Czechoslovakia | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Czechoslovakia’

Today We Die – A Little Bit

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged 1948 London Olympics, 1952 Helsinki Olympic Games, Bay to Breakers, Communism, Czech Republic, Czechoslovakia, Dana Zátopková, David Ondříček, Emil Zatopek, General Comments, James Frecheville, Jan Haluza, Jirí Simek, Martha Issová, Movie Reviews, Prague, Prague Spring, Reviews, Robert Mikluš, Ron Clarke, San Francisco, Stanislav Jungwirth, Strong Movie Recommendation, Václav Neužil, Zátopek (2021) — movie review on June 8, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Zátopek” (2021) — movie review
Today’s second film review is for the Czech biographical sports drama “Zátopek”, directed by David Ondříček and starring Václav Neužil as Emil Zátopek, the stubborn, pain‑embracing long‑distance runner who turns himself into an Olympic legend through sheer will and brutal training; Martha Issová as Dana Zátopková, Emil’s sharp, competitive wife and Olympic javelin champion who refuses to live in his shadow; James Frecheville as Ron Clarke, the Australian record‑setting runner who visits Zátopek years later, carrying both admiration and disappointment; and Jirí Simek as Stanislav Jungwirth, a fellow runner and Olympic teammate trying to navigate the shifting political winds of post‑war Czechoslovakia. The film tries to balance sports hero worship, political compromise, and the personal cost of greatness on Zátopek and the people around him.

Background: This is my first viewing of this film. I watched it for free from my County library and I will pick up a copy when I see it drop to my price point. I’ve known about Emil Zátopek since the mid-1980s, mostly as a name in Olympic history — the guy with the “ugly” running form, the wild interval workouts, and that incredible triple gold at the 1952 Helsinki Games (5,000m, 10,000m, and the marathon). “Zátopek” premiered in 2021 and was selected as the Czech Republic’s submission for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film, though it did not end up with a nomination. Historically, Emil Zátopek is one of the most important distance runners ever — not just for medals, but for how he trained and how he became a symbol inside a small country caught between big powers. The film also touches on his later political troubles after the Prague Spring and his partial rehabilitation, which gives it more weight than a simple “sports highlight reel” movie. IMHO: Zátopek is the greatest “documented” long distance runner in history.

Plot: The movie uses Ron Clarke’s visit to Prague in the late 1960s as its framing device. Clarke arrives as a guest of Emil and Dana, and as they talk, the film jumps back and forth between their present‑day conversations and Zátopek’s earlier life. We see young Emil working at a shoe factory, being pushed into running, and then discovering that he can suffer more than anyone else on the track. The story follows his rise through national competitions, then the 1948 London Olympics, and finally the 1952 Helsinki Games where he pulls off his legendary triple. Along the way, we see his courtship and marriage to Dana, her own Olympic success (she wins Gold in the javelin event), and the way their relationship is both loving and competitive. The political side creeps in as the Communist regime tightens its grip, using Zátopek’s fame for propaganda while also expecting loyalty and silence. Later, after the Prague Spring and the Soviet invasion, Zátopek’s refusal to fully toe the line leads to his demotion and exile to menial work. The present‑day scenes with Clarke show an older Zátopek who is still generous and warm, but also marked by what he has lost. The film ends on a bittersweet note, with Clarke finally understanding the full cost behind the medals and the public smile.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; strong, committed performances; solid, realistic filming with a few striking race sequences; some pacing and structure issues; yes.

Any good? (Full disclosure: This review is favorably biased because Zátopek has been a personal “hero” of mine since I first participated in the San Francisco “Bay to Breakers” race back in the 1980s.) Overall, this is a solid sports biopic with more on its mind than just “guy runs fast and wins medals.” The framing with Ron Clarke gives the story a reflective tone. We are looking back at a legend through the eyes of someone who never quite reached the same heights. (Clarke is widely considered among the greatest middle distance runners of the 1960s.) When the movie focuses on Zátopek’s training, his stubbornness, and his odd charm, it works very well. The race scenes are tense and sweaty, and you can feel the exhaustion and the stakes. The political material adds needed weight, showing how a national hero can be both celebrated and controlled by the state. That said, the film sometimes tries to cover too much: early life, romance, multiple Olympics, politics, later disgrace. Still, as a portrait of a specific man in a specific time, it is engaging and often moving.

Acting: Václav Neužil does a very good job as Zátopek. He leans into the physical awkwardness (the grimaces, the flailing arms, the gasping which were the “signature” of Zátopek’s running style) but also gives Zátopek a warmth and humor that keeps him from becoming just a “suffering machine.” You believe that this guy would run himself into the ground and then crack a joke about it. Martha Issová as Dana is a real highlight. She is not just “the wife at home.” She is competitive, funny, and sometimes sharper than Zátopek about what is happening around them. Their scenes together feel like a real marriage — supportive, but also prickly when needed. James Frecheville’s Ron Clarke is quieter, more internal, which fits the role of a man who has to live with being “almost the best” in a world that only remembers gold. The supporting cast, including Robert Mikluš as Jan Haluza and various coaches and officials, do their jobs well, giving a sense of a small, tight athletic community under a big political shadow.

Filming / FX: The filming is clean and mostly grounded. The race sequences are shot in a way that lets you feel the rhythm of the laps and the grind of distance running without getting too fancy. There are some nice touches — close‑ups of Zátopek’s face as he pushes through pain, the sound of breathing and footsteps, the way the crowd noise swells and fades. The period details (stadiums, uniforms, streets, interiors) feel convincing enough that I never fell out of the story. The movie does not rely on big flashy effects, which is fine for this kind of story. When it does use more stylized moments — slow motion, slightly heightened sound — it is usually to underline just how far Zátopek is pushing himself. Overall, the technical side supports the story rather than calling attention to itself.

Problems: My main issues are with pacing and structure. The back‑and‑forth between present‑day Clarke and past‑tense Zátopek sometimes feels a bit mechanical — we get a question, then a flashback, then back again. It works in concept, but it slows things down (repeatedly). The film also tries to cover a lot of years, which means some parts of Zátopek’s life feel rushed or sketched in. For example, his shift from national hero to political problem happens fairly quickly on screen, even though in real life it was a long, messy process. There are also moments where the script leans a little too hard on “inspirational sports movie” beats, which clash slightly with the political material. None of these problems break the film, but they keep it from being truly great cinema.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes. I like sports history, and I especially like stories where the “hero” suffers / endures a personal cost. Watching Zátopek grind through workouts, joke with teammates, and then run himself into the ground at major races is compelling. The relationship between Emil and Dana gives the movie a human core that also kept me invested even when the story line got a bit wobbly. I did feel the length at times, and I am not sure I would rush to rewatch it repeatedly, but I am glad I saw it. As a look at a specific athlete (personal hero figure) and era, the film worked for me.

Final Recommendation: Strong recommendation. (Like I said: “A biased review.” LoL) This film will be of particular interest for anyone into Olympic running history, distance running, or mid‑20th‑century Central European politics. It is not a perfect film, but it is a thoughtful and often powerful one. The performances, especially from Václav Neužil and Martha Issová, are strong, and the race sequences do a good job of putting you inside Zátopek’s very strange, very painful world. The movie also has real historical significance in that it brings a significant sports figure (one who helped redefine training and became a symbol inside his country) to a wider audience. If you want a light, breezy sports movie, this might feel a bit heavy. But if you are up for a layered look at what it costs to be a legend under a watchful authoritarian regime, this is well worth your time.

.
Click here (8 June) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.