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)
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.
()
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.
()
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.
()
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.
()
History from a quarry pit. I regularly see better action in the promo videos of my competent fencing buddies. Foster is fine, but the character is so medievally random that I don’t know why I would identify with it at all.
()
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)
Petr Jákl practically confessed his love for BraveHeart in every interview. And that's exactly the kind of film he made, an origin story of Žižka for foreign audiences. From the whole cultural phenomenon, he chose the myth of birth and supported it with great names. Among many foreign actors that Jákl managed to work with, I would especially highlight Til Schweiger, who is exactly the star that has enough appeal to the audience and at the same time is not at all foreign to our cultural environment. That's why his Rožmberk is a feast for the eyes and at the same time the most interesting supporting character. As a whole, the film works, has a lot to offer, it's just simply not a remake of Vávra (or an adaptation of Čornej) and local circles are slightly shocked by that.
()
Forget the clichéd portrayal of the Middle Ages and the historical inaccuracies that abound also in Braveheart, Robin Hood, Kingdom of Heaven and the like, I have another problem: what is Jan Žižka really about? What’s its idea? I got lost in the intrigue of "who, with whom and why", I was bored by the second third of the film, which dragged on enormously without much happening in it, and I wasn't very interested in Žižka's emergence, because there was hardly any of it. Žižka was almost always the same Žižka from the beginning to the end, the routine script didn't provide any big surprises. However, what Petr Jákl the (co)screenwriter failed to do, Petr Jákl the director masked quite skillfully, but also in no revelatory way (the battles, or rather skirmishes, are desperately muddled and sometimes look ridiculous, but for example the scene with the lion is really great), and above all Petr Jákl the producer, who managed to get really, really, really good actors, led by a fine Ben Foster and including Michael Caine, who I never thought I would see in a Czech film, let alone Jan Žižka. In spite of all the criticisms, I have to wish the film success, because it is a revelation in domestic filmmaking in a good sense (I don't want to write like a one-eyed man among the blind), and I would like it to show that Czechs can produce something other than romantic comedies and communist dramas. However, if anyone in our country has managed to make a great film of world quality in recent years, it was Václav Marhoul (and he actually made two).
()
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.
()
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?
()
I understand that shooting a big-budget film about the Hussite Wars would be extremely expensive (almost insanely so). Still, I consider it a cop-out that Petr Jákl placed Yan Sheeshka, Sigismund "The Red Fox," and Henry Rosenberg in a period from which we know nothing about Žižka. Instead of a historical film based on Jan Žižka's true story, it is a pure fabrication, which couldn't go wrong because there is no solid foundation. Anyway, the original title of this film is Medieval, and in this regard, Petr Jákl succeeded. Although historical fencing experts may disagree, I liked the action scenes. What I consider a mistake is that the film was heavily promoted under the title Jan Žižka. With the original title and without historical characters, it could have been an average medieval action flick. To sum it up, the action scenes were the only thing I liked about this film about the beginnings of a future military leader and promoter of jigsaw puzzles made of hay wagons. The story fell flat on me and didn't stir any emotions. Despite the creators' undeniable effort, it left me somewhat indifferent. / Lesson learned: If you plan to shoot a historical or "historical" film, find out the difference between a bow and a crossbow.
()
I was looking forward to the epic Medieval. The trailer promised a dark story with hints of romance. Honestly, you can see that the movie had a big budget and high-quality set design. The actors are easy to watch and do a good job. But that's where the positives end; the rest is pretty worthless. The plot is empty and flat and the script is downright stupid. The characters behave confusedly and nonsensically, while the soundtrack is exaggerated and overly dramatic, absolutely forcing the viewer to experience the movie dramatically. Medieval had the potential to be a dark historical story of European stature, but Jákl served us Hollywood junk, which is over-sweetened, and its stupidity and cheap plot culminate in an unwanted happy ending.
()