Change Your Image
kosejkbar
Reviews
Black Clover (2017)
Shaky start but it's worth it!
I'm bot gonna lie, first few episodes were rough. Asta's yelling was incredibly annoying, Yuno was just like plain bread and it all felt like cheap Naruto knock-off. But, as the protagonist would say "Not yet, not yet!"
Don't give up on Black Clover. It gets better. It gets so much better.
The storyline is actually really well done and seems well thought-out. The characters are interesting and the side characters get plenty of not only backstory, but development as well. Way more than they do in Naruto or Bleach, or MHA. They actually react and change.
The fights are interesting and the magic system doesn't feel like it intentionally overpowers certain characters. They are all shown to be training and struggling and growing.
The later arcs (not gonna tell much to avoid spoilers) have some mature topics to think about. In overall; being at episode 120, it's a solid, well done shounen.
The animation is not the best there is, but it's pretty consistent and well done.
Shout out to amazing openings. Seriously, all of them are good.
Medieval (2022)
Close to home and yet unexpected
I'll start by sayinfgthat my viewing of the movie might have been biased by one simple fact - I am Czech, so the story of Wenceslav IV. (Václav IV.), his brother Sigismund (Zikmund) and especially that of Jan Zizka is more than familiar to me. I had to know all dates of his battles in high school, that level of familiar.
However, the story of Zizka we are taught is more connected with a character that was pretty much only mentioned in this film - Jan Hus. Zizka's battles following this story were pretty much the core of Hussite wars, which followed the burning at a stake of Jan Hus in 1415, orchestrated by Sigismund and the church.
Ahem, back to the film.
I am usually pretty vary of films made by Czech producents, but this one has surprised me. Pleasantly.
The level of detail to the atmosphere and sets of the period, to how the characters looks, to the battles and the gore of it all, is looks amazing. It reminded me of Game of Thrones (not to mention Henry of Rosemberg (Jindrich z Rozumberka) being an embodient of Littlefinger).
I also liked the way they portrayed Zizka, and Václav, and Zikmund, although Václav could be weaker and Zikmund meaner. I especially loved that they included some of Zizka's military tactics, because that's what he's famous for (the cart barrier, the singing, the homemade weapons). They even portrayed him losing an eye (he did lose both towards the end of his life). I think Ben Foster and other actors did an amazing job.
What I did not like is the level of exposition. Now. I understand that people outside of Czechia, and especially outside of Europe, might not know about Charles IV., his sons, the catholic schisma etc.
And I know this story takes place before the Hussite wars. However, I think the dimension of the whole protestant movement was already present there and should have played a bigger part in the conflict while the whole politic dimension was not portrayed in the best way. I think motivations and conflict between the two brothers, and how Hus and subsequently Zizka entered into that confiict, could have been potrayed better.
Another thing, although this may have been greatly influence by me already knowing the story of Hussite wars, was the timeline. Now, the thing is, not much is known about Zizka before the Hussite wars. However, I think he developed majority of his tactics during that conflict, not before. Even the song you can hear them singing, "Ktoz sú bozí bojovníci" is strongly and inherently tied to the hussite movement, which is mainly missing from the film.
So the movie Zizka sort of ends up being a mixture of pre-hussite and hussite Zizka.
However, all that said, if you do not look at the movie as a true story of Jan Zizka, and you just look at it as a period piece, a medival Europe movie, I think it's fine. The politics and the motivations could be better showed rather than told by narrator, but solid 8/10 overall.
Free Guy (2021)
Enjoyable cinema flick for video games and Marve fans
I will start by saying I went to see this movie with no expectations other than liking Ryan Reynolds. I haven't even see the trailer or other cast (which was a nice surprise, I really enjoyed Joe Keery in Stranger Things).
Therefore, I was very pleasantly surprised. The movie is very enjoyable, the premise is rather interesting and it's pretty well done. Are there some cliches I'd avoid? Yes. Is it a bit predictable? Yes. Does it worsen your movie experience? Not at all, I still loved it.
The one downside I could name is that the movie is not for "wide audience".
Don't get me wrong, people not familiar with video games and how they work (GTA, The Sims, Fortnite, or in general) and popular movies (MCU, SW) can still enjoy the movie, but some of the best jokes may be lost on them.
Another interesting thing is that even a rather "goofy" movie like this one reminds you of the very interesting topic of growing importance - the AIs. What's the role of the AIs in the future society? How will we know they are truly self-aware? Do they get some basic rights if they are? The only recent piece of media I can think of that dived into this topic more than this movie was the Sword Art Online: Alicization and War of Underworld seasons (which I thorougly recommend).
In overall; this movie was fun and a pleasant surprise.
Leonardo (2021)
Don't expect accuracy and you'll really enjoy this
I've watched the first episode and I must say that, even as a Leonardo da Vinci enthusiast who is very nitpicky about history, I likes it.
Sure, don't expect a documentary. Don't expect a accurate account of maestro's life.
But expect a truthful depiction of what Da Vinci represented in his period and in the art history.
There are many things that are very different from know history:
- Leonardo was much younger when the story with Verrocchio and the angel took place
- he was also very light-haired
- the whole murder thing is made up. Leonardo was detained, but for sodomy
- Caterina da Cremona is made up
- I could probably continue
But that's not important. No one who read the synopsis or watched the trailer and knew a bit about Da Vinci could possibly expect accuracy. This is fiction, made for entertainment. And it's a pretty well done. It's goal is not to tell what Vasari wrote about Leonardo. It's goal is to entertain us with story about a person who we all know and yet no one really does. And I think it does it very well.
Supernatural: Inherit the Earth (2020)
Did Chuck write this??
Is this a version of Chuck's ending that Becky described in 15x04?
Climax is a little stale.
No (almost none) classic rock.
No one even (barely) mentions Cas.
This episode felt flat, rushed, and too easy. Way to easy for them to defeat God. It followed immediately after a very defeating, high-stake situation filled with utter Despair and yet failed to deliver anything but "Winchesters win by default" episode.
Coupled with distinct lack of any dimension to Michael's and Lucifer's and Jack's character, this episode was everything that was wrong with early seasons of Supernatural.
Supernatural: Carry On (2020)
Good concept with terrible execution that destroys major themes of the show
When a show ends after 15 seasons (and 15 years), you do logically expect the finale to present a closure that ties into the story's primary narrative.
Supernatural 15x20, titled aptly "Carry on", really failed.
While the concept itself, aka Dean and Sam reuniting in Heaven with everyone they lost is very good, the way the show went about reaching that conclusion is an anticlimatic mess with loose ends, illogical characterization and too many question to be answered.
One of the main questions is what happened to "we don't leave family behind" and "family don't end in blood", which were recurring themes of the show. After defeating Chuck in 15x19, Sam and Dean easily accept the fact that they lost everyone. While Jack going away due to him becoming God is understandable, Dean and Sam completely ignoring any possibility of saving Castiel; or contacting Eileen, or even Charlie, is something so much out of their characters it hurts. The Winchesters abbandonding their family to "enjoy their freedom" is an absolute defecation on their previous character arcs and developments, more so after how losses of Eileen and Cas have been potrayed throughout earlier seasons (especially Cas) and in 15x18. Eileen should be alive by the start of 15x20 and Cas have gotten out of the Empty before, so the Winchesters barely mentioning over pie that they "miss him" like there was nothing they could at least try is a huge failure to address their "found" family's fates.
When it comes to fates, we encounter probably the biggest issue of the series finale. After their win in 15x19, Sam and Dean are, for the first time, free to do whatever they want.
So they do nothing differently. We don't see almost any hints of direction these characters intend to go. They live in the bunker, they hunt. And while we can make out tiny snippets of "what could have been", such as Dean's dog and job application, the episode portrays them as content in life they explicitly hated before. And then the most mundane hunt goes wrong.
During the show, we've seen them face everything from ghosts, demons, wendigos, djinns and pagan gods to witches, angels and the God himself. The "last" monsters they hunt are vampire mimes. Let that sink in.
Dean dying on such a hunt, in the most random way imaginable, is just plain disservice to the character at this point. While accidents like his do happen, they really expect us to believe that both Dean and Sam are "okay" with Dean dying like that, with him not getting chance to live his life he fought for, with him leaving Sam to grow old alone.
That doesn't make sense. Dean might have had a death wish at certain times, but he finally had a chance at future he earned, that he could finally want. And yet he dies.
So much for free will.
The most story-faithful part of the episode is Sam settling down; having family, growing old. That's something he has always wanted and I can truly see him doing this, especially with Dean gone.
Then there's Heaven. Jack's Heaven is basically paradise on Earth. That's a good thing.
And while I understand that due to covid restrictions, the cast was limited, it still felt like a huge disservice to have Dean talk only to Bobby.
If they could only have him meet 1 person on screen, it should've absolutely been Castiel.
Not only he sacrificed his life for Dean, he also helped rebuild that exact Heaven, and up to that point his fate has been unclear.
If we also consider the fact that Misha Collins and his angel character were one of the main reasons the show managed to get 15 seasons, not having Castiel in the finale felt like a huge blow go the fans, to the character, and to Misha Collins.
There's so much more that's just wrong with the episode, a lot of which stemms directly from the underwhelming season finale (15x19).
While I do see the challenge of giving closure to characters who have been dying almost every season, this episode was a huge disappointment to a lot of dedicated fans of the show.
The finale managed to either ignore or completely defenstrate the themes and characters it was centered around for the past 10+ years.
They did have all the tools and narrative to create impactful, emotional and memorable series finale, and they completely missed the mark.
The only thing saving the episode were the brilliant performances of Jensen Ackles and Jared Padalecki, who have proven numerous times that great acting can overshadow terrible writing.
But it didn't this time.
If you have only watched the pilot, and then the finale, it'd make sense. Dean dies on a hunt, Sam returns to picket fence life he wanted.
Therefore, this episode is guilty of throwing out 15 seasons of beautifully crafted character development, characters and their dynamics, lore and the actual legacy of the show.
Supernatural is amazing, but this episode doesn't do it any justice and any fan should avoid it.
Anthropoid (2016)
Proud to be Czech
As a Czech, I was thrilled to see that foreign director decided to film this famous part of Czech resistance history.And I was not let down.
Thruth is, I am not sure how not-czech people react to this movie or what they expect. Like I said, I'm Czech, so the whole Anthropoid story is well known to me from school. But I was pleasantly surprised how much detail they actually included - the location, the characters, the events - they are really accurate.
I never saw 50 Shades of Grey, but I must say I might watch other Dornan's movies, because he was brilliant as Jan Kubi, he made a person out of a martyr's name in my history notes. Other actors were brilliant as well, even the Czech ones (which I know from obscure Czech movies or soap operas). The story was well introduced with a solid build-up and good climax (although, again, I knew very well how the story ends). The setting and costumes were so truthful, it was like a time machine. I also appreciated the Czech words and signs and songs and generally, creating a Prague of 1940's that actually feels like Prague.
The only thing I did not really like was how they incorporated love stories into the movie - not only it was NOT historically accurate (Gabčík had a girlfriend whose name was Anna Malinová)but it was also a little too forced. But I understand they needed to "make characters more human" whatsoever. The other thing was they did not give us a conclusion - how the whole Haydrichiada happened, what happened to their families, what happened to Čurda. They also put too a little emphasis on the REAL meaning of assassination and the reason behind it. But, frankly, foreigners probably don't care about petty details and the story itself feels rather whole and well explained.
As a Czech, I'm proud that we can show we fought during the was(and God knows we need something to be proud of), so THANK YOU for watching this movie. It's worth it.