The King- Netflix Nov. 1

[Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn]

I think I have the highest ability to find Robert Pattinson randomly in movies.

[SerHaHa]

8 hours ago, Triskele said:

RP was quite a riot in this film.  I did not know he was in it going in and it took me a sec to realize it was him.  

I thought he did a fantastic job in this film, really looking forward to his Batman portrayal now based on his impressive talent here.  I agree with others here that Timothy Chalamet was excellent as well.

As always, the archers were disappointing compared to their effect based on history - and yes I realize that the typical armor of the day would have stopped most of the English war arrows of the time period, but horses and exposed body parts sure didn't. 

One thing I found to be very accurate however was the single combat scene(s). 

Spoiler

When Henry fought Percy specifically - many, even most single combats during the age of plate/platemail ended up on the ground in some form of medieval wrestling, with the combatants trying to jam a dagger into a small slot or space in the plate armor.  The half swording take down method that Henry used is right out of various treatises too.  I was most impresses with both the fight co ordinator and actors in this scene.

 

[Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn]

At the end, Henry goes to his french wife and wants her to tell him always the truth. It means another "trust game" begins for Henry.

[Corvinus85]

My criticism of how this movie portrays the Battle of Agincourt, - historical inaccuracies forcing bad writing, and while I don't like to compare historical fiction with Game of Thrones, some writing choices here merit that.

Spoiler

 

Historically, the Dauphin wasn't the commander of the French army, but be that as it may, it kinda worked because of Charles's speech at the end about family, which was some damn solid piece of writing, but required the Dauphin dying in the battle. What was ridiculous about the Dauphin was his over the top behavior to the point that he can easily be compared with Ramsay Bolton, the TV character - all his psychopathic threats, stalking the English army in the woods with "a few good men", murdering children and sending a ghastly message to Henry, then refusing single combat, only to take up Henry on the offer at the moment of his army's defeat, and die like an idiot.

I found the battle to not be believable because of how everything was shown. The English army was indeed heavily outnumbered, and as became traditional of the English, they did fight on foot. The ground was indeed muddy. But this is where historical similarities end.

While the real French commanders were a bunch of arrogant idiots, who cared more about obtaining personal ransoms out of captured English nobles, their fictional counterparts here are even worse, along with the rest of the French chivalry. But they have to be so incredibly dumb, because the English aren't that smart either. Even Sir John Falstaff, who comes up with a decent tactical plan thanks to his arthritic knee, acts like a dumbfuck during the battle, but is initially saved from dying until the required point in the story, thanks to the French lacking any brains. (ie bad writing).

Some side by side comparisons between the movie and history

• The French knights had no lances. WTF Their charge actually reaches the English line fairly well, as the ground conveniently becomes muddy only after this, but not even Falstaff, who stupidly stood by himself, doesn't die right away, because the guy who hit him had no lance. The French had a hard time getting to the English lines, because of the incredibly muddy terrain, and the constant barrage of arrows. They did make it, but they were exhausted, yet with numbers they initially pushed the English men-at-arms back, until they started getting hit from the flanks
• The terrain here looked wide enough for the French cavalry to not only charge head on, but envelope the small English vanguard, and even go past them and attack the loosely arrayed archers (there's a wide shot of the battlefield that shows all this). The terrain was too narrow for the French to envelop the English; the English had secured their flanks by having their lines extended from woods to woods, the archers were mostly deployed on the flanks, with stakes driven in the ground to prevent the French from easily getting at them. The French, once committed to the battle, had little choice but to come head on.
• The English army looked to have about a third archers, a tenth the heavily armored men-at-arms, and the rest common infantry, billmen and such. The archers fired two volleys, and then got involved with the rest of the English led by Henry. The English army was at least three quarters archers, and the rest were well armored men-at-arms. Archery was pretty much a profession in England then, so these guys were very good. While not all historians agree on how the archers were so effective against armored opponents, it is likely that the archers fired both multiple volleys at the incoming French to maim their horses, injure or even kill their riders, and overall slow them down, and they also fired straight, from close, good aiming range, where their skills would have allowed them to find their marks. Also, being on the flanks allowed them to fire at close range without having to fire over the heads of their own guys. They likely would have fired until exhausting their quivers. What's the point otherwise? So I'm not sure how the English could have won this battle with this army composition and a much wider than historically accurate terrain.
• The French conveniently forgot what how useful forests can be in ambushing your enemy. This despite them choosing the battleground, and the Dauphin creepily using the forests to wage psychological warfare on Henry earlier in the movie. As mentioned above, the English simply used the woods to anchor their flanks, that the French would not be able to charge through them. But I bet both sides scouted those woods ahead of the battle.
• The battle, as per Hollywood standards, devolved into a brawl. With everyone being covered in mud, not really sure how they could tell each other apart. But I would think in this scenario, the side with the larger numbers would have won. Especially since their commander, the Dauphin, was sitting comfortably behind, and could have kept sending waves of men that weren't being harassed by arrow fire, since all the English archers were engaged. It appears that much of the French leadership was in the first line of the attack, and thus fell early in the battle, which demoralized the rest of the French. Once the battle was over, the French still had enough numbers to regroup and attack, but Henry ordered the execution of prisoners, which also had a demoralizing effect. Without effective leadership, the French retreated.

 

16 hours ago, SerHaHa said:

One thing I found to be very accurate however was the single combat scene(s). 

  Reveal hidden contents

When Henry fought Percy specifically - many, even most single combats during the age of plate/platemail ended up on the ground in some form of medieval wrestling, with the combatants trying to jam a dagger into a small slot or space in the plate armor.  The half swording take down method that Henry used is right out of various treatises too.  I was most impresses with both the fight co ordinator and actors in this scene.

 

Partially accurate

Spoiler

Yes, the equipment was accurate, and method of fighting was accurate. But there were mistakes in the choreography itself. Both combatants have daggers, which was good, but Percy forgets he has one, when he has Henry on the ground, and instead half-blindly searches for his sword. Even Henry, who initially had the advantage, only remembers his dagger at the end. Also, when Henry tackles Percy, his sword is actually behind the exposed backside of Percy legs, where he had only some linen, I think, and no steel, so Henry could have tried to cut into Percy's legs then.

 

[Zorral]

The huge and awful and unrecoverable from historical inaccuracy, the one that really matters, at the Battle of Agincourt is --

Spoiler

if indeed the Dauphin is killed, which it does look like was happening -- then who did Jeanne d'Arc get crowned King of France, hmmmmmmm?  This is inexcusable.

 

 

[Corvinus85]

54 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The huge and awful and unrecoverable from historical inaccuracy, the one that really matters, at the Battle of Agincourt is --

  Hide contents

if indeed the Dauphin is killed, which it does look like was happening -- then who did Jeanne d'Arc get crowned King of France, hmmmmmmm?  This is inexcusable.

 

 

Spoiler

I'm assuming this was Louis, who was the son of Chales VI but died sometime in the same year as the battle. The Dauphin that Jeanne crowns was Charles VII. 

 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Corvinus said:

  Hide contents

I'm assuming this was Louis, who was the son of Chales VI but died sometime in the same year as the battle. The Dauphin that Jeanne crowns was Charles VII. 

 

Spoiler

But -- Charles VII was the Dauphin.  This is a specific French title (not the same as Prince -- discontinued under the Bourbons -- maybe even the later Valois, I believe) for the son of the French king who is invested with particular lands in the north of France -- generally the designated heir, but not necessarily, but still, much like the title of Prince of Wales, generally expected to be the heir.   So if it was Louis, he can't be the Dauphin. Charles VI had 13 children, supposedly, with the Queen Isabella, though whether they were all his (he was mad much of the time, among other problems), many at the time insisted not, for rather good reasons -- though not about the Dauphin.

 

[Corvinus85]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

  Reveal hidden contents

But -- Charles VII was the Dauphin.  This is a specific French title (not the same as Prince -- discontinued under the Bourbons -- maybe even the later Valois, I believe) for the son of the French king who is invested with particular lands in the north of France -- generally the designated heir, but not necessarily, but still, much like the title of Prince of Wales, generally expected to be the heir.   So if it was Louis, he can't be the Dauphin. Charles VI had 13 children, supposedly, with the Queen Isabella, though whether they were all his (he was mad much of the time, among other problems), many at the time insisted not, for rather good reasons -- though not about the Dauphin.

 

No, this guy was the Dauphin at the time of Agincourt. 

[SerHaHa]

On 11/4/2019 at 1:39 PM, Corvinus said:

My criticism of how this movie portrays the Battle of Agincourt, - historical inaccuracies forcing bad writing, and while I don't like to compare historical fiction with Game of Thrones, some writing choices here merit that.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Historically, the Dauphin wasn't the commander of the French army, but be that as it may, it kinda worked because of Charles's speech at the end about family, which was some damn solid piece of writing, but required the Dauphin dying in the battle. What was ridiculous about the Dauphin was his over the top behavior to the point that he can easily be compared with Ramsay Bolton, the TV character - all his psychopathic threats, stalking the English army in the woods with "a few good men", murdering children and sending a ghastly message to Henry, then refusing single combat, only to take up Henry on the offer at the moment of his army's defeat, and die like an idiot.

I found the battle to not be believable because of how everything was shown. The English army was indeed heavily outnumbered, and as became traditional of the English, they did fight on foot. The ground was indeed muddy. But this is where historical similarities end.

While the real French commanders were a bunch of arrogant idiots, who cared more about obtaining personal ransoms out of captured English nobles, their fictional counterparts here are even worse, along with the rest of the French chivalry. But they have to be so incredibly dumb, because the English aren't that smart either. Even Sir John Falstaff, who comes up with a decent tactical plan thanks to his arthritic knee, acts like a dumbfuck during the battle, but is initially saved from dying until the required point in the story, thanks to the French lacking any brains. (ie bad writing).

Some side by side comparisons between the movie and history

• The French knights had no lances. WTF Their charge actually reaches the English line fairly well, as the ground conveniently becomes muddy only after this, but not even Falstaff, who stupidly stood by himself, doesn't die right away, because the guy who hit him had no lance. The French had a hard time getting to the English lines, because of the incredibly muddy terrain, and the constant barrage of arrows. They did make it, but they were exhausted, yet with numbers they initially pushed the English men-at-arms back, until they started getting hit from the flanks
• The terrain here looked wide enough for the French cavalry to not only charge head on, but envelope the small English vanguard, and even go past them and attack the loosely arrayed archers (there's a wide shot of the battlefield that shows all this). The terrain was too narrow for the French to envelop the English; the English had secured their flanks by having their lines extended from woods to woods, the archers were mostly deployed on the flanks, with stakes driven in the ground to prevent the French from easily getting at them. The French, once committed to the battle, had little choice but to come head on.
• The English army looked to have about a third archers, a tenth the heavily armored men-at-arms, and the rest common infantry, billmen and such. The archers fired two volleys, and then got involved with the rest of the English led by Henry. The English army was at least three quarters archers, and the rest were well armored men-at-arms. Archery was pretty much a profession in England then, so these guys were very good. While not all historians agree on how the archers were so effective against armored opponents, it is likely that the archers fired both multiple volleys at the incoming French to maim their horses, injure or even kill their riders, and overall slow them down, and they also fired straight, from close, good aiming range, where their skills would have allowed them to find their marks. Also, being on the flanks allowed them to fire at close range without having to fire over the heads of their own guys. They likely would have fired until exhausting their quivers. What's the point otherwise? So I'm not sure how the English could have won this battle with this army composition and a much wider than historically accurate terrain.
• The French conveniently forgot what how useful forests can be in ambushing your enemy. This despite them choosing the battleground, and the Dauphin creepily using the forests to wage psychological warfare on Henry earlier in the movie. As mentioned above, the English simply used the woods to anchor their flanks, that the French would not be able to charge through them. But I bet both sides scouted those woods ahead of the battle.
• The battle, as per Hollywood standards, devolved into a brawl. With everyone being covered in mud, not really sure how they could tell each other apart. But I would think in this scenario, the side with the larger numbers would have won. Especially since their commander, the Dauphin, was sitting comfortably behind, and could have kept sending waves of men that weren't being harassed by arrow fire, since all the English archers were engaged. It appears that much of the French leadership was in the first line of the attack, and thus fell early in the battle, which demoralized the rest of the French. Once the battle was over, the French still had enough numbers to regroup and attack, but Henry ordered the execution of prisoners, which also had a demoralizing effect. Without effective leadership, the French retreated.

 

Partially accurate

  Hide contents

Yes, the equipment was accurate, and method of fighting was accurate. But there were mistakes in the choreography itself. Both combatants have daggers, which was good, but Percy forgets he has one, when he has Henry on the ground, and instead half-blindly searches for his sword. Even Henry, who initially had the advantage, only remembers his dagger at the end. Also, when Henry tackles Percy, his sword is actually behind the exposed backside of Percy legs, where he had only some linen, I think, and no steel, so Henry could have tried to cut into Percy's legs then. 

 

Spoiler

The equipment being accurate is up for debate, I know that Toby at the Wallace Collection was pitching a small fit over the inaccuracies of the helmets used, among other things.  Also, the technique used for the double leg take down with the sword which Henry used precludes any ability to use the edge to cut the back of the legs.  In order to half sword without cutting your own hands, as well as to get enough of the surface of the sword across the legs for leverage,  you have to grip the sword with the surface/flat side pressing into the targets legs,  NOT the edge specifically, which then prevents one from putting that edge into the calves/backside of legs/etc.  It's also easy to make mistakes when engaged in a life and death struggle, such as not going for a secondary weapon when you've lost your primary - this happens frequently even in the modern age, transitioning from primary/rifle to secondary/pistol is a very complex decision sometimes, but your point is valid regarding this just the same.

 

[Zorral]

14 hours ago, Corvinus said:

No, this guy was the Dauphin at the time of Agincourt. 

Thanks for making this clear to me (French dynastic sequences are really difficult for me to get straight)!  But Louis wasn't at Agincourt either anymore than his mad dad, Charlie VI, and then he died.   Though, from what I understand he wasn't any less feckless than the Dauphin who became Charles VII?

[The Last Storm]

Yea the next French King was Charles VII I believe after the farce crowning of Henry VI as King of France as of this time England was losing its foothold there. Would have been cool if we got some mention of Henry V’s brothers who had a big role in Henry VI’s life.