Janosik: A True Story

Jánošík did not choose the wrong direction and did not make any fundamental mistakes, but unfortunately it runs at half speed and has nothing to offer in terms of story. The script is inexpertly cooked up from legends, often insignificant events and presumptions pulled out of someone’s ass. It lacks a dramatic arc and the ability to engage the viewer (the same goes for the uninterestingly shot action scenes). That is really not a good thing, considering the film’s 140-minute running time. Why then, however, did I find this film pleasant, if a little boring? It has powerful intimate moments that the highwaymen spend with their spouses, you can feel the interplay of the characters with the beautiful Slovak countryside, and the music is more than good in places (not only the poetic melodies, but also the adventure ones). In short, it has the right shape and smell, but a weak framework. And Václav Jiráček might have the right looks, but as for personality, he fails to fill the shoes of the national Slovak hero. Jánošík’s stabbing with a hook is brutal, but it won’t move you like Gibson’s “Freedom!” scene from Braveheart. Three stars, because I gave two to the much worse Bathory. (09/08/2009)

Since 1921, Janosik has regularly returned again and again as the hero of more new films. As if it wasn't enough to always underline technical progress and have all the Janosiks in every stage of cinematic progress - in silent and sound, and in color and widescreen. In feature films and animated. That would be too easy, which is why Jiráček's current face is only in the gallery among the many adaptations that are being made across Central Europe. Today's Janosik is an effort to transcend tradition and set a new direction, but Holland and Adamik's film is too fragmented for that, and the relationship to its famous competition wasn’t handled well. (10/04/2011)

It is nice when myths are debunked, but in doing so, one should not forget about the audience, and when debunking myths, the result should be as close as possible to historical reality. Here, folklore romantics can have their satisfaction and one can only wonder how these bandits enjoyed their outlaw life in the 18th century. Somehow, it escapes attention that it was actually a form of organized crime, that there was dirt, fear, stress, and violence involved. The film itself has not just one or two flaws but fails in the crucial aspects, like the screenplay, which does not create a coherent view of Jánošík as a historical character but rather dissects his sexual life, and it is a succession of genre images that are not always relevant. Action scenes, dialogues, casting (nothing against Jiráček, but Jánošík had to be more charismatic if he wanted to lead a criminal gang)... At times, it was so unbearable that I seriously considered not finishing the film. The final nail in the coffin is the unnecessarily long duration - the almost 140 minutes are truly a punishment for the viewer considering the aforementioned. I have a feeling that the effort to support domestic film and the legend, which has its place in both nations of the former Czechoslovakia, has worked for many users. Overall impression: 40%. (04/06/2011)

If this is "true history", then it is appropriate to feel sorry for Juraj Jánošík in retrospect. His career as a bandit wasn't worth much. It was more like mostly boredom, interspersed with sex and robbery. Yup, just like the movie. Agnieszka Holland meant well (but she also struggled for a couple of years with the filming of the Slovak epic), and unfortunately a lot of things went wrong. First of all, V.J., the main character and an unreal dummy, who is perhaps incapable of a single emotion (except for the whimpering and the final necessarily teary eyes). Furthermore, the story lacks proper memorable moments and is made up of somewhat interesting episodes connected by boring filler. Mention should also be made of the shootouts and muggings, which (except for the opening skirmish) are strange and undramatic. Fortunately, Janosik has a few pluses. The biggest one is the participation of Michał Żebrowski, a great actor and a very likable guy. He is responsible for perhaps the best scenes revolving around his "wife", child and baptism. Another plus would be the pleasant poetic music, the nature (which has nothing to do with the filmmakers' skill, of course) and... And I don't think there's anything else. As I have written several times about other ambition-laden masterpieces: The film should have been either much shorter or much more interesting.__P.S. I never want to see Richard Krajčo in any film again.__P.P.S. But I do want to see Táňa Pauhofová. (08/19/2010)