The King- Netflix Nov. 1

[The Last Storm]

Im super hyped about this. As a fan of English history, specifically the 100 years war and the wars of the roses. Have watched basically every piece of film on anything pertaining to it and it’s the first movie released recently that has me stoked.

[Paxter]

It does seem to be getting very mixed reviews but I will check it out (mainly because I like Chalamet and it's an unusual role for him). 

[The Last Storm]

Just finished it and I thought it was well worth watching. As in almost 100% of historical movies it isn’t completely factual but they did a pretty good job sticking to what history says happened. Really thought Chalamet was good and Pattinson wasn’t half bad either.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, The Last Storm said:

As in almost 100% of historical movies it isn’t completely factual but they did a pretty good job sticking to what history says happened. 

Shakespeare's plays of these kings were 100% not historical. They were totes politically astute, toeing the line that Henry 7 and Henry 8 put together to present himself and the Tudor line as the legitimate rulers, not those Plantagenets, of whom there were o so many still surviving. Alas, after Elizabeth there were no more Tudors and England got that utterly feckless and useless, hapless and hopeless line, the Stuarts. 

[Corvinus85]

So this one is based on Shakespeare's play, too? Is it not possible to make a movie that just follows the historical events? 

[Heartofice]

I really enjoyed it. Far better than something you’d expect on Netflix. 
 

Chalamet is mesmerising as Henry, and I think they did a great job of balancing drama and contemplation.

Plus I probably enjoyed the battle more than Battle of the Bastards. I’m a sucker for Agincourt action, though I was hoping for a bit more Longbow murder and sticking two fingers up at the frenchies!

[The Last Storm]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Shakespeare's plays of these kings were 100% not historical. They were totes politically astute, toeing the line that Henry 7 and Henry 8 put together to present himself and the Tudor line as the legitimate rulers, not those Plantagenets, of whom there were o so many still surviving. Alas, after Elizabeth there were no more Tudors and England got that utterly feckless and useless, hapless and hopeless line, the Stuarts. 

Willie boy was the Tudors greatest propagandist for sure and he made up many things like Henry receiving the tennis balls and his speech before battle but I have no problem with them including it.

[Zorral]

I don't either because I know it's fiction -- and it's Shakespeare, which provides a whole lot of other essential historical cultural and political information, if the student knows how to look, from language usage to attitudes about foreigners and so on.  Plus, that fellow knew how to use language.  

I cannot tell you though, how many people in the English department would point to Shakespeare as their documentation for these matters, and then go on and teach this in their classes.

But yes, this is supposedly adapted from Shakespeare, according to an interview I heard with the director and the actor.

I'll watch it certainly, but last night I started the second season of Jack Ryan on amazilla.

 

[divica]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

I really enjoyed it. Far better than something you’d expect on Netflix. 
 

Chalamet is mesmerising as Henry, and I think they did a great job of balancing drama and contemplation.

Plus I probably enjoyed the battle more than Battle of the Bastards. I’m a sucker for Agincourt action, though I was hoping for a bit more Longbow murder and sticking two fingers up at the frenchies!

I think the only great problem of the movie was how every royal except henry and his bride were cartoonish villains...

[StoneColdJorahMormont]

I was just about to make a thread about this movie, when watching it I kept getting Lannister vibes... 

Seeing one of Henrys sons pissed up in a bedsit with some floozy, whilst hating everything his Father stands for... Then hearing how the father was against him taking his place and preferring the other son who was not suitable...

Pattison is on a hot streak right now... 2 years ago it seemed he was in Ruper Grint territory..

[Mark Antony]

I’d never really seen Chalamet before but I thought he was good. Glad I took the chance with this I enjoyed it.

think I’ll finally pull Agincourt by Bernard Cornwell off the bookshelf now

[Corvinus85]

Just watched it. It was fine, but ultimately nothing special. It was often disjointed, relying on Chalamet's talents to carry the scenes, silently or otherwise. And yes, he is a good actor, the highlight of the movie. I'm glad I've seen it as I wanted to catch a glimpse of what he might be like as Paul Atreides. The rest of the cast was good, too. However, not sure what the movie tried to convey to the audience - the burdens of kingship, I suppose. There was certainly nothing inspiring, or mesmerizing.

There were plenty of historical inaccuracies. Among them, like Outlaw King, the need to put the "antagonist" squarely face to face to protagonist, though the outcome was different. I found the battle to not be very believable in terms of how it was shown and how it progressed from start to finish. But hey, they did have 15th century armor, and it generally looked good. 

[Zorral]

39 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

here were plenty of historical inaccuracies. Among them, like Outlaw King,

Being a netflix original that is what I'm expecting, including no real narrative depth and connection.  Lots of emoting and perhaps silly battle scenes.

[Corvinus85]

18 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Is that the Pine one?  Already having trouble remembering the title.

I watched this one last night and thought it was inevitable that these two would be compared given the period, the budget/production values, Netflix, etc...I thought The King was much better and a really nice surprise.   With just Edgerton and Chalomet there was much more compelling acting in this one than the other film all told.  And even beyond those two principals there were way more scenes that were carried by compelling dialogue that did a good job of advancing the story.  The Pine movie was empty by comparison.  

Yeah, but I'd say that Outlaw King had a more cohesive narrative. Sometimes, in this one blink and wait what is happening. 

[The Last Storm]

The only thing I liked about Outlaw King was Dillane, because I’m a hopeless Stannis addict.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I enjoyed it, it seemed a bit short, but the acting was pretty decent.

[Zorral]

Well. That was turgid.  And dank. 

Not Shakespeare's Falstaff . . . .

Still, the Giuliani to the Vth got his.  That's something. I suppose.

OTOH, how often by Agincourt were the French chivalry taken down significantly since Edward 1-2 even, Edward 3 and the Black Prince by that very thing -- combo of English crossbows and infantry and the French chivalry's incapacity not to charge headlong.  They never learned.

Plus, surely the mad French Charlie wasn't capable of talking to 5th -- did they actually have a meeting?  I'm not a specialist in this era, not a medievalist, so my facts, I must look them up, and I haven't yet.

 

 

[Zorral]

What I liked about The King, and liked very much was this:

Spoiler

 

How often by Agincourt had the French chivalry been taken down significantly since Edward 1-2 even, Edward 3 and the Black Prince by that very combo of English crossbows and infantry and the French chivalry's incapacity not to charge headlong. Even more than once by rain and mud.  They never learned.

Plus, surely the mad French Charles VI wasn't capable of talking to Henry 5th -- did they actually have a meeting? Surely it was his 'advisers' -- particularly his Queen? --who made the Treaty of Troyes that disinherited his own son from the throne in favor of Henry V.  Also, historically, the feckless, sickly Dauphin, age 17, wasn't present at Agincourt.  

What I liked very much was that John Falstaff is the hero, not Henry V.  Now we're all very familiar from Westerns, samurai films, war movies with the reluctant, inadvertent, low-life, criminal, grifter, eff-up generally turned hero is something we've seen frequently on screen -- it was a mainstay of that subgenre of ensemble cast war films and Westerns and well as Samarai films, for quite some time. They often were notable for their tone switching: from comedy and cynicism to sacrifice for the greater good of the group, standing in for the the good of country and downtrodden. But here, there is none of the Falstaffian comedy, just stolid "here I am, fuck you."

But there is something else going on with this Falstaff, something I don't recall coming up in historical films centered on the 100 Years War before -- his past with the Companies. Whether it was in England or in France his banditry took place, we don't know, but it was flung at Falstaff as an insult.There are many hints early on, even if not fully developed, to his reluctance to return to war.

So we have a Falstaff who not only kept Prince Hal from completing his self-destructive arc in the earlier days, but also a Falstaff who is the brilliant battle strategist and tactician of Agincourt, seemingly the only one who recalls how the Edwards and the Black Prince did it so often, defeating a much larger and well supplied force than their own -- even in the financially disastrous Spanish campaign for Pedro the Cruel, the turning point in the wheel of the Black Prince's fortunes -- and who has under many layers a foundation of nobility. When his past with the Companies is brought up his only response is, "I never robbed anyone who didn't deserve it." This utterance stands in for the audience to recognize who he really is some time before he sacrifices himself for his friend, the King, Henry V.  There's never a "not Hal but King to you" moment in this telling.

The second most interesting character was the duke -- was that Dorset? -- of fake news and conspiracy. While Falstaff may never have robbed anyone who didn't deserve it, like Giuliani, he made up a conspiracy in order to have a war for his personal for gain. Like bedbug, Henry V fell for it -- in this telling of Henry V and going to war with France. I do not think this was the real story.

The other characters in The King, and the history, were at best, cardboard effigies. 

And of course, there aren’t any women’s roles.  Though if the production really had the courage of its convictions to not center Henry it could have brought in Queen Isabella (she was really piece of work! or so They Said -- "depraved" was a favorite description of her) for some real psycho drama instead of that silly speech “that is all about family,’ that was given to Charles VI.

 

 

[The Last Storm]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

What I liked about The King, and liked very much was this:

  Hide contents

 

John Falstaff is the hero, not the Vth.  I've seldom seen a character like his on screen

 

 

 

Yea, it’s a completely different Falstaff than the one we get in the Hollow Crown for sure. I prefer this movies Henry and Falstaff over any other that I’ve seen.

[Zorral]

I wish it had been developed more though -- it really needed to be --

Spoiler

the irony that Falstaff is the true feudal loyalist, demonstrating the selflessness on behalf of the sovereign and country in battle celebrated in the romances and touted at courts, such as the Order of the Garter, the Star, the Sash, but generally honored in the breach, seldom in a noble's behavior.