The King - new Netflix film

[Antonio J Carrasco]

Watched it. Got bored halfway and skipped to the end. I have seen fights between my cats that were more epic.

[Captain Blood]

I think the duel between Henry and Hotspur was deliberately anti-epic. Similarly the duel that didn’t happen between Henry and the Dauphin. I actually think it was quite a brave choice by the director to portray single combat between two armoured knights as a desperate, clumsy, down and dirty ferocious fight with everything and anything available, rather than the heroic swordplay we’re all used to seeing in historical epics since movies began. A deliberate attempt to show what it may (because who knows for sure) have been like, and confound the usual cliches.
But yes, while it may have shown a more gritty, less romanticised take on what happens when two fully armoured men try to murder each other at close quarters, it certainly sacrificed the epic qualities we have come to expect from such moments.
But I must admit I rather liked it because of that

[Kitsune]

I agree. Seemed like a deliberate decision to make it an anticlimactic fight and more of a chance to bring the character down a couple of pegs.

[Atheling]

I agree. Seemed like a deliberate decision to make it an anticlimactic fight and more of a chance to bring the character down a couple of pegs.

Like dead you mean? 

[Captain Harlock]

Watched it. Got bored halfway and skipped to the end. I have seen fights between my cats that were more epic.

 

[mweaver]

I don't mind the decision to sacrifice the "epic"; I lament the decision to sacrifice the history. 

-Michael

[Atheling]

I don't mind the decision to sacrifice the "epic"; I lament the decision to sacrifice the history. 

-Michael

I agree but one has to recognise that they don't just twist the plot out of all proportion to history for artistic license or artistic expression.

It is done in the main to make the story 'readable', whether by cipher or more overtly for the regular viewer who simply won't understand the story without what looks like short cuts. And, sometimes they are just that, short cuts, but not in the case of The King.

I too cringed, but cringed with a degree of awareness that five years ago, would have been utterly wanting.

[Unlucky General]

Well ... I liked it. It was a good film, well cast with some really nice performances. As far as renditions to date of Henry V campaigns and Agincourt I'd dare say it's the best so far.

What it wasn't was very historical and for the life of me I will never understand or agree with movie script writers re-writing history to suit their idea of whatever story they think they are telling. Poor brother Thomas - killed off by the script writers years earlier and in the wrong country. Truly?

What's fascinating ifs the spin that Henry V is a reluctant war hero who was tricked into war with France. And here was me thinking he was a bloody-minded warmongering warrior King who continued to wage aggressive war in France for years after Agincourt including what we might see as an atrocity against innocent civilians at Rouen - civilians whom he was claiming to be his subjects.

The woeful jumble-sale armoured men-at-arms in shot were the least of the inaccuracies.

[Tim Haslam]

I liked it too.
Yes errors, agreed, and yes why do productions miss out important stuff?

But then again I still enjoy Braveheart and The Patriot!

[Atheling]

Well ... I liked it. It was a good film, well cast with some really nice performances. As far as renditions to date of Henry V campaigns and Agincourt I'd dare say it's the best so far.

Which, to be brutally honest, isn't saying a lot. There certainly is no plethora of art when it comes to this subject.
 

What it wasn't was very historical and for the life of me I will never understand or agree with movie script writers re-writing history to suit their idea of whatever story they think they are telling. Poor brother Thomas - killed off by the script writers years earlier and in the wrong country. Truly?

Well, that's the thing. It wasn't history. It was art. If I may just take a quick analogy; no one would seriously would expect Mark Rothko, who was left very wing, to concentrate on portraits of Marx or narrative landscapes of the suffering of the poor like Millet(?). In the same way, we cannot expect movies to imitate history to the point that we, as wargamers, are going to be satisfied. And yes! I get just as frustrated as the next man, or woman, but that's just the way things are.

What's fascinating ifs the spin that Henry V is a reluctant war hero who was tricked into war with France. And here was me thinking he was a bloody-minded warmongering warrior King who continued to wage aggressive war in France for years after Agincourt including what we might see as an atrocity against innocent
civilians at Rouen - civilians whom he was claiming to be his subjects.

Well yes, we was anything but. I cringed when they tried to deal with the killing of the prisoners at Agincourt with a anemic one liner that utterly failed to strike a chord!

My main gripe with the movie, erroneous historical hick ups aside, was that it seemed disjointed. Certainly there was none of the brilliance of Brannah  and his version of Shakespeare's  Henry V's craft; in moving scenes along with just the right amount of pace as to push the story telling forward.  I think, also, for me there were too many moments that were just unbelievable in terms of the acting.

I could say more but I think I've popped on the parade too much as it is.

The movie is by no means a disaster, but nor is it high art.

I will watch it again

[mweaver]

I have no problem with them making up fictional stories about medieval(ish) armies that smack each other up the side of the head with a variety of nifty weapons.  I just don't think you should pretend you're telling an historical story.  I am perfectly willing to give those sorts of films a chance if the trailers look half-way decent.  I just object to the rewriting of history.  I understand that this subject is one of those things we all react to somewhat differently, and I don't mean to denigrate the opinions of those who did enjoy the film.

Tim: "But then again I still enjoy... The Patriot!"

I'll bet you don't have to un-teach all that bad history to college freshmen!

-Michael

[Atheling]

Well ... I liked it. It was a good film, well cast with some really nice performances. As far as renditions to date of Henry V campaigns and Agincourt I'd dare say it's the best so far.

Nothing like Agincourt at all. Although the "arrow storm" experiment did not take place in 2015 at the reenactment we have a goof idea of what it might have looked like and the arrow storm on The King was utterly misleading. Archers were used to ***disrupt*** charges, to cause disruption and disorder.

What it wasn't was very historical and for the life of me I will never understand or agree with movie script writers re-writing history to suit their idea of whatever story they think they are telling. Poor brother Thomas - killed off by the script writers years earlier and in the wrong country. Truly?

Yeah, it's funny though- I can almost forgive them for making this decision as before the Perry Plastics had come out who had heard of Battle of Baugé? Probably only a few of us on this forum. (I'm not blowing my own trumpet. I've been obsessed with Late Medieval warfare for 20-30 years!)

Battle of Baugé
What's fascinating ifs the spin that Henry V is a reluctant war hero who was tricked into war with France. And here was me thinking he was a bloody-minded warmongering warrior King who continued to wage aggressive war in France for years after Agincourt including what we might see as an atrocity against innocent civilians at Rouen - civilians whom he was claiming to be his subjects.
[/quote]

Undoubtedly there were many in England who were desperate to get back into fisticuffs with France. Henry V was a psycho when it came to war so you can include him in that cabal!! 

Good device to add to the plot though not that well executed but I suspect that the editing process may have been responsible for this as the idea rang true throughout the movie- even to the point of where Queen Katherine was elucidating his self deception near the climax.

I've got to stop talking about this movie, I'm going to end up watching it again!  (TBH, I will and I will enjoy it too)

[Hammers]

Pretty good I thought. Bit slow, and wasn’t too keen on the reimagining of Falstaff as the gallant hero, but hey, the guy playing Falstaff was also the writer and producer, so what can you do... 

Brian Blessed as Flastaff or noone. 

[Sir_Theo]

The problem with things like this is that it makes me start looking covetously at things like the Perry plastics. I read the Juliet Barker book 'Conquest' a few years ago and ever since then I've contemplated getting some figures for this period...

[FierceKitty]

Just watched it. A useful reminder of how good Shakespeare is (not that I needed it after seeing Gandalf as Lear last year).