Medieval

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)

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. (09/07/2022)

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. (11/19/2022)

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)