User reviews

Not sure what to expect when watching this. Truley gritty film. The acting was superb. The battle scenes were truly realistic. Nice change from Netflix terrible films they've put their name on.

I enjoyed this movie because of the performances and the cinematography. It is not historically accurate and I wish it would have been. The main battle scene was wonderfully done. I enjoyed it overall and it is well worth two hours of one's time.

Firstly the film ticks lots of boxes- acting, costumes, direction all good with a decent budget. But why another film which changes history for no actual reason. The story of Henry V needs no surgery. Without trying to sound like a history snob, Henry was 27 when he acceded the throne not 17. He had reconciled with his father. He had 3 younger brothers (born 1386,1387,1389 and 1390) and as such great material for the complex relationships of family loyalty and personal ambition. Thomas of Clarence, a suicidally brave soldier did not pre-decease his father but died in 1421 well after Agincourt. Henry Percy 'Hotspur' was over 20 years older than Henry and was not killed by him...the Dauphin did not die at Agincourt...Henry V was a seasoned warrior with the claim to the French throne ingrained in him. He was not a pacifist in any sense, that was his son Henry VI - and that is a whole other story... Anyway off my high horse. A very watchable film for non history buffs!

For this type of movie I thought the director got pretty much everything just right. The acting, the sets, the music, the storyline, everything worked to give us a thoroughly enjoyable film.

Obvious, it is a special film. For different motifs, from the performances, suggesting a new generation of actors ready to propose great roles to the realism of fight scenes, from the politic and the grew up of a young prince becoming an admirable king to the expected John Falstaff. In meny senses, the film of Timothee Chalamet . And one of splendid works from Neflix. So, just a great film, a wise storytelling, beautiful performances, fair atmosphere and something escaping to definitions. A film about power, maybe out of expected Shakespeare but profound inspired portrait of the battle of Azincourt. So, just special, in all of senses, at each level.

I have mixed fillings about this movie. First of all it's a very nice piece of cinema with an epic and realistic medieval battle.

But ... bloody hell ... when you try to make a movie about an historical caracter why can't you get your facts straight.

The historical facts, as related in this movie, are all wrong.

I know that Americans don't really care about the worlds History and try to make it entertaining instead of relating true events as they actually were.

The battle of Agincourt was a military masterpiece, there is no need for stupid inaccuracies.

Even Shakespeare was more accurate than this.

Make historical movies historical again.

I first turned on this movie seeking epic medieval battles and battlefield glory along with drama in the royal court, and I got what I was looking for, just not in the way I expected.

This movie is based on the play Henry V by William Shakespeare, which is in turn based on the real Henry V. It is not 100% accurate, but I would argue that it's still educational. We find a drunk Hal living the partying lifestyle, when his father suddenly dies and leaves the crown of England to him, he doesn't seek the crown, which makes him suited to wear it. He swiftly and successfully unites England, but when he is taunted by the king of France, he is advised to invade him. And invade France he does. What follows is a beautiful (despite the gaps) story with betrayal, battles, and (maybe?) love.

The story is the definition of slow-burn, accompanied by a minimalist classical score and beautiful cinematography highlighting the soft sky. The production design is minimal but still looks expensive. The film highlights the complexities of war and the burden of leadership in a brilliant way, visible in the amazing performances from Timothee Chalamet and Joel Edgerton and the accompanying cast.

If you can't handle slow paced drama, I can't recommend this. For me this is a mood based film, I can't watch this on a summer day after a day at the pool. This movie just kills that mood. But if I've had one of those days and I'm listening to the patter of rain in the window, this movie lifts me up. If you have the patience to watch it, this could be in your list of top ten favorite movies.

Yes it's not historically accurate blah blah but it's a damn fine piece of filmmaking. Great script, direction, performances, cinematography and a wonderful soundtrack. The casting is spot on. And though I've seen it a number of times now, I still get a knot in my stomach before the battle. THAT says something! Patterson's portrayal of the Dauphin could have so easily have been clownish, but it is tinged with menace and works so well. He chews up every scene he's in. This is very good cinema indeed.

Gritty medieval drama . If your expecting gladiatoresque style action . You will be disappointed. More of an historical slow burn theatrical drama

A very different take on the story of King Henry V from the one we're used to seeing; you know the one a certain Mr Shakspeare has served up. As might be expected from a director who as already given us "Animal Kingdom" and "The Rover" there's a whiff of the gangster to be found here. These are the courts not of the high born but of the common, men who have fought their way to the throne through muddy fields of blood while Michod's vision of medieval Europe seems wholly accurate without being overdone.

Of course, this is a Henry far removed from the nobility of an Olivier or a Branagh. Chalamet's Henry is certainly noble but he's also much more of a pragmatist, prepared to think first and act later, unlike Robert Pattinson's over-the-top and somewhat camp Dauphin; the contrast between them is beautifully delivered. The other main character is, naturally, Falstaff who, in Joel Edgerton's superb performance, is a much more subdued presence than we have seen before. Indeed the acting throughout is outstanding as is the screenplay co-written by Michod and Edgerton, while the Battle of Agincourt is as fierce and as bloody as any battle ever put on film. In an age of Marvel movies "The King" might seem like a fish out of water but it's unquestionably one of the best films of the year.

Not historically as accurate as I would have liked but an excellent effort all the same. Got my juices flowing and that is the object surely. The lead was believable and thankfully not a musclebound Hollywood drone.

Timothée is one of the alluring reasons to watch this. The plot is slow to unravel but the final battle is somewhat worth the wait. Wish there was more battles but I suppose history can't be changed to satisfy my viewing bloodlust.

This was epic. The acting was amazing. Near perfect writing. The actor who played Henry (Timothee C) should be a big star. Great presence. Take the time to watch this. I'm glad I did. High quality stuff.

The plot itself is quite entertaining but for me personally the score is the highlight of the movie as it gives it an obscure and melancholic touch. Great work by Nicholas Britell.

I found that the cinematography, costumes (chain mail everywhere!), acting and fast-paced and suspenseful plot of The King all combined to produce a satisfying and fairly gripping film.

After reading some of the negative reviews, I see that a significant contingent of people are quite angry about the historical inaccuracies. That´s always a problem with fact-based films. There are so many people who believe themselves to know all of the details (I presume because they read a lot of books? Written by other people who read a lot of books?), and they are going to be annoyed at whatever is changed or omitted for the sake of the film and at the behest of the director/writer/producer (in this case, all three are probably complicit). It is true, too, that Shakespeare wrote a very famous play entitled Henry V, and some people appear to be angry that this is not that.

My best advice would be to watch this production as an action-adventure film created in the 21st century. Thinking of The King in that way eases some of the quandaries which will surely arise in inquiring minds, such as: why was a young metrosexual male with the body of a pre-pubescent girl cast in the role of Hal? It stretched credulity, to put it mildly, that an adolescent with a toothpick thin body (his torso was displayed naked in more than one scene...) could have prevailed in any hand-to-hand, knife-to-knife battle to the death with such thick-necked, seasoned warriors.

Ultimately, The King is a fantasy tale in which a slacker with pacifist leanings eventually undergoes a transformation not unlike that of Michael Corleone in The Godfather.

I went into the movie with modest expectations. I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but I absolutely wasn't expecting this. I was blown away by this movie. It kept me interested from start to finish. Even though the movie contains a lot fewer battle scenes than previously expected, it was still intriguing and made any battle scene that much more rewarding. This could be the movie that helps Netflix win their first academy award for best picture. I highly recommend that anyone with a Netflix account watch this. You won't regret it.

Perfect cinematography, visual effects on a cinematic scale. Performances that are emotionally engaging, the sheer beauty of it. This does not play like a Netflix movie, more like a blockbuster epic. I always engage with Falstaff in Henry V, and find the actors who portray him fascinating, and Joel Edgerton does not disappoint, this is one of his career standouts, easily his best since Warrior. Timothée Chalamet is scintillating as Hal, who goes from wayward prince to King of England in a journey that is filled with anguish, blood and grief. Netflix's best movie to date! Who cares if it's not accurate to the source material or history!

It isn't a film that I think many people will be adding to their all time favourites, but regardless its a good film with a compelling story line. Truth be told, with one hour left to the movie I would have rated it a 6, it was a bit slow and I wasn't fully engaged, but the final battle and the twist at the end make up for that to make this film a solid 7. It's important to note that I'm not somebody who cares about 'historical accuracy' and I am more concerned with how good is the story and the quality of the mise-en-scène. After all, I'm not watching a history channel documentary but rather a piece of entertainment. Some people also complained about the dialogue and about dimly lit scenes. It is true that some lines are hard to comprehend even for native english speakers and there are certainly some dimly lit scenes. Its a minor issue and doesn't take away from the film. To conclude, as I said, its a good movie and worth a watch.