Keep in mind that the King is essentially a retelling of the Shakespeare play, and the Shakespeare play was not entirely historically accurate, to put it mildly. Since bowmen did not figure in the play nether did they in this movie.
I think some of the other peculiarities you noted we're because the film was more influenced by the play than actual history.
Shakespeare's telling didn't just exploit the emotional appeal of the Hundred Year War, it practically invented it. The St. Crispin's Day and Harfleur speeches are among the best and most famous romanticizations of war in the history of literature. I would even go as far as to say that they're at the heart of English patriotism itself. This film is spiritually flat by comparison.
The movie was solid in several technical aspects, also dialogue (except whenever the "French" were partaking) and I would have liked the general dark and bleak tone, but it had waaaaaay too much nationalist propaganda to me.
Also aside from the childish nationalism: The dauphin was so completely comically over the tops evil villain it would have been funny and good in a different movie, but here it was a total clash with what the rest tried to achieve.
I wouldn't give this movie a better grade than 7. The outlaw king was much better, even though "The King" was obviously copying this movie as much as possible it failed to do so well.
This movie was terrible.
1. It was ing boring. Actually the whole beginning part especially, before Henry becomes king, is really boring.
2. It claims to be historical but the heraldry and certain other details like that weren't right.
3. It claims to be historical but then for no reason decided to mix Shakespearean plays with history. But in a way that it doesn't do one or the other particularly well... why didn't they just stick to one?
4. Henry isn't a very interesting character. I don't even think his portrayal is accurate to the history. Henry is really boring; just sort of sits around, speaks in a monotone voice and does... things. Really not sure what sort of character they were going for.
5. Henry is a scrawny punk who can apparently defeat everyone in a duel. Remember when Henry killed Hotspur Percy in a duel? Wait that actually never happened and Hotspur Percy died in the battle of Shrewsbury? Wow if I went by this movie there was no battle at Shrewsbury. You know, WHERE HENRY WAS HIT IN THE FACE BY AN ARROW, REQUIRED A SERIOUS SURGERY, NEARLY DIED AND BECAME TRAUMATIZED??? You would think this was an important character moment or something.
6. Henry kills the Dauphin in a duel??? WTF??? The Dauphin actually died from dysentery or something. Neither Dauphin Louis nor Charles VI were at Agincourt, they were at Rouen.
7. The depiction of Agincourt is the most boring depiction of a battle that I have ever seen. Also no context for the actual battle, compare it to say Gettysburg or Waterloo where the battle is an important centerpiece, has stakes and some kind of importance. In this? Just CGI knights fighting each other from a distance, so exciting.
8. The drunk knight guy from the Shakespeare play has an arc but it was not memorable and I can't remember what that arc was exactly. He was an unimportant pauper? Then he gets rejected by Henry? Then he comes to the court? He was depressed or something? Then he dies at Agincourt, I don't remember if they even showed him die.
9. Henry wins at Agincourt and then the whole thing is resolved? Except that isn't even what happened historically, the whole Agincourt campaign was a near failure (which I think they implied) and was only saved by the English winning the battle. Had it not been for giving battle the French very well would have won, or forced Henry into a costly stalemate, or even disorganized his army while Henry attempted to march to Calais. Actually I find it funny how Agincourt was practically the exact same battle and under the same circumstances as Crecy and Poitiers, but the French didn't even learn their lesson. Every single time they had their enemy by the balls and for no reason decided to give battle, and give battle in the exact same manner all three times.
10. Henry marries the French princess, the end. Was this meant to be a happy ending? But they don't even show that Henry actually dies fairly young, is succeeded by his mentally handicapped toddler and the French continue to contest English claims on the continent.
Looking at the Hundred Years War... English history is literally rigged to make the English feel good. The English lost the war and would have lost sooner if the French didn't keep falling for the same trick.
Even judging by some of these victories like Crecy and Poitiers, the English had to make concessions. From those two battles they managed to get the larger part of Gascony/Aquitaine but not the loyalty of the local barons and then eventually lost much of it. Agincourt is different in that it allowed the English to grab key castles. But I'm sure that the difference in technology from 1337 to 1415 was a key factor. Also the Anglo-Burgundian alliance which created a disparity in power between the two sides. Henry V was successful while he was alive, perhaps would have continued to be successful had he not died so early, but his success was tenuous at best. As the earlier campaigns of Edward III, the Black Prince, and all of them proved.
I'm not sure if the War of the Roses gets much coverage. Henry VIII is a popular topic for whatever reason. But the Elizabeth movies were pretty bad. I don't think English history gets much after that, I've never seen a movie about James VI for example. Not too many about the Georgians either. I guess the Hundred Years War is popular because it has a common theme of English armies rampaging on the continent, for once, rather than being invaded by foreigners.
Sure, but if they're going to claim that they got all sorts of historians to advise them and made a movie with accurate details, they could at least get this bit right.
At this point I think people expect this type of pedantic detail in historical movies. We suffered so many decades under the thumb of inaccurate movies. Gross inaccuracies like belt buckles, wrong types of armor, inaccurate flags or heraldry, incorrect weaponry etc. They could and should get this correct. Imagine seeing a movie about the Hundred Years War and instead of the lion and fleur banners they only had the old lion banner. Do you know how triggering this is?
I've yet to see a single movie that has set any standard of the sort.
Alas we both know it's only for the cred. A mate of mine is advising the spanish side of an Amazon production of the conquest of the Aztec empire headed by Javier Bardem, called Mexica. Time will tell if ye ol Lindybeige was right about hollywood.Sure, but if they're going to claim that they got all sorts of historians to advise them and made a movie with accurate details, they could at least get this bit right.
Outlaw King was surprisingly accurate in that regard. There are probably others... maybe Kingdom of Heaven wasn't bad there, I'm not sure.
The issue with "The King" is that it claims to be accurate and have all sorts of great advisers and such... But then makes blatant mistakes, I'm not sure if some of it was intentional but it was noticeable.
Everyone had a fit when Braveheart came out. Why do they have blue paint? Why are they using zweihanders? Why do they have belt buckles? Why do they have kilts? Why is there no bridge at Stirling Bridge? etc etc
There were a lot of pedantic complaints even for Braveheart. We should hold all these movies to the same standard.
The main inaccuracy of Outlaw King was that they combined two battles into one at the end. Other than that I agree. It seemed well researched and done. I say that as someone who has absolutely no knowledge and should not say that.Uh is that someone we're supposed to know?!
I had criticisms of Outlaw King, but it was still a better movie than The King.
If not because of historical reasons then at the very least because it was a more enjoyable movie. The King was so boring that I had trouble paying attention.
Maybe you should know Lindy Beige if you're a history nerd that often goes on YouTube. He is a YouTuber who makes videos about history where he rambles for about 20 minutes. Since he has experience as an actor he knows something about how these movies or projects are put together.
Bottom line. It could have been better, it could have been worse.
I'm looking at you Vikings......
Why are the French always the arrogant-yet-pussies-when-it-comes-to-fighting villains in medieval themed movies/tv series, weren't they the strongest nation of Christendom after ~800 AD? Is there any film or series that portrays them in positive light?
"Blessed is he who learns how to engage in inquiry, with no impulse to hurt his countrymen or to pursue wrongful actions, but perceives the order of the immortal and ageless nature, how it is structured."
Euripides
"This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which avails us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."
Augustine
There is a movie called Timeline where the French were the good guys and the English were the arrogant and belligerent baddies. Although that movie kinda sucks.
This guy goes over it quite well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD22D423U5Q
How could I forget the stupid subplot with Henry IV and Prince Thomas, that was so damn stupid.
Shad is also right about the War, Henry V was adamant about reclaiming Gascony/Aquitaine. Somehow this escalated into his claiming the throne of France but I think he was just riding his success of Agincourt.
Shad also goes over some of the incorrect armor and stuff. It was worse than I thought.