Kritiken (1)
It is too conflicting in terms of concept. At first it looks like it will be a documentary showing difficulties of long-term development. Which, given that it covers about sixteen days (on top of that not in a chronological order but randomly), says absolutely nothing about the origin or creative process. Although the documentary makers are not actively involved in the movie (except for the constant affirmative "hmm"), they are really good at asking questions, but they completely avoid any controversy, which surrounded Kingdom Come a lot (poor management and excessive crunch time, arrogant ignoring of mess related to kickstarter bonuses, evaluation of the team, originality of Vávra, etc.). In other words, it turns out to be another traditional movie about the movie where everyone praises each other. Probably, in terms of form it is similar to gaming "final days" documentaries, where document makers "get used" to the team and watch the last weeks, days and hours before release, tension after difficult development, stress of awaiting reviews, reactions of players, commercial (no) success, etc. But in order for this approach to work properly, it is necessary to be an invisible part of the development team, not some one who comes out of nowhere right into the office twice or three times ever hour before the release. It can be seen that everyone is aware of the presence of "people from the outside", so they respond in a rather soft way that is typical for a traditional non-conflicting movie about the movie. In addition, it lacks a summary ending. Signing on the day of publishing doesn´t do the job. So if the film maker's ambition was to make something more than just out of duty filling the void on a bonus DVD for the most devoted, then they failed. If the goal meant to be what I just mentioned, then the movie is a great success. PS: Is there even one person in Warhorse who does not start every other sentence with the words "in fact or in basically"?
()