incredibly cliched dialogue choices. The infantile stereotypes and corny one-liners are outright laughable and do not amount to anything along the lines of character development.

The weak script leads to a very weak narrative structure, with the focus of the film jumping from one event to the next, and literally abandoning storylines that aren't complete, mentioning some of the people in the extensive text epilogue. It gave the impression that it needed to have specific scenes in it, with no regard as to how it would organically reach that point. The lack of experience from screenwriter Wes Tooke is clear, and it is no surprise that this is his feature film debut. With the number of characters that the film focused on, Midway would have been better suited as a mini-series, such as Band of Brothers and The Pacific, allowing time to properly build character depth and motivations.

All that being said, Roland Emmerich is at the director's helm and is well-known for his big action-packed feature films (Independence Day, Godzilla, White House Down, and The Day After Tomorrow). Character development is not usually the top priority in his films with more emphasis on the action set-pieces. There is definitely the odd moment where the battle scenes manage to create suspense and tension, and the number of successful scenes would have increased dramatically if it weren't for the quality of CGI. With many of elements visually looking more akin to a painting than a real plane or aircraft carrier and questionable blending around the actors, it is very obvious when the scene involves a lot of green screen, and that turns out to be much of the film. One cannot help but ask whether the CGI budget was reduced to allow for more big-name actors to be added to the cast.

It isn't all bad. While the script is skeletal in its development, it is surprisingly balanced in terms of its treatment of the Japanese soldiers, not portraying them as heretical villains, but showing compassion and well-considered in their planning, with a huge significance placed on honour. It is also much more realistic in terms of success rates and damage done. There were more than a few sacrifices along the way that didn't pay off, and it creates a much more grounded and believable scenario (if only the visuals match in believability).

Midway somehow managed to turn an interesting story into something forgettable. With CGI that looks like it hasn't improved since Pearl Harbor was released in 2001, and a length run-time that doesn't manage to develop any characters, Midway wastes its ensemble cast on a weak script with cringe-worthy dialogue. There are enough explosions and air-sea battles to entertain a young teenager, but anyone that expects an engaging story will, unfortunately, be left disappointed.

Midway is in cinemas from January 30, 2020

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8553

THE EXTRAORDINARY (2020)

The true story of two friends from different religious faiths who, 20 years ago, created a pair of non-profit organizations for children with severe autism.

The Extraordinary is a rebranded biographical-comedy. A French film originally called Hors Normes, it was called The Specials for English-speaking western audiences, but "special" has become a derogatory word of sorts, thus it was rebranded as The Extraordinary. I mention this purely in case any viewers wish to find out more about the film, as you would have little luck if you Google The Extraordinary.

The world is not black and white; it is comprised of various shades of grey, and there is no greater example than looking at the bureaucracy of various health systems in place around the world. "The Extraordinary" is the story of two men of different faiths working together to help those that the government system has turned their back on. Creating two support programs that the government then attempts to shut down for not following expected procedures. The concept of the general health system turning away the most severe cases, and then chastising those that take on those cases of their own volition, is preposterous.

And yet here we are. The Extraordinary is the real-life story of Bruno and Malik, a Jew and a Muslim (respectively), who run charity organisations; to house and reintegrate those suffering from severe autism, and to train problematic youths into carers of those with severe autism (respectively)[Please note: The closing credits indicate that 5 per cent of the profits made on this film will go directly to the two organisations featured. Do support this film!].

When you see biographical-comedy about autism, instantly that raises red flags in one's mind, but you can put your mind at ease knowing that this is an incredibly respectful film. This is not a film that makes fun of those with severe autism, but it uses dark comedy as it highlights how these people are able to deal with such a large collection of people, labelled as "burdens to society" with little to no financial support from the government. We laugh at the harmless quirks that still prove troublesome in a big city, we laugh at people interfering with Bruno's dating life, we laugh as Bruno is told to stop saying "I'll find a solution", then immediately saying it. It isn't forced humour. It is naturally occurring humour, which combined with a very practical style of cinematography creates an almost documentary-style atmosphere throughout the film.

The acting performances are staggering. There are a number of actors that are portraying people with various levels of severe autism, and it is incredibly convincing and respectful. There is a seriousness to the performances, and it isn't until you see the photos of the actual people in the credits, that you realise everyone in the film were actors. Absolutely powerful and impactful performances. Bruno (Vincent Cassel) and Malik (Reda Kateb) have some great chemistry and charm between them, and it rubs off on the audience. Their ability to always find something to smile about brings a beautiful sense of positivity to the piece. 

While the cinematography, for the most part, looks standard and doesn't try to add too much flair and artificial theatricality to the scenes, there are a number of camera tricks that are used to help the audience, not understand but relate to the struggles of those with severe autism. Through the use of Steadicam when observing Bruno, Malik, and the carers, then switching to handheld cameras when shooting scenes with the autistic patients, the movements and unsteady nature of the camera match the unpredictability of the patients. Often looking at scenes from the perspective of a patient, the camera will be out of focus, showing how scenes that look safe to the audience can be completely foreign, unknown and scary to others, like running through the world blind.

Instead of a clear direction in the narrative, The Extraordinary is more of an observational character study, showing the day-to-day operations of these charity organisations. As such, it does take a while to fully engage with the characters. Once you have, however, you are fully connected with the goal of these carers on an almost spiritual level. You feel every high and every low, you revel in their successes and your breath catches when things go wrong. 

There is no end to the struggle, but there are definitely victories to be had with The Extraordinary. This isn't a story about a specific religion helping those in need. This is a story about good people doing good things. And anyone can be a good person.

The Extraordinary is in cinemas on January 30, 2020

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8511

LIKE A BOSS (2020)

Best friends Mia and Mel run their own cosmetics company -- a business they built from the ground up. But they're also in over their heads financially, and the prospect of a buyout offer from an industry titan proves too tempting to pass up. The beauty business is now about to get ugly as the proposal puts Mia and Mel's lifelong friendship to the ultimate test.

Like A Boss is a female-centric comedy film that mocks all of its straight male characters, is exposition-heavy, incredibly predictable, has cartoonish antagonists (villains would be a better word), and a rather bawdy, indecent sense of humour. And yet I still enjoyed it. There are so many flaws in the way that Like A Boss was created, that your experience with this film will hinge entirely on whether or not you appreciate the style of comedy.

The film stars Rose Byrne and Tiffany Haddish as our main protagonist duo Mel & Mia (respectively), with Billy Porter and Jennifer Coolidge in supporting roles. With a number of other recognisable faces involved, such as Salma Hayek, Karan Soni (Dopinder from Deadpool), and Seth Rollins (the WWE wrestler), there is enough acting talent for a really strong performance. Unfortunately, the script from Sam Pitman and Adam Cole-Kelly is half-baked at best. Byrne and Haddish do a reasonable job giving the impression of being good friends, but the remainder of the performances have the overexaggerated energy of a Broadway show. 

The antagonists are so one-dimensional that a five-year-old could come up with more nuanced character traits. Outside of Billy Porter (whose performance is just the right amount of sassy and flamboyant), the characters are caricatures that lack any real development. This is evident in how exposition-heavy the film is, with characters having to verbally say what they are doing, how they are feeling, and why they are acting a certain way. This level of exposition sharing is not only a poor choice from a cinematic standpoint, but it is one of the main reasons why the film is so predictable. Everything has been spoonfed to the audience. The basic level of the screenplay can be shown by the lack of tension and stakes in the film. This is usually done by proposing a conflict or problem to solve, and stakes will build as the film progresses and the need for a solution becomes more necessary. In this case, though, every conflict is almost immediately solved. Each solution releases the tension that was built up, and the more often problems are solved immediately, the less the audience cares about future problems because there is no longer a challenge, no sense of danger.

And yet I still enjoyed it. Even when you consider the blue nature of the comedy, it is not often that I will find myself laughing at jokes centred around burning poop, yeast infections, women's hygiene regimens, two dogs having sex, or inserting objects into orifices, but there is an added dimension that really helps it work better. There is a dash of self-deprecating humour, which is not so gender-specific, and it is just enough to work some chuckles out of your system if you are in a theatre of like-minded individuals. As a male, I went in with little expectation of being blown out of the water with the comedy, and yet it made me laugh on several occasions. Enough to make me look past the poor script and unrealistic acting performances.

The delivery of the humour is organic and well-executed, however, diminishing returns do become an issue, and as the film progresses, this low-brow comedic style mixed with physical humour starts to garner fewer and fewer laughs, further exacerbated by the films switch to a more "plot-heavy" direction in the second and third act. The physical humour is bottom of the barrel content but luckily is not used too often. The film has a short runtime of 83 minutes, and at times the film feels rushed. This comes back to the lack of character development and the exposition-heavy dialogue which allows events to run through at full speed. This does keep the film moving along at a pace that prevents it from getting too mundane and boring, but it also means there is less time for transitions and does a very poor job at showing time progression. The entire story feels like it takes place over a week, and it isn't until characters specifically mention a timeframe that you realise that several weeks have passed since the previous scene (funnily enough, they manage to use a time card prior to the epilogue). 

There are some nice messages and themes as well that are integrated into the film, that talk about accepting your flaws and shining through your uniqueness, as well as looking at the importance of maintaining healthy friendships and support networks, and the vital need for honest communication for a healthy relationship.

This is no Oscar-bait. This is a simple comedy that throws some low-brow humour together with debatable execution. It was great to see some diversity and women in powerful business roles (without needing to make a thing about it), but the film was let down by a lacklustre script. If the details of why homecoming sex leads to yeast infections sound like a laugh, Like A Boss will be right up your alley. This will no doubt have a limited audience as far as males go, but there is just enough to make the viewing a positive experience.  

Like A Boss is in cinemas from January 23rd, 2020

RICHARD JEWELL (2020)

During the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, security guard Richard Jewell discovers a suspicious backpack under a bench in Centennial Park. With little time to spare, he helps to evacuate the area until the incendiary device inside the bag explodes. Hailed as a hero who saved lives, Jewell's own life starts to unravel when the FBI names him the prime suspect in the bombing.

There is nothing more infuriating for a lower-to-middle class person (such as myself) than watching someone get railroaded for caring and wanting to help people. To see someone persecuted and watch the blind trust they have--that the authorities have their best interests at heart--used against them, dragging their name through the mud. This is the true story of Richard Jewell.

Right out of the gate, we need to show appreciation for Paul Walter Hauser's performance as the titular character, Richard Jewell. Richard is a kind-hearted person that only wants to work hard, and help and protect people. These are super relatable and sympathetic character traits, and Paul Walter Hauser does an exceptional job as this naive, mild-mannered and surprisingly even-tempered man. There is such authenticity in the emotions that he portrays and the goodness in his heart, that the audience cannot help but go along for the ride and hope that things turn out well for the character.

The protagonists are really well portrayed, with some brilliant supporting performances from Sam Rockwell and Kathy Bates. Bates plays Richard Jewell's mother, who is absolutely torn up emotionally at the prospect of losing her son. The real driving force of the film comes from the dynamics and relationship between Paul  Walter Hauser's Richard Jewell, and Sam Rockwell's Watson Bryant. Where Richard has deeply-rooted respect and admiration for all law enforcement personnel, and an irrational willingness to do whatever it takes to help the agencies trying to hang him, Watson is the rational, but outspoken lawyer that has the answers, but has one arm tied behind his back by Richard's own actions. It's these opposing personalities that create a strong buddy-cop dynamic.

The antagonists in the film have much less depth, almost caricature-like, only missing a moustache to twirl, there is little humanity to Olivia Wilde's promiscuous reporter character, nor Jon Hamm's hammy and narrow-minded FBI agent. While attempts were made to give the reporter an arc, there isn't enough content to warrant any form of redemption.

Richard Jewell starts off on the slow side, jumping through time to give a brief backstory of the titular character, before beginning the measured journey towards the bombing. Once that point has been reached, the film's pacing picks up significantly, and not an issue for the remainder of the film. With a 131 minute runtime, Richard Jewell feels long, but never feels too long. Every action, every detail, it grabs your attention. It will make you want to research the event yourself afterwards to verify that the absurd actions actually occurred. There is nothing too flashy from Yves Bélanger in terms of cinematography, and Arturo Sandoval's musical score is very subtle, but the film does have a nice colourful palette that still has a desaturated look to it, which creates a nice period feel (1996 still feels very recent).

Thematically speaking this is the story of how a man was judged by the media and the government before facts were determined, which leads to cherry-picking information that conforms to the preconceived idea. Providing a very detailed visual display of the negative effects misinformation can have on the accused's life (and that of friends and family too). The newspapers were a powerful media form in those days, with their readers trusting everything printed as 100% fact. Nowadays, the transition has occurred to online sources but with that extra accessibility, the damage that can be done by the court of public perception has grown significantly despite the reliability and frequency of misinformation being much higher. With the anonymous nature of the internet, it's timely to have this visual reminder of the effects misinformation can have.

Richard Jewell has a level of injustice that twists your gut, with protagonists that you truly care about. Stellar performances from Hauser and Rockwell make you want to breakdown in desperation, finely balancing the tension and frustration with organic elements (mostly stemming from Richard's naivety and demeanour). The humour manages to diffuse the excess angst and emotion to keep things from getting too dark, while still maintaining a well-grounded story. Look past the non-descriptive film title, because this is well worth checking out. Incredibly powerful.

Richard Jewell is in cinemas from February 13, 2020

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8554

1917 (2019)

During World War I, two British soldiers -- Lance Cpl. Schofield and Lance Cpl. Blake -- receive seemingly impossible orders. In a race against time, they must cross over into enemy territory to deliver a message that could potentially save 1,600 of their fellow comrades -- including Blake's own brother.

The hype machine is in full throttle for Sam Mendes latest piece, 1917. With award nominations and award wins, 1917 has an Avatar-size expectation attributed to it, and one can’t help but think that comes to the detriment of the film.

The specific style in which the film is shot is reasonably well-executed, but the amount of marketing down bringing awareness to the audience has really had the opposite effect in many cases, with members of the audience specifically looking for the points in the film that have been edited to create the style that Mendes wanted. The unnecessary drawing of attention to it ends up taking the audience out of the story, looking for evidence of cuts, rather than focusing on the story itself. I can put my hand up and say that yes I definitely spent a fair bit of time, initially, counting obstructions and lighting changes.

The direction in which the cinematography takes is the most noteworthy feature of the film but is in no way flawless. There are times in which you feel like a third character in the story, following our main two protagonists, following behind them, pulling ahead and looking back, sitting opposite them and looking around, and it is a very visceral experience. This is not a consistent method though, with the camera suddenly pulling away to provide some more categorical cinematography shots, sweeping over mountains and waterfalls, or hovering over waterbodies. All of a sudden it looks gorgeous, but you no longer feel like you are a part of the experience.

The general shooting style that 1917 goes for also brings its fair share of completely average shots with subpar framing; something that is surprising to get from cinematographer Roger Deakins (O Brother, Where Art Thou?, The Man Who Wasn't There, Sicario, Blade Runner 2049, No Country For Old Men, Skyfall). Getting scenes with the protagonists’ heads chopped off by the framing gives the impression of a cinematographer that is being overly restricted by the direction.

There are several scenes that are absolutely exceptional. One of the scenes that was shown in the trailer is one of the best and shows how well coordinated the team can be, with an indomitable score that gives the audience goosebumps. The milk scene plays with perspective beautifully, and the city-run is well choreographed and haunting in its visual flair. These scenes do not justify using that one gimmick for the entire film, however, and one can’t help but feel that some of the potential narrative potentials were lost, purely for the sake of committing to the style.

From a narrative standpoint, 1917 is rather lacking. Our protagonists have very little in the way of backstory; one has a brother, and the other does have some ties revealed later in an off-handed manner. With the mission to go from point A to B in X amount of time, there is not a lot to encourage engagement from the audience. It is another aspect that the film’s direction affects, with the strict chronological linearity preventing a lot of development of the characters. The camerawork following the protagonists combined with the brilliant set designs and attention-to-detail of the costuming does help immerse the audience in the environment, but without character development, the audience does not care about the plight and safety of the protagonist as much as they should.

What the film does do really well, is build tension. With better development it would have been even stronger, but as it stands, the audience can’t help but feel like the protagonists are constantly in peril. A great visual example of Murphy’s Law, if something could go wrong, it will go wrong, and it does effectively keep the audience on the edge of their seat. This isn’t a huge action-packed thriller. There are quiet moments, there are tense times, and there is plenty of silent contemplation. It is a character study, of strangers thrown into a situation they would rather avoid, but stepping up to the plate anyway.

The film has some big names making cameo appearances; from Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock Holmes, Doctor Strange), to Dean-Charles Capman and Richard Madden (Game of Thrones), Colin Firth (Love Actually, The Kingsman), and many more. In all honest, while their acting was fine, it would have been more immersive to have more unknown actors in the roles. Their presence added nothing to narrative.

Overall, it was an enjoyable flick. It works well to create that sense of danger and tension, but falls short when it comes to character depth. It has a gimmick, which creates some magical scenes, but also leads to many less than engaging moments along the journey. While I would consider it a good film, I can see how a couple of the scenes would convince others that this was a great film.

MEETING GORBACHEV (2018)

Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of the Soviet Union, sits down with filmmaker Werner Herzog to discuss his many achievements. Topics include the talks to reduce nuclear weapons, the reunification of Germany and the dissolution of his country.

Meeting Gorbachev is directed by André Singer and Werner Herzog; the former, a British anthropologist and documentary-maker, the latter, a prolific German film and documentary director. Together they have compiled a love letter to Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union before it's dissolution.

Approaching 90 in age, Meeting Gorbachev comes across as a highlight reel, looking at the achievements and accomplishments that Gorbachev has achieved in his political career. Herzog conducts most of the questioning during the interview sessions and does not attempt to hide his reverence for Gorbachev. It creates a very one-sided bias, with Herzog having such a strong, positive perception towards the subject of the documentary. While this lack of objectivity could ultimately be seen as a negative aspect of the piece, the bias is made apparent from the very start, and still has its positive elements.

Meeting Gorbachev does cover the usual documentary angles, covering his early life and upbringing, but it spends the majority of its runtime focusing on his time in the Soviet Party. Much of the focus is on what would globally be considered the big achievements of Gorbachev's reign; the denuclearization agreements between the Soviet Union and the USA, improving relations with the Western World, and the Reunification of Germany. Much time is spent on the reunification of Germany, thanks to Herzog's heritage and his own emotional connections to the event.

Herzog is potentially what prevents Meeting Gorbachev from being a much better documentary than it is. His personal connections create emotional questions that attempt to lead Gorbachev towards specific answers; something that Gorbachev avoids quite frequently. The whole interview component comes across like the president of a fan club interviewing their idol. No mentioning of any negative events (Chernobyl is barely mentioned), nothing but constant praise, and a lot of leading questions that feel overly premeditated as they lack organic flow and progression. It also forms a documentary with little in the way of narrative drive or direction.

The timing of the documentary doesn't immediately feel rightly placed. At least not until the latter half of the feature. Once Gorbachev is able to speak with more freedom about his thoughts on what he accomplished, he opens up on a lot of interesting elements around his role as the middle-man between the Soviet Union and the Western Democratic world. Meeting Gorbachev becomes a peek behind the iron curtain, highlighting how it took two rational leaders that were fully aware of how close they were to nuclear annihilation, to forge an agreement to end the arms race between the Soviets and the US. While no names are mentioned, there is a clear note of concern around the behaviour of certain world leaders currently in power, that are again proliferating their nuclear arsenals.

There is a clear, well-thought-out intelligence in Gorbachev. His ability to maintain an open mind and his clear concern for the people of his own country helped the man to run the gauntlet on many occasions, even managing to beat out a military coup thanks to his popularity. And yet, the man is still reviled by so many and considered a traitor by others. There is a clear sympathy to be had for this man who was looking to ensure that all of his people were well-fed and aiming high for world peace. 

While clearly unbalanced, and narratively wavering, there are few people alive that are willing to talk about the Cold War from the perspective of the Soviet Union. While one-sided in its portrayal, and limited in its sources, it is nonetheless a humanizing perspective and an engaging one at that. 

Meeting Gorbachev is in cinemas from January 23, 2020