Sarlatán

Jan Mikolášek was not among those who made great history, so he is not part of the great history either. Besides a handful of old folks and descendants of those he treated, no one knew about him until now. Your acceptance of the film largely depends on the fact that you do not know his true fate, because Marek Epstein adapted his life's periphery in a Hollywood manner, and Mikolášek himself would probably be shocked by what he was able to extract from his biography. Agnieszka Holland is an experienced European-level director, and under her leadership, a film was created that is worth seeing, one that is able to create a dramatic arc, captivate the viewer, and in which there are a number of scenes that will please cinephiles. This is significantly helped by the cast, led by Ivan Trojan, who gives his best performance, and it is quite possible that this is his strongest film role to date. If I have to criticize something, then it would be the screenplay, which does not adhere to logic and historical facts, right, Marek? The deeply religious Mikolášek would certainly not help with an abortion, let alone for such obscure reasons, and the state power would not need a monstrous trial with such a convoluted conspiracy where it could use bureaucratic tools for his elimination. I would encourage people to go see this film in the movie theater, it deserves it. Overall impression: 75%. (2020.10.11)

Charlatan perfectly fulfills the expectations of this year’s most anticipated domestic movie. Moreover with the level of quality which can’t be denied to Agnieszka Holland. Only if the movie would answer more questions than it would arise. After seeing this movie, it was really hard for me to make some sense out of Jan Mikolášek’s life. Nevertheless it is obvious to me that if there is but one thing clear about his life it is mainly the fact that his persona was strongly conflicted. But why Agnieszka highlights meaningless violence in some scenes is a mystery to me. Especially one particular scene really pissed me off and I would really like to know why it even was included into this movie. It doesn’t really explain anything, it just gets you some insight into one particular character. You want to like them for what they are doing, but you can’t really do that for the way they are acting. But at least this movie shows the reality of the Gestapo and communists and what horror it was in both cases. It is good that similar period movies are still filmed in our country and I would show these type of movies to contemporary communists on a loop so they would know how it ruined this country. From the movie making aspect, this movie is an exceptional experience. The performances were flawless as well. Each actor has his/hers place and there is nothing to complain about regarding their performances. Of course, Ivan Trojan is the absolute best even though intentionally slightly emotionless while his son is also becoming a contribution to Czech cinematography. But I have to admit that it was Mrs. Jaroslava Pokorná whom I enjoyed most. Her role was beautiful, one of the most beautiful I have seen lately in Czech movies. Considering all aspects of the movie, I have to say that Charlatan is a movie on European level and even though I find a lot of points to discuss in it I have to say I really enjoyed it. (2020.08.25)

Like Mr. Jones, Agnieszka Holland's previous film, I don't think Charlatan would be a pure five stars... if it weren't for Ivan Trojan. I already know he's a great actor, but he outdoes himself with what he does here, under the baton of a world class director. I searched my memory for the last time I was so impressed by the performance of a Czech actor in a Czech film, and I ended up with Bolek Polívka in Forgotten Light. Ivan Trojan gives an incredible performance of the caliber of Rudolf Hrušínský or Miroslav Macháček, and he is not Trojan, but Mikolášek, whom you alternately admire and hate. But Josef Trojan, whose casting is based on far more than his resemblance to his father, is also very good, and I liked the uncluttered script and the likewise sparse direction. The ending disgusted me and it didn't matter that it was contrived. I understood why what happened happened, and why who did what they did, but it didn't make the heartbreak any easier. (2020.08.30)

My rating is a bit biased, because any time I’m lucky enough to see a Czech film in a cinema outside our country, I'm touched and proud. Especially when it's in a place where I wouldn't expect to see on of our movies. So for me it was more about where and how I saw the film than what it was like. I liked the complex and ambiguous nature of the character of the charlatan, I liked the cinematography, but the atmosphere was at times a bit more uncomfortable than I would have liked. Because of that, and a few distracting scenes, I don't think I'm going to catch it when it airs on TV. PS: So I thought it was impossible for me to forget to rate a film here, but actually you can. Thanks, user, for reminding me of Charlatan with your review today. 3.5 stars. (2021.09.18)

I was perhaps looking forward to Charlatan a little too much, given the strong subject matter and the people involved, and so I was a little disappointed in the outcome. From a technical standpoint, Charlatan is handled mostly well – the assured camera work and the unmistakable score are proof of that. The acting was, as expected, really convincing, without unnecessary theatricality. Besides the almost unquestionably excellent Ivan Trojan, I must not forget to mention the young Josef Trojan, who was a great second to his father, then the grounded performance of Jaroslava Pokorná, and last but not least the solid part of Juraj Loj, unknown to me so far. What bothered me about the film, however, was its narrative lack of coherence in several places, for example the kittens, which many have already mentioned, or especially the last minutes of the film. On the one hand, this is a bold and, by Czech standards, above-average film with some really evocative moments (the death of Zapotocky, the arrest by the Gestapo) that, alongside the "quackery", addresses same-sex relationships in the post-war era, but on the other hand, there were a few places where I just felt it was missing something and that it somewhat deprived me of the desired experience. A weaker four stars! (2020.08.21)