User Reviews (932)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is an interesting biopic of King Henry V. It starts when he is a "playboy" Prince of Wales. His father did not want him on the throne, but when his brother died, he was it. His rule was methodical and perhaps ahead of its time. The film ends after his war with France.

    I like the characters in the film. I was thankful they didn't speak with a Shakespearean accent.

    Guide: F-word. sex. no nudity.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Kirpianuscus2 January 2020
    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.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    ...because may expectations were low and I thought it will just be an entertaining movie but without nothing to say about, I guess I was wrong. Timothée over exceed my expectations at playing young king Henry and made a remarkable job. There were two things that I completely loved about this movie, the first were the battle scenes, they are probably the most realistic battle scenes in this historic time I've ever seen in a movie, all the other shows battles with armors and horses like the knights and soldiers were ninjas with swords that moved very easily even though the weight of the armor and that controlled the sword and everything on the battlefield with perfection but this movie doesn't do that, this shows what the battles really looked like: a total mess! The other thing that I loved is that they didn't tried to romantize the Henry wedding with the French princess with some love at first sight thing like a lot of movies do about arranged weddings in this period.

    The direction was also pretty decent and that final plot twist was good and completely unexpected. Despite all of these good points the movie is historically inaccurate and also inaccurate in comparison with Shakespeare's plays that were the base for this movie. This can be a bad point if you care about history and facts but if you only want to have a good time watching a good movie this won't matter. This is probably one of the best Netflix movies!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    An incredible film from beginning to end, historically accurate set and costume design, performances of the actors was fantastic. I love love love the accuracy of the portrayal of combat in full metal plate armor and the violence of battle. I love that they blurr Henry V by Shakespeare and historical drama incredibly well.
  • 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!
  • CtlAltDel24 July 2020
    9/10
    Epic
    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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Gritty medieval drama . If your expecting gladiatoresque style action . You will be disappointed. More of an historical slow burn theatrical drama
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Why do they do this? Who does Hollywood think it is exactly with this unadulterated fiction? To have the temerity to fictionalize major facts of the life of an historical figure takes some kind of elevated opinion of yourself.

    Here's a newsflash: Henry V was the member of his family most keen for war with France; Henry IV and Thomas favored peace. For reasons known only to Netflix, precisely the opposite is portrayed in this film.

    So Daddy disinherited Henry and made Thomas the heir, really?? (NOPE) So Thomas was green and got killed in battle before Henry IV died, really?? (Both sons were seasoned warriors, and Thomas died well after Agincourt.) So Falstaff (Sir John Oldcastle) heroically died at Agincourt, really?? (Henry executed him in 1417.) There's much more, but the point is made.

    So sick of historical figures being transformed into someone they weren't to suit whatever message the screenwriter is pushing. Just. stop.
  • tiggs-2473723 December 2019
    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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • philippwave10 November 2019
    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.
  • 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!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is a gritty, but somewhat predictable, historical gem from Netflix. The acting, dialogue, and cinematography are excellent. There is a bit of a plot twist that I was pretty suspicious would be the case, and in I think the plot is a bit rushed or forced from the start. Maybe that is because there is so much that happens in the story, so something is bound to get rushed somewhere.

    Part of the problem is probably how Henry V is portrayed as a sympathetic hero who is only invading France due to insult and to firm his support at home. This is fine from a point of fiction, but Henry in reality invaded France as a way to demand historically English (the royal family was Norman/French in origin) lands that the French had re-taken during the Hundred Year's War. He wasn't a hero as portrayed here. Obviously the politics/history is beyond the scope of the movie, but by forcing Henry to be more sympathetic, the movie contrives reasons for his war that are not quite believable. As a result, the movie works largely as a gritty medeival action movie, but the plot isn't too coherent/believable. Had they made Henry's motivations more real, the movie would probably be more believable (but far less sympathetic). In Shakespeare's time, English nationalism would make this more acceptable. Now, in our cynical day, it is less so.

    I think this sums up most Netflix movies for me. They feel rushed for some reason, even when they are long (2 h, 20 m in this case). A bit more consideration would have made this far more epic, even if it was still false to history. Hell, Braveheart is 99% fiction but is still a great movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I never fully understood this when I was younger, but the saying is sort of telling us that everything is moving on. It's like saying after the game, is before the game. There is always a continuation, whether you or other persons are involved in that or not.

    And the same applies here. Timothee Chamolet is riding high (no pun intended) but he's not alone. The cast is amazing, the story gripping and there is enough to sustain your attention and be entertaining enough for the run time. For some if may have slower passages, but those are needed. Like a calm before the storm - also if you like medieval stuff and knights you don't even need me convincing you to watch this.
  • I am not qualified to judge on the historical accuracy, although I am pretty sure the facts diverged from the narration.

    However, the movie it's quite good in a sort of gritty way. I enjoyed the photography and the battle scene was realistic enough to make you feel the slippery soil, the weight of the armour and the taste of blood.

    Chalamet as the wayward Hal, soon to be king Henry, was a bit flat in his interpretation. His character didn't emote much and even the would-be "band of brothers" speech was hardly inspiring.

    He was more of a confused boy, prone to bouts of cruelty than an heroic and noble king. And yes, the English really had no business invading France...

    I liked much more Pattinson as the evil dauphin. His broken English was excellent and hilarious.
  • Brilliant, well-paced supremely-acted bopic of the young Henry V. Slow-paced but in a good, thoughtful way, with a great and haunting score, and the Battle of Agincourt was realistically portrayed. Took me a few minutes to recognize Joel Edgerton as he was middle-aged, portly and with a brilliant Lancashire accent. However, undoubtedly, Timothee Chalamet dominates this movie with a tour de force performance. What a screen presence for someone so young, especially when he isn't speaking. I have no doubt he is going to be huge, the next Leonardo DiCaprio I suspect.
  • Started watching this almost by accident and was immediately hooked into the story by the huge acting presence of Chalamet.

    Well worth a watch and good old Shakesperian yarn of kings and plots,

    7.5 out of 10.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Overall I enjoyed watching this movie. I like period pieces like this and Netflix delivered again. The acting, cinematography, and battle scenes were fantastic. Unfortunately the story line is interesting but completely false with its character depictions and timelines. Not only did Henry V's brother Thomas not die prior to his father as shown at the beginning of the film, but he actually served as a commander in the English Army and died 8 years later well after the battle of Agincourt which is shown at the end of the film. Sir John and the French Dauphin also don't historically die in the battle of Agincourt as depicted in the film. Sir John actually loses the battle of Patay a few years later against Joan of Arc and becomes the scapegoat that is blamed for the defeat. The Dauphin is actually crowned the King of France after Joan of Arc wins a few important battles 14 years after the battle of Agincourt. There are other historical inaccuracies as well but I've made my point. Like I originally said, I enjoyed the movie and applaud certain aspects about it, but ultimately the director/ writers should have done a little more research first.
An error has occured. Please try again.