Medieval

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). (2022-09-09)

I might be one of the few who gave this film five stars, but I have my reasons. Sure, the story was a bit confusing at first. It took some effort to figure out the medieval power plays and motivations. And yes, the action scenes were chaotic, and it was hard to tell who was winning at times. There are also historical inaccuracies, but considering a respected historian worked on the film, and given the scant details from that era, I'm willing to overlook them. Why? Because Petr Jákl has crafted a compelling story about one of the most important figures in Czech history. The gritty medieval atmosphere is fantastic, and the score, featuring multiple renditions of "Ktož jsú boží bojovníci," is stunning. Shot in a Hollywood style with a strong international cast, everyone delivers excellent performances. Ben Foster as Jan Žižka and Sophie Lowe as Katherine were particularly impressive. Filmed in the beautiful Czech landscape with its historic castles, the movie showcases our country to the world. It's fulfilling to see Czech medieval history brought to life in a way that makes it accessible and intriguing to a global audience. Jákl's effort to sell this film to America is a rare feat, making Medieval a unique accomplishment unlikely to be repeated soon. This film doesn't just tell an important story; it serves Czech heritage on a global stage. For all these reasons, I gave it five stars. It narrates a great tale from our past and does a tremendous service to the Czech national pride. I hope people enjoy it and learn more about the era instead of nitpicking. This film deserves appreciation, not unfounded criticism. (2022-09-11)

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. (2024-07-11)

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. (2022-10-09)

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. (2022-10-17)