Loading...

Plot:

Hal (Timothée Chalamet), wayward prince and reluctant heir to the English throne, has turned his back on royal life and is living among the people. But when his tyrannical father dies, Hal is crowned King Henry V and is forced to embrace the life he had previously tried to escape. Now the young king must navigate the palace politics, chaos and war his father left behind, and the emotional strings of his past life – including his relationship with his closest friend and mentor, the aging alcoholic knight, John Falstaff (Joel Edgerton).

Also Known As: Король, Le roi, Il re, El rey, O Rei, Regele, V. Henrik, Król, The King, Ο Βασιλιάς

Leave a Reply

26 Comments

  • freddy-marguite
    Freddy Marguite

    It was visual a great movie and the acting outstanding, but I had expected more. You don’t get a connection with the characters. There is not much emotion to feel and the plot is a simpel as it can be. No romance, not realy action either as just the battle on the field like in many medieval films.
    They had a big budget to spend and then you can go wild wild showing huge battle scenes. Visual dough It is a realistic film history wise i must say and it’s a great movie to watch. But the charaters are all sad sacks and it doesn’t get you to exited. It’s not a another “Bravehart” its just a movie with a few outstanding lead actors and huge budget.

  • marko-jarvinen
    marko jarvinen

    As the movie is releasing by the streaming giant ‘Netflix’ so i wish this movie will get lot of money in the box office and i think the story of the movie will also be interesting and fascinating according to the trailer.So you can watch this movie without any kind of tension and the price of the ticket is worth for this movie.

  • elijah-bird
    elijah bird

    I thought this was a very well done and tense film. It does make you feel bad for Hal that he’s thrown into this life he never really wanted and doesnt know who to trust. Who’s really there for him and not just because of his status. I thought the battlefield shots were great too. Very bloody and dirty and makes you sad/angry about war. And stylistically I thought shot well too. One shot in particular I liked was this overhead shot of Falstaff getting lost in the field. And speaking of Falstaff I thought Joel Edgerton did a really good job of playing him and he also chose to make the character more sympathetic. He also is less cowardly than portrayed in Shakespeare’s works. Its an interesting take and I actually liked the change.Acting wise, I thought the cast did a very good job. Especially Timothee and Joel. The one disappointment I had acting wise was Robert Pattinson. It’s not the worst thing in the world but in comparison to everyone else, his french accent is a tad over the top, some of his mannerisms when you first meet him are a little silly, and then theres a scene later on where he keeps falling in the mud. Tonally, I felt like stood out like a sore thumb. Im sure that’s also how he was written/directed to be….but ehhhh just didnt work for me.The only other thing to mention is that the film is over 2 hours long and does feel like it in places. There was times where I was wondering how much long the film was going to be. So, some pacing issues.Other than that though, I did really enjoy the film. No, its obviously not super historically accurate (especially since it includes Shakespeare’s invented character of Falstaff) but the cinematopgraphy and the general story and acting were great. It is a quite dim story and if you don’t like gore there are definitely gonna be scenes that make you a bit queasy.

  • veikko-paavola-hytonen
    veikko paavola hytonen

    Doesn’t follow history or Shakespeare, the main protagonist were nothing like their characters in history. I’m a bit of a historian so got quite annoyed at this film. Other than that I found it very bleak and slow. The fight scenes were more realist than the normal over the top ones but on the whole it was quite dull

  • daniel-p-arak-esikyan
    daniel p arak esikyan

    Without the gravitas, language or drama to disguise that it’s ….all just silly men’s business. The cast and script is a disaster. Why was this made?

  • mariana-carvalho
    mariana carvalho

    This was on at the London Film Festival. It is loosely based on fact, though there are three inaccuracies one about Thomas of Clarence , one about Falstaff and the other about the Dauphin of France. but they get the result of the Battle of Agincourt right. The dialogue attempts to sound slightly Shakespearian but there are various phrases that grate on an English ear like ” lets go visit with Henry IV” and “in order to have reform you need regime change”, and a reference to the archbishop tasking. We saw it with the HOH subtitles and there was a bit where a horse “nickers” which I assume is the American or aussie for whinny. The graphics are good- computer generated sailing ships,and a fairytale castle , The sets were shot in Hungary and feel genuinely medieval, costumes, props, battle scenes all done well. The acting is pretty wooden except for the Dauphin- straight out of Blackadder. It takes longer than it needs to to tell the story but its an enjoyable romp through ( somewhat inaccurate) history with plenty of gore and grunting.

  • toomas-ruus
    toomas ruus

    Chalamet gets most of the nagative reviews, but the whole cast stinks. edgerton is no shakespeare. henry V and falstaff at agincourt. it’s a silly movie, really. and the battle, which critics seem to like, is a muddle. literally.

  • natalja-maslov
    natalja maslov

    The movie is interesting at first until the figure of the “enemy” appears…It is such a caricature that all the movie seems is a little bit ridiculous after this…

  • sra-alice-barros
    sra alice barros

    At last an opportunity to see Timothée Chalamet doing something a little grittier. Sadly, t’was not to be. His portrayal of this great character from early 15th Century British history left me cold. He looked like a good meal would have killed him, never mind a bloodthirsty foe clad in iron armed with an axe. The accent held up reasonably well, but he still struggles to shake off the winsome, “butter wouldn’t melt” image and as he has to pretty much carry this film en seul, it just doesn’t really work. The rare appearances by Robert Pattinson border on the hammy; with his final appearance reminding me of the first few steps taken by “Bambi” back in 1942. It is great that Netflix are prepared to fund projects like this, but the plain truth is that no amount of money can compensate for a poor screenplay – think Shakespeare “light” – supplemented with a few high-profile cameo contributions.

  • merab-bakuraze
    merab bakuraze

    Timothée Chalamet best performance after CMBYN hands down best take on king Henry !

  • christopher-lee
    christopher lee

    I would like to say, I love it… but for the truth, not really. Till the battle I though Timothee like a child how tried to be a king… his mimics, his ways, not really impress me. In battle finally I see some impressing moments. It was more inaccurate and some scene I think was import from Shakespeare. Robert Pattinson as Dauphin,left me with dual feelings. From one side I laught of his accent and tried to be French and other side I was impressed with his acting skills. Way better than before. But the ending made me angry. I am not really like Depp’s acting and the way she portrayed Catherine of Valois. And the end, I like more Hiddleston’s Henry V better, than this. Timothee is great but Tom’s Henry has more potential as a military king as this one.

  • alfons-weinhage
    alfons weinhage

    I really enjoyed this movie. I appreciated that young actors were playing the roles of Henry and the dauphin because they were young men during the time depicted, previously actors who were really too old played the roles. Good script, good acting and attention to detail really made this worth watching .

  • dipl-ing-evi-reising
    dipl ing evi reising

    Ok, there are a few artificial and modern devices and phrases thrown in that seem forced and a bit of PC nonsense. The do mar the surface of this screenplay and production a bit from perfect to nearly perfect. But so too do verbatim Shakespeare productions with his anachronisms, kowtowing to the then contemporary sensibilities and interests of the Tudor court, and his glossing of the Hundred Year War chevauchee warfare (going around the countryside and killing all the villagers and farmers when your ‘noble’ opponents won’t leave their castles) — which in modern times would be classified as a major war crime. So this is a “based on” story written by one side, just as all of Shakespeare and virtually all war stories are since the Iliad itself. Even Hollow Crown, which is at least a star or two above this in quality, strains against the dishonesty in some of the source material.So aside from script writing/dialogue of this which is above average but does not excel, the rest shows talent and and an overall well done and entertaining work. Clearly they had to pick a young heartthrob actor for Henry V to have a prayer of getting the valued younger demographic viewer , but given so many of them are without talent, the lead actor, Timothee Chalamet, is quite talented and able to carry this film well. Sean Harris, has graduated from his whispering almost mumblecore Borgia days and is great. The rest of the cast is quite good, although Robert Pattinson seems to half play his part as camp and that is a tiny bit distracting.Overall though this is much better than Netflix’s record of mediocre productions. Certainly accessible to all audiences as well, especially compared for example to the Hollow Crown, which as I noted is considerably better acting, but not really accessible to people not already familiar with the major events and characters from Richard II to Henry V.

  • isabelle-van-t-houteveen
    isabelle van t houteveen

    I had to search this film out at the Cinema (Netflix sort out your deals with cinema chains…). Well worth it, great film from the start and builds as it goes along. All actors are great (well not sure if Patterson was having a laugh, but did work). Not really into Shakespeare, so don’t get confused that you must be a fan to enjoy film, it stands on it own. Great plot with nice realistic twists.Last 5 minutes was a fitting end to the film, a boy, to a man, to a King.

  • dott-sirio-de-santis
    dott sirio de santis

    It was awesome and you should watch it even if you don’t like movies about monarchy.

  • ian-chambers
    ian chambers

    I will start positive and say that the battle scene was unhistorical but v good in its own right. Clearly inspired by the Game of Thrones battle, it gives us the brutal grappling style of warfare of this period. EDIT: I should also add that the score is excellent.Now to the negative:This movie is boring and spineless. Apparently based not on history but the plays of Shakespeare, the screenplay is utterly uninspired by both. It consists of people sitting in small rooms mumbling modernist platitudes in faux-shakespearean – shot, reverse-shot. Why is Falstaff, one of the most celebrated jovial, care-free characters in literature, a mopey, mumbling, shell-shocked, bearded hipster? When they are not in rooms (or tents) King Henry is at the head of his slate-faced zombie army of Englishmen without personality. Where is Fluellen and Pistol? Where is the conversations with the soldiers the night before the battle? We do, however, get a terrible attempt at a speech – but I will get to the performances later. The film is spineless in its portrayal of Henry V. How do you give this rather bloodthirsty historical figure a character sympathetic to modern sensibilities? Why, make up a conspiracy behind his invasion of France. This is not Shakespeare’s Henry either. It seems the writers only made it based on the plays rather than history so they could include an unhistorical riotous youth, and can add Falstaff – in this version, a man of the people who can spout both philosophy and battle-winning strategies. It is certainly not history, but it is not Shakespeare either: it is a painfully dull plot languishing in abject fantasy. While Timothee Chalamet’s perfomance occasionally rises to mediocrity, his best attribute is that he looks almost identical to Henry’s famous portrait. However for most of the screening time they would have benefited from just using the king’s funerary effigy. His performance is risible, and his accent embarrassing. While Robert Pattinson’s performance made my skin crawl (I think this had more to do with direction than ability, which is usually strong), he was at least charismatic, unlike everybody else in this film.It is clear nobody knew what they were making with this film. Rather than draw from Shakespeare they came up with their own witless banter that occasionally struggles into archaic form, then plummets into anachronism (Thomas of Clarence refers to Hotspur’s head as the ‘prize scalp’; obviously not an English cultural notion until encounters with the Native Americans some centuries thence). I won’t even mention the historical liberalities in the plot, since it is basically all of it.If you love history or Shakespeare, stay far, far away from this mess.

  • stefica-ban
    stefica ban

    Chalamet is genuinely and truly a great actor. Every frame, every shot of him it’s a treat to watch! I wanted to watch this movie on the big screen and I’m glad I did. It was worth it! I know this movie is coming soon to Netflix. Please, go see it on the big screen, it is worth it to pay the full-price ticket, then you can watch it again on the small screen. Loved it from beginning to end. This is one of the first masterpieces that Netflix is bringing this year to the Oscars race. It is really a great film.

  • kristijan-medac
    kristijan medac

    It may not have been overburdened with historical accuracy but what a bloody well made movie – glad I saw it on the silver screen rather than on Netflix. It’s well crafted, well written (a couple of dead spots in the script) and overall quite engrossing.Happy to have spent my hard earned going to see it at the movies.Joel Egerton is building quite the compendium of compelling, nuanced supporting characters and its a pleasure to see him work his craft (both acting and co-writing) here.

  • ruxanda-tudor
    ruxanda tudor

    An impressive performance from Chalamet accompanied by an equally impressive Joel Edgerton makes for a fantastic story based around notions masculinity in the 15th century.A reserved king who does not want chaos, but reform and peace, is slowly coerced into a battle he does not want to take part in.Use of interesting but human camera movement, eerie sound design and ever so natural looking light immerses as much in battle scenes, as it does interior conversation scenes, summing up the mood and feeling of the time perfectly.An engaging watch and does not feel too long, even at 2 hours 15. 8/10

  • kristen-griffin
    kristen griffin

    This is a master piece, that’s how you can discibe it nothing less, great job netflix.

  • simona-maskova
    simona maskova

    You can tell a good film, when you’re so involved with watching it, that time has passed without you noticing it. I knew where it was heading for early on, but the depth and development of the characters is sensational. If anyone gives this less than 7/10 then you should go back and watch it again.

  • lorraine-thomas
    lorraine thomas

    I had the opportunity to see this movie in a theater a few days ago. I’m pleased to say that it was not a waste of time. I was thoroughly caught up in the story and invested in the characters, particularly Hal and Falstaff. I am not a medieval expert nor am I that familiar with the works of Shakespeare, so don’t look to me to pick this movie apart based on those terms. Was this movie perfect? No. Was I entertained? Hell Yes! Every single performer in this movie gave it everything they had and its all up there on the screen. The filmmakers and the actors have my respect and gratitude. And kudos to David Michôd for landing Timothée Chalamet to play Hal. This kid is something else. He is absolutely fascinating to watch. By the way, don’t get Hal mad at you, he is somewhat of a bad ass. So here’s to a great time at the movies and I look forward to watching this again at some point when it shows up on Netflix.

  • ms-catherine-khan
    ms catherine khan

    I really hope this movie gets the recognition it deserves, fantastic performance from every member of the cast especially Chalamet. Fantastic script and beautifully shot , I’ve not sat forward in anticipation while watching a movie in such a long time. The battle scenes were heavy and brutal and an incredibly eye opening visualisation of medieval combat.If you have to choose between the hype train that is Joker and The King I wholly recommend this movie, you will leave the cinema much more pleased with how you spent your last two hours. This is really a movie that deserves much more recognition .

  • pierrina-kazantze
    pierrina kazantze

    Had to track this down to a Curzon in Oxford to see this, well worth it. What a gem of a film. Absolutely excellent, top class acting by the whole cast. Although not totally historical accurate, it’s not far off. Loved the rawness of the battlefield, very realistic to what I imagine it would have been. This I would hope should be considered as best film awards contender without a shadow of doubt.

  • ineta-butkus
    ineta butkus

    Just saw this film and it is captivating. What ever you do don’t believe the low rating some others have given it because it is not accurate and you will need to question the motivations of those scoring this film so low when it is worthy of much more. Maybe a touch of jealously cause it is a Netflix film. The acting is superb with a great script, crisp cinematography and wonderful sound. The director transports us in the 15th century and we are captivated by the situation King Henry V finds himself in. Surrounded by corruption and men who are willing to kill each other for property and status.All the cast was brilliant and the two lead actors were exceptional.The only negative is that it is a touch long. I say that it was long but I can’t see anything that could have been left out. I saw it at the cinema but I think if you were watching it at home you could pause it and still return to be immersed where you left off.I hope we see more from this team as they did a great job.

  • rosita-fontana
    rosita fontana

    I’m grateful that Netflix are pumping money into films like this and is a great sign of things to come.This movie has some great acting, a superb script and some great sets and costumes. This all adds to the authenticity of this 15th century English period piece. I do have a few problems with the film like some of the 15th century language can be hard to follow and I don’t think this film will be as good on Netflix as it was when I just saw it at the Venice film festival.Despite my issues with the film, I think the it’s great and would recommend it to any film lovers.