A review of the movie "Malevich"

Biographical dramas about prominent Ukrainians have become a separate trend in Ukrainian cinema, which seems to have enormous potential: it is both an opportunity to show the world our geniuses and a chance to feel proud of our own culture. And when they announced the movie Malevich, the expectations were really high. Kazimir Malevich is a world-famous artist, the creator of Suprematism, a man whose figure could become the basis for an impressive, multi-layered movie. He is also a man whose genius was appropriated by russians, who everywhere presented Malevich as their artist. Therefore, the film was a good attempt to tell the world who Kazimir Malevich is and whose genius he is.

“Malevich” / “Малевич”

Genre biopic, drama.
Director Daria Onishchenko
Starring Vitalii Azhnov, Oleksii Horbunov, Irma Vitovska, and others.
Premiere September 11, 2025, cinemas

Malevich himself is such a multifaceted figure that there would be enough material for a high-quality biopic. But the closer we got to the premiere, the more I felt that the filmmakers were too carried away with form and experimentation, forgetting about the content. And unfortunately, this is exactly what became the main problem of the movie.

From the first minutes, it becomes clear that the emphasis is not on the person, but on the image. In the film, Malevich looks more like a symbol, an almost mythical silhouette, than a living person with his weaknesses, victories, and tragedies. The surrounding characters are not revealed at all: they utter lines but do not really exist. They are cardboard figures that do not pull the plot along, but simply mark the points necessary for the script. And even when the storylines seem to be gaining momentum, when it seems that the story is about to reveal something interesting, everything abruptly stops, and the topic is no longer raised. As a result, instead of a live movie about an artist, we get a set of scenes that do not add up to a coherent story.

All of this could have been the basis for a strong, dramatic picture. But the film bypasses these moments superficially, does not delve into them much, and moves on with the script. As a result, it seems that the filmmakers were trying to surprise the viewer with strange visual techniques rather than tell a human story.

This is not to imply that there are no interesting directorial finds in Malevich. There are moments when the film comes to life for a moment, such as the scenes where images from Malevich’s paintings go beyond the canvas and begin to interact with the characters. This decision looks unusual, it adds a touch of magical realism to the film and creates a kind of bridge between art and cinema. Sometimes it seems that the film is about to go completely into art house, and these passages really work, because you can feel the inspiration and desire to show something new. Unfortunately, there are not many such moments, but they remain in the memory and demonstrate that the director had potential.

This is a classic example of imperial identity theft. Therefore, even if the film turned out to be controversial as an artistic statement, as a cultural act it worked perfectly. After the screening, many people will learn who Malevich is for the first time, start googling his biography, borrowing books from libraries, and becoming interested not only in Black Square but in his entire career. And in this sense, the painting fulfills its mission of education one hundred percent.

As for the actors, among the generally pale performances, Alexander Novikov stands out as a real discovery. His work gives us hope that a new generation of performers capable of playing serious roles is growing in Ukrainian cinema. But there were also scandals: the participation in the film of Konstantin Temlyak, who was recently accused of domestic violence, caused a wave of outrage. Despite the numerous pieces of evidence against the actor, the director left his scenes in the final version of the film, although, to be honest, without this character and his storyline in general, Malevich would have benefited from it. After all, such decisions affect not only the reputation of the film, but also its perception by the audience, for whom the ethical aspect sometimes weighs more than the artistic one.

The cinematography gives mixed impressions. There are moments when the shots really look beautiful and symbolic, but these are rather exceptions. Many scenes are shot in such a way that the picture does not carry any meaning, and sometimes even annoys with strange editing. The makeup and costumes also do not always stand up to criticism, sometimes knocking them out of the atmosphere. The only element that can be more or less noted positively is the music. It sometimes works as it should, adding to the mood and tension, but even here it is not without failures: some compositions sound as if they were inserted randomly, without any logic.

But they have no function: they don’t reveal the characters, emphasize their relationships, or influence the plot. They are just inserted moments that exist on their own. It doesn’t even look brave, it looks primitive, as if the authors decided that a little nudity automatically makes a movie “more adult.” And this problem is not only with Malevich.

In recent Ukrainian films, the same story is increasingly common: sex for the sake of sex, a scene added because it’s “necessary” and not because it follows from the script. And instead of a dramatic tool, it turns into a cheap move that only annoys. Sex in cinema can be a powerful element that can show the fragility of a character or the depth of relationships between people. But as long as our authors treat it as an attraction, nothing good will come of it.