The Vourdalak: An Interesting Gothic Tale of Old

The Vourdalak, written and directed by Adrian Beau, is a curious new vision of the classic novella by Alexsy Tolstoy.

The film takes place in a mysterious countryside of Serbia in 1884, filled with lore and superstition.

When an unassuming envoy to the French King, Marquis Jacque Antoine Saturnin d’Urfe (Kacey Mottet Klien), gets attacked by wayside bandits, he is unaware of the oddities and danger he will be forced to face trying to survive.

Life or death?

While wandering the forest at night, Urfe stumbles upon a small abode. He asks the owner (Erwan Ribard) for a horse to continue his journey. The owner tells him he doesn’t have a horse, so he sends him to the house of Gorcha (Adrien Beau), just down the path.

As he approaches, he sees the beautiful Sdenka (Ariane Labed), singing and doing a strange dance amongst the trees. She runs away when she sees Urfe, so he pursues her into the forest. He stumbles into her brother Piotr (Vassili Schneider) instead, and after explaining his predicament, Piotr takes him to their house.

When they arrive, Urfe meets their strange family. Eldest son Jegor (Gregoire Colin), his wife Anja (Claire Duburcq) and their son Vlad (Gabriel Pavie). They all react quietly anxious towards their guest when he asks to speak to Gorcha.

When Jegor goes to speak with Gorcha about the guest, he finds him missing. Piotr tells Jegor that Gorcha left, taking his gun with him, to go and fight the Turks. Jegor is surprised that he “let him go” in his condition and at his age.

When Jegor asks when he will return, Sdenka informs him that Gorcha told them that if he did not return within six days by six o’clock, they should refuse him entrance as he would then be a vourdalak (vampire). That evening happens to be the sixth day and he has not yet returned.

Piotr cautions that they should consider him dead for all intents and purposes, but Jegor calls him silly and refuses to give up.

Um, is it just me?

Oscilloscope Laboratories

When the family joins at the dinner table that evening, Anja spots Gorcha laying at the edge of the forest. Jegor goes to him, picks him up and sets him down at the dinner table.

What they see is a decrepit, emaciated skeleton of the man Gorcha used to be. Though everyone notices how odd he looks, no one says anything, leading to an almost comical scene of banter between Gorcha and the family.

As explained in the story, a vourdalak attaches itself to the ones he cares for, feeding upon them and turning them into vourdalaks as well.

Gorcha amuses his grandson, Vlad (which I cannot figure out why by the look of Gorcha), he becomes the first that Gorcha hones in on. The entire family is now at risk when they take him back in to the house.

Piotr and Sdenka begin to take things in their own hands since Jegor is in complete denial. They enlist help from Urfe to bring down the creature and try to save Vlad and the rest of the family.

Will they be able to kill Gorcha, or, will they themselves fall victim to the monster that Gorcha has become?

in all honesty…

The Vourdalak is a beautifully shot and atmospherically laden film that summons the “ick” factor from scary films of old.

The mood, tone and color of the film is gorgeous, though most of the actors still looked too modern to be believed. Klein’s performance as the bumbling Urfe was on point as a privileged man of court, especially his expectations of women he wants and “peasants”.

Oscilloscope Laboratories

The vourdalak puppet Gorcha, who was wonderfully voiced and created by Beau, is highly imaginative, but seeing it in full light left a lack of suspension of disbelief. Though it does bring a sense of humor, I think the puppet would have been better left to the likes of theatrical plays and odd comedies.

It got to a point of folly when this weightless puppet was supposed to be believed to have thrown a grown man, which could clearly be seen as the fluffy, soft alternative to the real actor. I’m not aware if Beau meant for the comedic tones, but if he was going for the full on Gothic scares, it didn’t help.

I can’t praise enough the eclectic, atmospheric colors, tones and effects that cinematographer David Chillzalet and the visual effects crew brought to the story. It is hands down the best part of the film.

I loved the choices of adding the filters of old school filmmaking woven throughout, as they created an unsettling creepiness that encloses the audience in its clutches.

The set decorations, led by Thibault Pinto, created the exquisite glue that anchored all of that gorgeous camera work and lighting, into 17th century perfection. It gave the show its grit and a bone-chilling backdrop to keep audiences unsettled and enveloped in the 17th century.

Overall a stunning to look at film, with just enough creativity to offset the suspension of disbelief issues and the bits of absurdity from its main villain. It’s a pure delight for those who appreciate artistry behind the scenes.

The Three Musketeers Part Deux: Milady: Every Bit As Good As The First

The Musketeers are back in the second installment of director Martin Bourboulon’s The Three Musketeers saga.

As tensions between the French Protestants and Catholics rise to the point of war, d’Artagnan (Francois Civil), Athos (Vincent Cassel), Aramis (Romain Duris) and Porthos (Pio Marmai) race against the clock to find those responsible for King Louis XIII’s (Louis Garrel) assassination attempt.

Meanwhile the story of Milady de Winter (Eva Green) is explored more deeply, as we get to find out about her past and how her story is woven into the fabric of this intricate tale.

all for love

The story picks up where it ended last, when Constance (Lyna Khoudri), Queen Anne’s (Vicky Krieps) most trusted companion and d’Artagnan’s love, is kidnapped after seeing who was involved in the plot to kill the King.

D’Artagnan, who was also abducted, makes his way free, threatening traitor Le Comte de Chalais’s (Patrick Mille) life if he doesn’t take him to the jail that d’Artagnan believes holds Constance. When they arrive at the cell, the only one he finds is Milady.

D’Artagnan frees Milady and is forced to flee for fear of getting caught, still lacking the information he needs to find Constance, but Milady picks up some coded letters off the desk of de Chalais, which includes the name of the leader responsible for the coup upon King Louis.

Meanwhile, the other Musketeers join the rest of the soldiers at an encampment outside the Protestant city of La Rochelle, awaiting orders to help complete their plan of war.

There they also learn more pieces of the extensive puzzle, and fall to more hidden treachery, while figuring out how Milady and Richelieu (Eric Ruf) are involved, as d’Artagnan believes that they too are possible traitors.

Samuel Goldwyn Films

in all honesty…

Bourboulon’s second installment of The Three Musketeers stands proudly equal to his first.

This time, though there may not have been so many plot points as the first, writers Matthieu Delaporte and Alexandre de La Patellière, start tying together almost everything that was left hanging from the first.

The film itself is darker, so the colors have been tampered down to cold grays and blues, creating a perfect atmosphere for an enclosed, dank, fearful time.

Cinematographer Nicolas Bulduc spends just as much time on creating the most beautiful, masterful shots that wow with picturesque perfection, drawing us closer in to the feeling and sites of the time.

He renders some of the most breathtaking war shots that I’ve ever seen to date. How one renders beauty to war is beyond me. Truly an artistic triumph.

The production design, costumes and sets are pure excellence, adding to the richness of the film and further enveloping us into the world.

Samuel Goldwyn Films

The acting is also enjoyable, though we don’t get to see enough of the three Musketeers, and there is very little new in the development for Porthos and Aramis. Both of them were absolutely delightful in the first and I wish that we had a bit more time with them.

Surprisingly, the story ends on another cliffhanger. Perhaps a third may be afoot?

Overall, you can’t go wrong seeing this, especially on the big screen. Prepare to be delighted and titillated by the newest addition to this wonderful epic.

The Crime Is Mine: A Delightful Comedy Harkening Melodrama Nostalgia

The Crime is Mine, directed and written by Francois Ozon, loosely based on the 1934 play Mon Crime, is a lively and entertaining film with the feel of a stylized melodramatic play. With excellent acting, timing and flow, this film is sure to charm viewers into its light-hearted grasp.

Caught in desperation

Madeleine Verdier (Nadia Tereszkiewicz) is an up and coming actress in 1930’s Paris. She and her roommate Pauline Mauleon (Rebecca Marder), a young up and coming lawyer, share a tiny, broken down flat. With rent that is months overdue, and Madeleine’s career at a standstill they are both desperate for prospects.

Madeleine is invited to seedy producer Montferrand’s (Jean Christophe Bouvet) mansion to “discuss” a possible role for her. While she is there she finds, like many young actresses, that he is only interested in having her as a sexual mistress.

After fighting her assailant off, she returns home to more bad news about past due bills only to have her boyfriend Andre (Edouard Sulpice), stop by to tell her that his wealthy father M. Bonnard (Andre Doussolier) is insisting that he marry into another wealthy family. He also discusses having her as a mistress so they can still stay together.

Frustrated that she doesn’t have any other prospects to help her, she overdramatically muses taking her own life with her pistol. Pauline talks her out of it believing there is a less permanent way to proceed.

When they are visited by M. Brun (Regis Laspales), a local detective, and told that Montferrand has been murdered, Madeleine becomes a suspect.

Murder is a good thing?

Music Box Pictures

The story takes a twisted turn when Madeleine finds out that she cannot be put in jail for killing someone in self defense. With Pauline representing her in court Madeleine makes a desperate plea, accepting responsibility for Montferrand’s death.

When she is acquitted, she becomes a shooting star, seen by others as representing purity and a model of a woman who refuses to put up with attacks by sleazy men. Her fame soars and she and Pauline finally enjoy the life they were hoping for.

When Odette Chaumette (Isabelle Huppert), an out of work older actress comes to them claiming that she was the actual killer and wants compensation from Madeleine’s fame, Madeleine faces another unexpected challenge.

What is the truth? Will Madeleine’s fame be stolen by a blackmailer or will she have to confess to a story that may or may not be true?

in all honesty…

Music Box Films

The Crime Is Mine is a funny, beautifully charismatic film, full of brilliant characters, gorgeous costumes and captivating production design.

Everything, from the acting, writing, costuming, pacing, editing and scenic design, seemed absolutely effortless. It never drags, bores or overcompensates. Because of the harmonically orchestrated craft and collaboration by the artists involved, there is not a single frame that doesn’t belong.

The protagonist Odette Chaumette has such a hilarious stint that she doesn’t even feel like a true “villain”, and Dany Boon plays an absolutely charming Fernand Palmarede, who becomes a mentor and father figure for Madeleine.

Also want to shout out Pascaline Chavanne, Constance Allain and their entire crew for such superb, impeccable costume designs and wardrobe, and also the artists behind the sets and set dressing. Their combined efforts really brought to life the times in such a sumptuous, romantic way.

This exquisite film that you’re sure to relish is available on BluRay, and streaming on most major platforms in the U.S. It is such a pleasure and rarity to come across films such as this in my profession. I hope you like and support it.

Enjoy!

The Taste of Things: A Gorgeous Celebration of the Art of Cooking and Love

The Taste of Things, starring Juliette Binoche (Eugenie) and her real life ex, Benoit Magimel (Dodin Bouffant), is a story of a celebrity chef and his cook, that have worked together and been lovers for 20 years. Directed by Ahn Hung Tran, the story is set in 1889 France in Dodin’s beautiful manor home, where both he and Eugenie spend nearly every moment creating culinary art in his rustic kitchen.

the perfect mix

When the film opens we see a breathtaking montage of Eugenie, Dodin and their helpers creating a feast for the dinner party that Dodin is hosting for his closest friends. It delves into the hard work, knowledge and craft that professional chefs endure to manifest the most exquisite sensorial, palate pleasing experience.

It is clear that Eugenie and Dodin are masters of the kitchen and amazing teachers to Violette (Galatea Bellugi), the housemaid and her young niece Pauline (Bonnie Chagneau-Ravoire), who may very well be a natural savant in the kitchen . Director Anh Hung Tran and crew, create an effortless looking scene that flows back and forth and doesn’t miss a beat.

As the film continues, we learn that Eugenie and Dodin’s relationship is deeper than it appears. Dodin has spent many years asking Eugenie to marry him, but she denies him every time saying that she retains more independence and decision making by staying single. which, in that time, definitely holds true.

When Dodin gets the invitation of a lifetime to dine and then cook for a Prince, everyone is over the moon. Unfortunately Eugenie hides an illness that is causing her pain and may interfere with their work and their relationship.

When Eugenie refuses his hand in marriage yet again, he decides to create a meal especially for her, using all of the right ingredients to impress her, in the hopes that she will finally accept him.

IFC Films

in all honesty…

The Taste of Things, even though lighter on story, is an exquisite film celebrating art, love and cooking.

It was fascinating watching the creation of all their dishes especially while using less culinary technology than we have today. Everything was done with equal parts perfectionism and love. It was a time when our quick cooking gadgets weren’t available and the beauty in taking one’s time to make everything from scratch.

Dodin has his own garden in his back yard and everyone uses only the freshest ingredients, sourced locally and from far away. The richness of this tradition is far lost on society today where the mentality is “faster is better”. No chain restaurants today come anywhere near the wholeness and the sublime natural ingredients done in days past.

Juliette Binoche is beautiful as always, and such a perfect addition to this film.

Her Eugenie is earnestly devoted to craft and is earnestly independent from the rules of the patriarchy and being “owned” by a husband. Though you can see that she loves Dodin, she does it through the perspective of clarity, knowing exactly who she is and what she wants to do.

Dodin is naturally drawn to her because of her self respect and how different she is than most women. Eugenie does what she can to remain useful and also keep the mood light surrounding her unfortunate mystery illness. Binoche herself has never married and I find that remarkably admirable.

IFC Films

The sets and production design are impeccable and the flow of the moving shots sets you under a spell of sorts as it takes you dancing across the screen. The rustic kitchen was absolutely stunning and I enjoyed every second of being in it.

Couple that with breathtaking countryside cinematography from Jonathan Ricquebourg and you’ve got a recipe for a moving symphony.

I do wish that there was more to the story regarding Dodin and Eugenie’s relationship. As it is, we only get to see some rather topical events that happen between them, but it is impossible not to love the film and its characters.

It’s a refreshingly delightful replacement to all of the loud CGI debacles out there now and I highly recommend it to those who want to watch true artistry in motion.

The Three Musketeers: Part 1: D'Artagnan: An Exceptional Reimagining of a Classic

The Three Musketeers Part One, directed by Martin Bourboulon, is another reimagining of Alexandre Dumas’s classic book. This time, the film focuses on young D’Artagnan (Francois Civil) and his passion for and journey to become an official Musketeer.

Though one might think with all of the multitudes of remakes out there, how could this be any different? Hold on, because you are in for a beautifully crafted, raucous ride with a plethora of impressively well crafted, interwoven story arcs.

Follow your heart

The film begins with a dirty, disheveled D’Artagnan, who is on his way to Paris to answer a call for Musketeers. He encounters, what looks to be a robbery of a noblewoman, and, being an honorable man, fights to protect her.

He bests the men who are trying to pull off the “robbery”, then ends up being shot by the woman he was trying to save. What he doesn’t realize, is that he has inadvertently stumbled into something much deeper and more complex than he could’ve imagined.

Surviving the attempt, he makes his way to the palace, sneaking past the days long wait, to speak to the Captain of the Musketeers, (Marc Barbe), securing a cadet position. Pursuing someone he recognizes in the palace courtyard, he manages to literally run into Athos (Vincent Cassel), Porthos (Pio Marmai) and Aramis (Romain Duris), sending him careening into the adventure of his life.

La Guerre

At the same time France is in perpetual tensions with England due to the rise of Protestantism. King Louis XIII (Louis Garrel), is surrounded by people of the court, including his advisor Cardinal De Richelieu (Eric Ruf), who wants war between the Protestants of England and the French Catholics.

Samuel Goldwyn Films

King Louis wants peace, ruffling the feathers of his advisors and some close to him, who scheme behind his back. Along with Richelieu is a mysterious woman known as Milady (Eva Green), who works with Richelieu vying for war, all while who she really is and why she does, alludes us.

When a plot to rid the King of his best Musketeers begins, Aramis, Porthos and D’Artagnan leap to action to prove the innocence of their friend, Athos, who is wrongly accused of a crime. It takes them on an unexpected journey woven in treachery and deceit, where it seems no one can be trusted.

Will they be able to save Athos, keep themselves and the King and Queen (Vicky Krieps) safe, while figuring out the answers to this intricate plot?

in all honesty…

D’Artagnan proves itself a highly worthy contestant amongst its predecessors, shining with exemplary visual craft, writing and acting. It’s not like any of the others that I have seen.

Abounding with breathtaking cinematography and lighting; excellent chemistry and performances from the actors, and a story with so many carefully crafted twists, it is an outstanding beginning for this film series. It felt like an overwhelming labor of love by everyone involved.

Civil plays an astute, and charming D’Artagnan, with a welcome lightheartedness and earnest heart. Green serves up Milady with captivating beauty that is wickedly smart, cunning and cutthroat. I was also pleased to see a layer added to Porthos regarding his sexuality, that added more dimension to his character and flowed exquisitely with Marmai’s portrayal.

Samuel Goldwyn Films

I was pleased to see that Richelieu wasn’t the main villain this time around. He was played with much more reserve than in other films and though he’s still plotting, this rendition sets him aside this round for other, more colorful characters. These characters mesh effortlessly within a world where no one is safe and where anything can happen.

I was awed with the ability of writers Matthieu Delaporte and Alexandre de La Patelliere, to set up so many story arcs that were so skillfully crafted and layered. They were able to have multiple moving parts that all wrapped up smoothly, leaving me excited for the next installment.

The flow of the film is never fettered by its multiple arcs and there wasn’t a part of it that seemed dragged out or boring. Though we are left with questions, with the confident way it’s portrayed and executed, we know we are in secure and skillful hands.

Bravo cast and crew! I rarely get to give this shining of a recommendation of a high budget remake, especially in the writing department, because most remakes today rely on CGI instead of true craft to succeed.

All that remains to be seen now is if Bourboulon and his talented crew will be able to pull off the next film(s) with as much grace and satisfaction as this one.

I hope that the next one(s) are created just as well, if not better! Looking forward to see what they come up with.

Nandor Fodor and the Talking Mongoose: A Strange But Beautifully Made Film

When I received this film I thought it would be another of Simon Pegg’s brilliantly crafted comedies, but instead, I got a rather somber, low on laughs, but wondrously shot film that brought to mind a lot of the captivating films I saw growing up the 80’s and 90’s.

A Talking mongoose?

Nandor Fodor (Pegg) is a paranormal psychologist famous for solving strange occurrences all over the world. Set in 1935, Fodor struggles with heavy cynicism regarding anything he investigates and is set upon proving that these cases are false and all have logical, clearcut answers.

When he hears a letter, written from the renowned Dr. Harry Price (Christopher Lloyd), about folks living on the Isle of Man with an apparent talking “mongoose” called Gef (Neil Gaiman), pronounced “Jeff”, Fodor is intrigued.

He talks to Harry regarding the letter and Harry, having fully investigated the situation himself, convinces Fodor that it may very well be true, and wants him to see it for himself.

As an excessive cynic, Fodor accepts, thinking that he will have a quick, easily debunked case. What he finds challenges his supposedly failsafe ideologies, leaving him with the discomfort of having to accept the possibility that some things were never meant to be solved or controlled by humans.

The fun begins

Saban Films

When Fodor and his assistant Anne (Minnie Driver) arrive on the island, they meet the Irving’s, a family who seems to have the most knowledge and interaction with Gef. Mr. Irving (Tim Downie) is the peculiarly pleasant head of the family, who welcomes Fodor and Anne warmly to their home.

There they meet Margaret (Ruth Connell), his equally cheerful and hospitable wife; their daughter Voirrey (Jessica Balmer), a relatively quiet, self proclaimed ventriloquist and the plain-dealing farm’s caretaker, Errol (Gary Beadle).

Fodor and Anne are told that the family can “hear” Gef, in the walls mostly, and that he can respond to them when he is comfortable and in the mood to do so. They also have bits of Gef’s “fur” and other artifacts to “prove” he exists.

Anne becomes the first to hear Gef when she overhears Voirrey seemingly singing to herself. Though Voirrey claims to be able to throw her voice, it becomes clear to Anne that maybe Voirrey isn’t the ventriloquist that she and others claim she is, and that maybe, there actually might be some corporeal presence speaking from within the walls.

Saban Films

Fodor, on the other hand, dead set in his ways, consistently shrugs off anything the townsfolks and his host family say, in order to keep himself safe within the realm of his egocentric expertise and overall nihilistic views that something must be seen/proved in order to be real.

The hunt for Gef and all of the pleasurable absurdity begins as Fodor and Anne investigate all members of the family, and the townsfolk, to prove the existence of Gef, or write it off as yet another hoax that could possibly bring more fame to Fodor.

in all honesty…

Nandor Fodor and the Talking Mongoose is a creative, yet very slow moving and talkie piece. It would be a whimsical, easy going film to see if you want to chill out for a couple of hours on a humdrum Saturday.

Huge kudos to the uber talented cinematographer, Sara Deane, whose skillful eye created some absolutely spectacular pieces of moving art. The lighting, contrasts, colors and set up were the best part of this film.

The sets were dressed impeccably by set decorator Sue Parker, leaving us wanting more and more of their beauty, that at times, were created with highly professional, theater-esque flare. It is so rare to see this type of art in any films presently. Bravo!

Saban Films

Director/Writer Adam Sigal, who is known for his love of the films of the 80’s and 90’s, brilliantly creates a sumptuous feast for the eye that definitely left me with the feeling I got watching said films as a young person. It is so lovely to have a working filmmaker that loved the older style films as much as I did, and who is willing to breathe new life into the CGI filled hellhole that is mainstream Hollywood.

That said, where the film suffers, is in the writing department. The movement of the film is slow and the overabundance of talking made it difficult to enjoy. It was people telling long winded stories to bring us the pertinent information we needed.

Though Sigal does show us some visuals during the long story telling, it still didn’t do much for engagement. Though there were some humorous bits thrown in here and there, by mid-film, I simply wasn’t interested in hearing more talk.

Screenwriters are taught to stick with action for the most part, while large portions of dialogue are not encouraged. It is up to the writers to “show” us what we need to know, through creative sequences of action. This is an example of screenwriting craft and how it differs from other forms of written media such as novels.

I also was confused by the ending. It didn’t seem that Fodor had changed much due to his findings and experiences. As per any hero’s journey, it is preferential to see a character start with behavior flaws and then come out on the other side having beaten, healed or come to terms with their flaws.

Saban Films

There was a reckoning of sorts and a monologue on Fodor’s thoughts about belief, but it ended abruptly leaving me with a feeling that things had not been wrapped up carefully, or that Fodor himself hadn’t lost any of his toxic cynicism.

By far the best characters of the film were the secondary characters. I really enjoyed the Irving family, with their eccentric yet overall constructive outlook on life. The surrealism of their positivity added a refreshing, clear cut distinction between their feelings and beliefs, and Fodor’s annoying acrimony.

The best character by far, was Beadle’s Errol. I loved his rational demeanor concerning the situation at hand and his blunt yet balancing affect dealing with Fodor. He was a much needed teacher figure to Fodor while having most of the best lines of comedy in the film.

What I got from the film is that there is a very fine line between science and faith. We see that struggle in real life every day. There are steadfast atheists and others who have surrendered themselves in the belief of a higher being. Wherever your place in that spectrum, an all or nothing approach to this is dangerous, because gods cannot be proven and science can’t explain the existence of god-like occurances.

It takes a balance of both faith and science to make sense of this life. What we must surrender to is that we, as humans, simply cannot know everything. We are much too mired in our three-dimensional societies and bodies to even comprehend the energies of the multiverse. Even after spiritual awakenings, our brains are limited to what we know and simply cannot comprehend the workings of the multiverse/God.

Saban Films

The bottom line is that no human knows the real truth and there isn’t one “correct” road to spiritual discovery and enlightenment. If someone’s beliefs aren’t hurting or infringing themselves on anyone, why can’t we just let it be? We can still believe in what resonates with us while being at peace about all that we don’t know and letting others have their own, diverse journeys.

If we are open enough, though, we just might actually learn something new, which can lead to endless, exciting opportunities for lifelong growth and positive change.

All Quiet On The Western Front: Stunning Visuals; Not Enough Character

I was a little late to seeing All Quiet. The hub bub surrounding the film got me curious and I was given a copy of the new 4K BluRay, double disc format exclusively through Netflix. The 4K is nothing short of glorious given the stunning production quality of the film in general, but I found myself struggling after I watched it, because it didn’t quite connect.

Another War Movie

When a film is written, it is usually done under the understanding that most “everything has been done before”. With that in mind, screenwriters are challenged to make their slant of a story unique and give an audience a fresh perspective on whatever the subject entails.

There are numerous films about war, from specific people in them to specific happenings within the scope of the war. When treated right, the film can become a truly epic “stand out” amongst the crowd. To make that happen, every single department involved in the film must be equally committed to the unique vision and come together to create the ultimate masterpiece.

All Quiet On The Western Front, adapted from the 1929 novel by Erich Maria Remarque and directed by Edward Berger, attempts to follow young German soldier Paul Baumer (Felix Kammerer) and a handful of his friends, from their joyful enlistment to their tragic deaths, near the end of the first World War. Berger emphasized the importance of the “German perspective”, and how it became his “driving force” throughout.

According to the booklet that comes with the Blu-ray set, he wanted to capture how German’s view of war was “marked by grief and shame, sorrow and death, destruction and guilt” rather than the more “optimistic” tales told by English or American perspectives. That message becomes quite clear to us through the darkness, chaos and senseless death within the film.

We see how reckless power and ego drives war and how each of the soldiers fighting for the leaders become just one of many faceless casualties. The film also deals with the loneliness and isolation of the soldiers when they realize that what they were being sold when they enlisted, isn’t actually the brave, heroic, patriotic mission they understood it to be.

War is hell. It is desolation, destruction and complete inhumanity brought by those unwilling to do the fighting for the power and greed they are harboring for themselves. We see that the boys learn this immediately after experiencing the front lines. Innocence, youth and the ability to live a normal life is eradicated. No one “wins” anything.

Source: Netflix

what is it all for?

The film takes place, mostly in France, when the German occupation was coming to a close. Shot in Prague, the visuals throughout most of the film are a cornucopia of sumptuous, emotional beauty, so much so, that when we aren’t actually at the front, we forget about all of the brutality happening elsewhere.

We get to see Paul and his mates when they are called off the front, to duty in rural areas, where the German soldiers are still camped in France. Some fun is had, but they all stay pretty morose in general, hoping to return home or to family. It’s an uneasy but inevitably awkward and tense interaction, given that small talk is now wholly irrelevant for them.

The men scramble for food and water and are generally uncared for by their commanding officers. Paul watches as each of his friends gets killed, one by one and yet, he tragically stays committed to a losing battle.

Berger adds scenes of an armistice agreement taking place on a luxury train between the French and German officers. Here we get to see what negotiations might have looked like. We also see the vast discrepancy between how the officers live in peaceful houses of plenty compared to the cold, bleak, scarcity existence of the soldiers on the front.

It shows the dynamics of how disingenuous and cruel the upper echelon is in times of war, and also how the current system works in every day life. Why should the wealthy and powerful care about everyone else if they have all that they need and more?

It is a metaphor for how they continue to get us to fight their wars and do their work, in exchange for an unachievable and inaccessible fairy tale outcome that keeps us subservient and poor the rest of our lives.

We exist solely to serve them, die for their causes and make them more wealthy.

Source: Netflix

In All honesty…

Though the production design and cinematography is off the charts phenomenal, I felt perplexed and cheated by the lack of character development.

I felt extremely disconnected from the characters. They seemed only part of the machinations to show us what war was like during this particular time of WWI. Though what happens to each of them is horrific, it felt expected and too easy to part with them, because I knew barely anything about them.

There is very little talk of family they are leaving behind or their dreams and ambitions. We don’t know who Paul is or what he came from. We never know his thoughts. We never get to know why being a part of this was so important to him nor why he persisted when he knew it was a losing battle.

The closest we get to see of Paul changing emotionally, is a brutal scene that takes place in a bomb pit where he kills one of the French soldiers. We get to see his horror and the realization that he is actually brethren to the soldier that he just stabbed to death. That was heartbreaking and pivotal, but we see no other defining moments for him.

The same goes for every other character in the film. All of the what’s, why’s and from where’s are completely withheld from us. We are supposed to live through the main characters eyes in a film, but all he does is watch and react like any person would when death and starvation is rampant.

We see the breadth and copiousness of this magnificently produced film turned to almost nothingness with the shallowness of the characters existing within it. None of the characters deaths mean anything without this connection which left me questioning what was all of the production design and cinematography for?

Berger stated that he pretty much just let the actors do their thing without directing them and he was happy with what they did. The acting itself was highly competent, however, the actors really had nothing to do except exhibit the normal outer human reactions when placed in a situation that is this extreme and shocking. We missed all of the beauty and fascinating nuances found within each unique being, which renders the abundance, expanse and pith of acting to common and mechanical, practically neutering it.

I also found the main musical theme to be inappropriate for the film. It sounded like it belonged more in a SciFi film and felt noticeably displacing from the world we were supposed to be in.

With that said, I still feel I can’t splat it, but had any other component of the film been deficient, it would’ve earned it on its own. As mentioned above, any film is a symphony of artists in numerous departments that all have to be on point to create greatness, and that starts with a phenomenal script.

If you are a fan of the film I highly recommend the 4K version. It’s as close to the theatre as you can get right now and it’s a worthy piece for your collection.

Medieval: An Uninspiring Film About an Inspiring Character

Medieval, a film directed by Petr Jakl, is a story of famed Czech warrior Jan Zizka (Ben Foster). Focusing upon his earlier life as a paid mercenary, in a time rife with monarchical corruption, Jan struggles to create order in a time of chaos.

A Man Becoming Legend

This was my first exposure to the legendary Zizka. From what I can gather, he looks to be a fascinating character. Right from the get go Foster’s portrayal introduces us to a character we might not expect to see in such a savage and brutal time. Zizka is a stoic, thoughtful, quiet man that seems to lack a lot of the ignorance one would expect from soldiers of the time.

The story takes place in the early 1400’s, when the Holy Roman Empire was without an emperor. Half brothers King Sigismund of Hungary (Matthew Goode) and King Wenceslas IV of Bohemia (Karel Roden) plot and scheme against each other to claim their God given “right” to the throne of the empire.

Zizka is hired into service of Wenceslas, by the dutiful Lord Boresh (Michael Caine), to kidnap Lady Katherine (Sophie Lowe), the fiancée of the unscrupulous Lord Rosenburg (Til Schweiger), who’s ambitions have no bounds. The job is complicated when Zizka falls in love with Katherine and his family becomes impacted by his mission.

As the warring monarch’s armies lay waste to surrounding villages, Jan’s alliances to either crown become outmoded. He begins to realize his real strength lies with ordinary people and his leadership begins to take on a whole new meaning.

Source: The Avenue Entertainment

In All Honesty…

I found Medieval very perplexing.

With scenes of beautiful cinematography and one truly fantastic battle scene, there was a lingering sense of disconnect throughout.

Though I liked the character depicted by Foster overall, Jan came off unemotional at times when emotion was more than warranted. He decidedly had a sense of good morality and stoicism not seen in many historical figures, but the severity of his stoicism poisoned any chance of us really connecting to him as a human being.

There was no chemistry or a sense of love between Katherine and Jan. Their relationship seemed to just be something of convenience. Katherine’s portrayal also came off half hearted and boring. Katherine’s presence gave no whisper of necessity in the film except as a plot point to move the story forward.

Not one of the characters really stood out from another. There is this white guy and that white guy; this King and that King but none of them are really compelling. I longed for a stand out villain seething with biting spite and ceaseless narcissism, which Goode could’ve adeptly portrayed if there were something for him to work with. I wanted to feel the energy between Jan and Katherine as soon as they saw one another, and also a developed, strong female role in Katherine. Instead she was no more impressive than any other servant girl in the Kingdom.

Source: The Avenue Entertainment

Also, while comparing itself to films such as Gladiator and Braveheart, Medieval lacks the heart, urgency and courage of either. There are really no lofty highs or crippling lows for Zizka. There are no unavoidable, earth shattering stakes stoked throughout the story that truly drives Zizka to his breaking point.

Impressively, Zizka himself supposedly was a warlord who never lost a battle. Surely there are stories in his life with more intrigue and provocation. Foster carries the character with dignity, Zizka just needed more to do and deal with.

Nonetheless, I didn’t dislike the film. It absolutely has its merits and Zizka could be an exciting character to follow. As it is though, this particular film is just “there”, never rising to any breathtaking crescendo. The production quality is excellent and I greatly appreciated the filmmaker’s choice to leave out much of the brutality against women of the time.

Medieval stands as a primer of sorts for a part of European history that many of us never knew about. The stars will most likely drive people to see it, but they are tragically underutilized and audiences most likely won’t come away inspired.