After years of immense admiration for the Cannes Film Festival, which premiered such masterpieces as “Taxi Driver,” “Pulp Fiction,” “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” and “Anora,” I attended the world’s most prestigious film fest for the first time this year! I saw 9 films over the 4 days I was there. This post is one within a series of three Cannes 2026 Recaps, each reviewing 3 films. The following covers “Fjord,” “The Black Ball,” and “We Are Aliens.”
Fjord (Cristian Mungiu, Romania – In Competition)
Half of the reason I went to Cannes this year was to see the latest from Romanian auteur Cristian Mungiu, one of the great cinematic visionaries of the 21st century. His minimalist works feature the most insightful political commentary you’ll find in, I’d argue, all of movie history. Mungiu’s 2007 Palme d’Or winner “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” is of particular significance to me, being one of my ten favorite films of this century. While Mungiu and the Romanian New Wave of which he is a part may not be well known in the United States, I’m positive more attention shall be raised toward them given that “Fjord” has won the Palme d’Or. So, with that preamble out of the way, does it live up to the hype? Not quite.
The film follows the Gheorghius, a conservative Christian family who move from the father Mihai’s (Sebastian Stan) homeland of Romania to the mother Lisbet’s (Renate Reinsve) native Norway. When the progressive Norwegian townspeople accuse these parents of abusing their children, the couple must fight the state itself to safeguard their custody. What I love most about “Fjord” is its bold and scorching political commentary. This is all about the dangers of polarization, and how the radical progressive wing often crosses moral lines in the name of defending the defenseless, without considering the harm they inflict in the process. While this film is certainly not right-wing (Mungiu justifiably never inserts his own political stance), it definitely takes a filmmaker of great confidence and prestige to submit a centrist movie attacking a liberal government to the Cannes Film Festival. The film’s warnings of political division as the radical right and left threaten to tear society in two are desperately needed today.
The performances, as per usual with Mungiu’s restrained style, are quite downplayed, with Mungiu restricting any manipulative storytelling conventions all too often used in Western filmmaking. Yet his cinematography is surprisingly striking here, with gorgeous shots of a society shrouded in ice as avalanche-prone mountains overlook the town. Mungiu perpetuates a sense of doom throughout the film, a feeling of a world about to crumble.
Unfortunately, the film is too cold for its own good. While the politics are compelling, the story and particularly the characters are shockingly dull. No one has any true depth, and instead of feeling like real people they appear as plot devices, tools Mungiu uses to erect the themes without dimensions or personality. As such, I could not emotionally latch onto any of the drama. Furthermore, much of the narrative hinges on a relationship between the Gheorghiu daughter and the daughter of a more progressive family, and this is neglectfully underdeveloped. The pair are meant to be the “heart” of the film, portraying how different political worldviews could and should coexist but are torn apart by intolerant radicals. Yet that relationship is never earned; after one or two scenes they immediately grow an intense bond as if they’ve known each other their whole lives, so that intended heart never actually appears. One cannot buy into a friendship if you cannot understand why they felt a connection in the first place.
I want to revisit this film again before giving it a grade, as it has so much to admire. With a more fresh set of eyes, perhaps I can better appreciate its achievements. As of now, I’ll give it a thumbs up, but only a mild one.
La Bola Negra (Javier Calvo and Javier Ambrossi, Spain – In Competition)
One of the best films (and greatest surprises) at Cannes, “La Bola Negra” was an enrapturing emotional roller coaster, combining the grand David Lean epic with intimate romance. The film jumps back and forth between three timelines centered on young gay men, one set in 1932 as a closeted man seeks casino membership, another (and the most prominent of which) set in 1937 during the Spanish Civil War as a soldier falls in love with a POW, and the final set in 2017 about a historian reconnecting with his family roots. The three plotlines gradually intertwine as the film progresses, resulting in a show-stopping conclusion as the film reaches its thesis of the sacrifices the older generations made so that the future generations may express their sexuality in peace. Not since “Memento” do I remember a film that so seamlessly interweaves what could otherwise be a complicated web of plotlines. You never become confused about where we are or who we’re following.
Beyond its brilliant, carefully constructed screenplay, the direction by “los Javis” is incredible. The film is shot in a 4:3 aspect ratio with curved edges, so the entire picture looks like a historical heirloom passed down from generation to generation. It’s a wonderful example of style serving the story. The cinematography beyond the aspect ratio is stunning as well, with colossal vistas ranging from Hoth-like snowy landscapes to the deep orange hues of war-torn Spain, the entire movie is a feast for the eyes. There’s also something to be said for a film providing this much scale to a queer romance tale. Whether its surrealist sequences or song-and-dance numbers or harrowing action set pieces, “La Bola Negra” feels like a true Hollywood epic. Again, David Lean would be proud.
The only significant flaw here is that the 1932 plotline is the least interesting, but as the film goes on the 1937 and 2017 plotlines are given far more screentime, and the conclusion justifies the 1932 story. I just wish it had a superior hook to it.
“La Bola Negra” is an adoring ode to romance that anyone, across sexuality and gender, can relate to. I found it the most gut-wrenching and uplifting film of Cannes, and I cannot recommend it enough. If you’re someone put off by foreign language films, this is a comfortable place to start.
A-
We Are Aliens (Kohei Kadowaki, Japan – Directors’ Fortnight)
Easily the most boring film I endured at Cannes, Kohei Kadowaki’s “We Are Aliens” follows two schoolboys as they begin as friends and gradually drift apart through their adulthood, due to one being embarrassed by the quirky behaviors of the other. With an inexcusable two-hour runtime, I found this film borderline torturous. In the theater I continuously shifted in and out of consciousness, desperately wanting to stay awake to at least say I’ve seen the film but also infuriated by how lifeless and disengaging it was. The first half focuses on the “cooler” child’s perspective, and he could not be more one-dimensional and obnoxious. The second half focuses on the “weirder” child’s perspective, and he also could not be more one-dimensional and cartoonish. The film tries to have this grand conclusion at the end when they reacquaint as adults, but since I could not sympathize with or even find anything interesting in either character, the emotional punches the film attempted to strike all plummeted flat. Coming-of-age stories live and die on how well the filmmaker develops character. Kadowaki utterly failed at writing compelling character dynamics or growth of any sort, so the film completely fell apart.
D