The King...

**Halie Satanus** · November 02, 2019, 05:49 PM

Netflix, imo, deserve Kudos for their historical dramas. 'Outlaw/King' was pretty dam fine and 'The King' continues in the same vein. I'd go as far as to say it's even better. The acting from the the main leads 'Timothée Chalamet, Joel Edgerton and Sean Harris is flawless. Robert Pattinson does a quality Python-esc French accent but that's forgivable taking into account the scenery and costumes and general production details, which are superb. I'm sure someone will find a misplaced pair of sandals in it somewhere but I really enjoyed this one.

**PointOfViewGun** · November 03, 2019, 03:05 AM

Yeah, it was quite good to watch. I liked the bleak tone. I kinda want more of his dealings with politics though. Perhaps a sequel?

**Morifea** · November 03, 2019, 11:35 PM

I´m looking forward to it.

@PoinOfViewGun: A Netflix Series about the War of the Roses, that would be dope.

**Common Soldier** · November 04, 2019, 01:18 AM

According to knowledgeable YouTubers (scholagladitoria) the armor shown in the trailer is not historically accurate for the period.

**PointOfViewGun** · November 04, 2019, 02:08 AM

I believe the cavalry charge was supposed to happen against stakes as well. They could have stressed the longbowmen much more. The highlight was the king's friend.

**mishkin** · November 04, 2019, 02:54 AM

I liked it a lot (the end is great, the battle too, dont give a damn about total historical accuracy), curiously I think Chalamet (too childsih appearance?) and Pattinson (too histrionic?) were the whorst (althought not really bad).

**Morifea** · November 04, 2019, 03:22 AM

Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun

I believe the cavalry charge was supposed to happen against stakes as well. They could have stressed the longbowmen much more. The highlight was the king's friend.

Stakes don`t work, if you want the "No Animals were harmed"- sign :-)

I will reread Shakespeare Henry V.... Alway liked it, especially because of Falstaff.

**Roma_Victrix** · November 04, 2019, 09:27 PM

I really enjoyed this one and think it's even better than Outlaw King, which I also liked despite the historical inaccuracies. Only the super nerds stay away from it or dislike it for those reasons, though. Judging it purely as a cinematic experience, I think the film - bolstered by the dark, dreary musical score - sets a chilling, dire mood throughout, similar to that of Dunkirk even though the situation is completely different. It didn't belabor any points and got right down to business too, so the narrative pacing of it was good. Some of the characters, John above all, were very fun to watch and likable. The Dauphin might have been over the top but that's what I expect from a flowery Frenchman.

Despite cancelling some of my preferred shows, Netflix has lately been giving me reason to maintain a subscription with features like this one.

EDIT: I will say this, though, I think it's somewhat clear even from the limited amount of primary sources that Henry V was rather eager to wage war, humble his foes, gain new vassals, and claim the French throne, despite the film's depiction of him as being wary of war, of initiating hostilities or being cautious in responding to diplomatic slights. Despite the Archbishop being turned into a foul little turd with an annoying lisp and someone who the king publicly spurned, the historical Henry V was quite keen to use religion to his advantage and to paint himself as a holy anointed one on a mission from God. His anonymous chaplain makes this plain at least, in the Gesta Henrici Quinti.

**Cope** · November 05, 2019, 02:57 AM

I enjoyed the tone and aesthetics of the film, but the depiction of the king was peculiar and the battle was disappointing. For some reason the role of the longbowmen was largely ignored and the English use of stakes to impede the French cavalry was missing entirely. The melee engagement (which is the focus of the fight) started promisingly, but almost immediately degenerated into a disorganized brawl in the mud. The film's most significant shortcoming, however, was its failure to exploit the main emotional appeal of the battle of Agincourt - that of the tenacious underdog taking on the odds and coming out on top. The Zulu moment I'd been hoping for did not materialize. Instead we are treated to bizarre meetings between the Dauphine and Henry which begin with a nonsensical midnight trolling and end with an entire battle being put on hold to facilitate a ridiculous duel.

6/10.

**Roma_Victrix** · November 05, 2019, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

I enjoyed the tone and aesthetics of the film, but the depiction of the king was peculiar and the battle was disappointing. For some reason the role of the longbowmen was largely ignored and the English use of stakes to impede the French cavalry was missing entirely. The melee engagement (which is the focus of the fight) started promisingly, but almost immediately degenerated into a disorganized brawl in the mud. The film's most significant shortcoming, however, was its failure to exploit the main emotional appeal of the battle of Agincourt - that of the tenacious underdog taking on the odds and coming out on top. The Zulu moment I'd been hoping for did not materialize. Instead we are treated to bizarre meetings between the Dauphine and Henry which begin with a nonsensical midnight trolling and end with an entire battle being put on hold to facilitate a ridiculous duel.

6/10.

Very good points, although it wasn't so much a duel as the Dauphine slipping around in the mud and Henry finally giving his men the nod to just knife him to death on the ground.

**Cope** · November 05, 2019, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix

Very good points, although it wasn't so much a duel as the Dauphine slipping around in the mud and Henry finally giving his men the nod to just knife him to death on the ground.

The King's bemusement at the Archbishop's discussion of the French succession (as if the son of a usurper and child of the Hundred Years War wouldn't be familiar with such affairs) was totally baffling, as was his shock that the war with France had been motivated by the prospect of land acquisition. It was weird how the writers painted Henry, both as a thoughtful man who had wisdom beyond his years but also as an idiot who had no knowledge of the basic facets of kingship. It really made no so sense to me.

**Roma_Victrix** · November 05, 2019, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by ep1c_fail

The King's bemusement at the Archbishop's discussion of the French succession (as if the son of a usurper and child of the Hundred Years War wouldn't be familiar with such affairs) was totally baffling, as was his shock that the war with France had been motivated by the prospect of land acquisition. It was weird how the writers painted Henry, both as a thoughtful man who had wisdom beyond his years but also as an idiot who had no knowledge of the basic facets of kingship. It really made no so sense to me.

Yep, I lobbed a similar criticism in my post above about the archbishop and Henry being depicted as an innocent dove when he most certainly was not. However, overall I'd still give the film a 7/10, which is high praise coming from me for Netflix stuff, for all the other elements that made it a fantastic viewing experience. You're definitely right about the Salic law thing, though, as the historical Henry V was obviously very well aware of this well before embarking on his invasion of France. It almost felt like Henry asking the Archbishop for clarification was the filmmaker's needs to level with the ignorant masses in their viewing audience who don't know about any of this, and Henry here serves as an acceptable conduit for teaching them about the motivations for war.

"See, audience, I'm a king but also a dumb jock just like you and hence relatable, so that this scene can be more easily digestible and catered just for you."

**Cope** · November 05, 2019, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix

Yep, I lobbed a similar criticism in my post above about the archbishop and Henry being depicted as an innocent dove when he most certainly was not. However, overall I'd still give the film a 7/10, which is high praise coming from me for Netflix stuff, for all the other elements that made it a fantastic viewing experience. You're definitely right about the Salic law thing, though, as the historical Henry V was obviously very well aware of this well before embarking on his invasion of France. It almost felt like Henry asking the Archbishop for clarification was the filmmaker's needs to level with the ignorant masses in their viewing audience who don't know about any of this, and Henry here serves as an acceptable conduit for teaching them about the motivations for war.

"See, audience, I'm a king but also a dumb jock just like you and hence relatable, so that this scene can be more easily digestible and catered just for you."

Of course there was need for the filmmakers to explain the basis of the war to the audience, but I think that Henry needn't have dismissed the Archbishop's sermonising out of irritated confusion. The King could simply have reminded the Archbishop that everyone was "already aware of our rightful claim to the French throne", that "we have no need of lessons in our own heritage" and that "if the Archbishop wishes for us to pursue our just inheritance he should speak his mind plainly" (or something to that effect).

**Morifea** · November 06, 2019, 12:07 AM

@ep1c_fail: That would have been a good solution.

I watched the Movie yesterday, I was very pleased. I liked the Acting of Chalamet and Edgerton. Chalamet wasn`t known to me before, now I´m kinda thrilled for his performance as Paul Atreides.
The Dauphin was so much over the top, it was great.... Exactly what one could expect from a Vampyre.
I loved the "Duell" in the End... first I thought, meh, not a duell again. But then the slipping part and especially the knifing.... tis was great.

There were some nice little historical details, especially the mentioning of Mortimer.

**LaMuerte** · November 06, 2019, 04:24 AM

What an awful movie. What a distorted retelling. It totally lacked dysentry, proper heraldry, gunpowder, decorated flagships(<-- I was actually looking forward to seeing Henry's flagship), other nationalities besides English and French,...

Low point being the Dauphin making dick jokes, no pun intended. It boggles the mind that someone read the script and okay-ed it for production.

**Roma_Victrix** · November 06, 2019, 05:42 PM

Henry famously used powerful gunpowder artillery to breach the walls of cities in France, so yeah, that's definitely another point of worthy criticism. Instead the film kept emphasizing counterweight trebuchets, which were still used but were already outmoded by this point as relics of a previous era.

The dysentery was absent, but if I remember correctly on the eve of the Battle of Agincourt the men were at least shown to be starving, running out of food, and were debating on returning home to England with their dwindling supplies. The contemporary Gesta Henrici Quinti mentions all of that in painful detail.

**Morifea** · November 07, 2019, 02:23 AM

Most people in the audience would be shocked, to see Knights and gunpowderweapons in the same Movie.

And yes, it was mentioned that the army was suffering from hunger and illnesses.
If I leave my books to watch a Movie, I want to be entertained, not to watch englishmen shi**** their souls out.

**Cope** · November 07, 2019, 02:36 AM

Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix

Henry famously used powerful gunpowder artillery to breach the walls of cities in France, so yeah, that's definitely another point of worthy criticism. Instead the film kept emphasizing counterweight trebuchets, which were still used but were already outmoded by this point as relics of a previous era.

The dysentery was absent, but if I remember correctly on the eve of the Battle of Agincourt the men were at least shown to be starving, running out of food, and were debating on returning home to England with their dwindling supplies. The contemporary Gesta Henrici Quinti mentions all of that in painful detail.

This is a point which should have been used to explain Henry's gamble to take the French on rather than allowing his army to be lost to harassment and attrition on a march back to the coast. It should also have been used to emphasise the magnitude of the English victory.