Jan Žižka
Medieval
Reżyseria:
Petr JáklZdjęcia:
Jesper TøffnerMuzyka:
Philip KleinObsada:
Ben Foster, Sophie Lowe, Michael Caine, Til Schweiger, Matthew Goode, William Moseley, Roland Møller, Karel Roden, Werner Daehn, Kevin Bernhardt (więcej)Opisy(1)
Gdy Cesarstwo Rzymskie pogrążone jest w chaosie, a królowie toczą walkę o kontrolę nad pustym tronem, nieustraszony Jan Žižka wyrusza na walkę z korupcją i chciwością arystokracji. Wkrótce zdaje sobie sprawę, że los Imperium nie leży w rękach królów, ale jego własnych ludzi. (Cineman)
Materiały wideo (10)
Recenzje (12)
The whole acting ensemble has strong potential. Ben Foster is perfect as Jan Žižka; each of his looks and statements has spirit and balls. The emotions and the simple yet sufficiently dramatic and action-packed story also work well. The film’s harshness and high level of testosterone are surprising, and the high-quality instrumental soundtrack is pleasing. However, the film is dragged down to the level of mediocrity by its directing, which in some scenes is reminiscent of cheap TV trash. For example, in the scene involving the kidnapping of the fiancée, utter cluelessness is on display in terms editing and clarity of what is happening and how. And there are several similar moments in the film. I applaud Petr Jákl for having the balls and ambition to fulfil his boyish dreams, but even he must see that sticking with producing and entrusting the directing to, say, Ron Howard would have had a different result.
()
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.
()
Medieval, dark, violent, brutal CARNAGE!!! If you're well-read, bookish, superior to everyone else, and a critic, you will not enjoy this film. Everyone else can look forward to proper and uncompromising medieval carnage, which has little competition in this respect even in the world. It's one of those movies that critics will hate and normal people will love. The story isn't the strongest point and I'm glad that Jakl didn't serve up a historical drama but concentrated on action, atmosphere, violence and nature. There is a lot of effort to please Hollywood and I understand and respect that completely. If there were 20 such films a year coming out in the Czech Republic, I could understand the local bitterness, but the first film of its kind made in this country, which we finally don't have to be ashamed of in the world, certainly doesn't deserve the kind of dirt that is being heaped on it. Personally, if I meet Mr. Jakl on the street, I will shake his hand and say that he is amazing for what he has done and I respect him greatly. I appreciate very much that he chose the most attractive settings in our region to show the whole world how beautiful our nature is. (the Adrpašské rocks, the Velká Amerika quarry, Czech Switzerland, Prague and many of our castles, deep oak forests and lakes); nature lovers will be squirming in their seat with delight. The casting is good too, with Ben Foster as Žižka being a likeable character and I trusted the lead just fine, but Roland Møller wins here. I personally stand by my opinion that a great villain is more important than the protagonist, and in this case Jakl couldn't have picked anyone better than Møller. The guy was born for villain roles (I wouldn't be surprised if he's a bastard in real life too, because he has the chops for it), his previous films R, Northwest, Papillon, Land of Mine, are exemplary proof. He's steals every scene, he commands respect, he's evil and you wish him dead. I also enjoyed Matthew Goode, who played a sleazy snake, Sophie Lowe as the only female character, but she's a wonderful, strong female character who also cares about emotions, and Michael Caine can put a smile on your face even in a small space. The Czech actors don't have as much space, you could say they are rather cameos. I liked that Jan Žižka was aptly portrayed as a dude through intrigue and subterfuge (the great combat strategy and battle tactics work nicely). I also liked the cinematography and the atmosphere of the time is captured very believably. It's dirty, brutal, uncompromising, raw and very naturalistic (even the tits!). It’s reminiscent of a recent Northman. The gore is of a very high standard with severed heads and limbs, slit throats, blood splashing in all directions, especially on me, so that the euphoria reaches a climax. I screamed in delight at the lion scene, it was such carnage that I immediately thought of the tiger from Army of the Dead. Hats off, that was one hell of an epic scene. I was also pleased with the wonderfully epic battle during the action scenes, which fit perfectly and added to the tension. How historically accurate the film is I have no idea, and only idiots can complain about itit, but I had a great time. 8.5/10
()
(mniej)
(więcej)
When I came out of the cinema, I was so resigned. I wanted for Jan Žižka to be a good film, and I wished it for myself. But two days passed and the situation changed a bit. Well, enough. I don't really know what to praise about Petr Jákl's latest film, but I also can't say I suffered with it. Overall, it's "just" not very good. Honestly, the twenty-three million dollar budget doesn't show in the result, but that's the least of the problems. The bigger problem is the awfully cluttered fight scenes, but the worst by far is the actual presentation of the story. Sod historical accuracy, whether the armor is period appropriate, that sort of thing. Of course, the fact that Žižka is a woefully flat character with no working motivation and Ben Foster spends most of the time floundering is already a problem. As is the entire second half, which consists more or less of running around the woods, swapping prisoners and looking for someone who just hid somewhere. I can only praise Roland Møller's villain, but the rest is mediocre at best, lacking directorial ideas, an interesting story and anything else that would be worth paying attention to. A Czech big movie of Hollywood standards this is certainly not.
()
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.
()
Reklama