Medieval

Jakl really needed the help of renowned historians for this action-packed tale of running around in the woods? Well, fuck me Žižka! It looks as dull as the American The Pagan Queen did 14 years ago. There are basically only four alternating locations: a forest, the chapel with Sigismund, a cave and the quarry of Great America, and the one (!!!) nice visual effect shot in the whole film (the arrival of Boreš in medieval Prague) doesn't save the overall cheapness of it all. I used to think that Jakl is at least a skilled producer who can generate bags of gold, but I'm starting to doubt that too. Ironically, I'll add that his highlight so far is the blood-curdling screaming in Pterodactyl, where at least he was fun. PS: Fuk can't be taken seriously anymore, he's getting more and more ridiculous. (11/06/2022)

Petr Jákl's Jan Žižka is (and will be) one of those films that divides audiences into several (Hussite?) camps in terms of their reception. I went to the cinema with lukewarm expectations, as there were several factors that didn't exactly play into the film's hands – in short: a cast of international stars in the most expensive Czech film about our most famous warlord, and the whole thing is helmed by a former judoka and stuntman. But I was pleasantly surprised by the result. Yes, you have to turn a blind historical eye, even if Jákl "cheated" by focusing on an unknown phase of Žižka's life, but it is still a solidly made historical co-production that can stand comparison with (purely) foreign films of the same genre. From a technical point of view, it is a decently crafted piece of filmmaking with more than one raw moment, and the film visually benefits from beautiful Czech locations and castles. In terms of screenwriting, it's broadly in keeping with the genre, so you shouldn't expect any deep dialogue or breathtaking plot twists. I was quite pleased with the cast. Ben Foster took up the mace with honour and the fictional character of Lord Boris (though the title is not accurate) played by Michael Caine also impressed me. Perhaps it was my momentary state of mind in the cinema, and quite definitely it was the fact that I come from Přibyslav, the place where Jan Žižka died, but Jakl's tribute to heroism just suited me. Three and three-quarters stars! PS: I never expected to see a lion in a Czech historical film. But on the other hand - why not? (09/14/2022)

After years of promises and media hype, it's here! And within five minutes of watching it, everyone would rather just forget about it. I suppose nobody had much expectations, but I was hoping for at least an enjoyable portion of filmmaking. What I got instead was a grinding grey amateurish borefest, full of the most tedious pathos and jaded actors' faces. Aside from the endless hunt for the macguffin that is the female lead, and a throwaway shot of a three-way that the ruler wants to scheme on, the script offers nothing but a hodgepodge of the most hackneyed movie clichés you can imagine. There’s no characterisation of characters, there are no interesting dialogues, there’s no clear storytelling, there’s no dramaturgy, there’s no pace. Jan Žižka represents the purest grey you could get from the most expensive Czech production. (09/08/2022)

The fact that Jan Žižka doesn't come across as unintentionally funny at any point, as I was a little afraid it would, can be considered a small victory. Production-wise, the film is solid, but it fundamentally fails in its narrative. I just couldn't get into the story. It's opaque both at the level of the dramatic arc of political scheming and at the level of individual scenes, where it would help to understand the who and the where, but we can’t. What works well, though, are the brutality sequences. It could have been a solid 80-minute dirty medieval carnage, but when there were ambitions for a bigger Hollywood movie, alas. By the way, I don't really understand why someone makes a film called Jan Žižka and choose a period in Žižka's life that nobody knows anything about, so the plot is completely fabricated. I'm not criticizing it in the sense that I'm projecting it into my rating, I just don't get it. (10/17/2022)

The Czech Braveheart. From a historical point of view it is completely useless, because we learn almost nothing. The cards are dealt in a moment and then it's just a matter of who cuts off whose hand or head first. The portrayal of any character is basically sporadic, including the main one about whose motives or moral values we know almost nothing. The overall flatness and blandness of the characters is unfortunately not a problem of the actors, but of the director. Petr Jákl fails to take the viewer by the balls and properly draw them into the plot. For almost two hours, the protagonist is either running around in the forest or forging plots in half-ruined castles. If 400 million CZK were spent here, then it must have been primarily on A-list actors and action scenes. And this is also the only aspect in which the director even remotely glances at his famous Hollywood colleagues. Occasionally he manages to get an interesting shot or an action moment that packs a punch. It helps to have a well done sound mix that is top notch, but often it is degraded by the inept editing. The last half hour takes it from below-average to average, and it's the only coherent part of the film that doesn't feel aesthetically cheap and lacking in visual flair, which is a problem with almost every film made in this country. Is it really such a problem to use, for example, camera filters? PS: The love story was absolutely pulled out of thin air. (07/10/2024)