Slow and Inaccurate, but Solid Nonetheless

Rating: 7/10 (14 November 2019)

The King follows Henry V from his drunken antics as a prince through to his first victory in France. Of course first thing's first with this kind of movie; it's exactly that, a movie. This is not a documentary. It's a piece of thrilling entertainment based just as much on Shakespeare's play than it is on actual historical records. To treat it as anything other than that would simply be unfair to the film's intent. There's a lot in here that isn't accurate, such as the plot behind the scenes, or the strategies used at the Battle of Agincourt. But on the flipside there's a lot here that does feel authentic, and I feel like it struck the right balance between fictional entertainment and brutal realism.
The movie can feel slow at times, as long stretches of time can go by without anything bombastic happening. The first hour of the movie follows Henry as a prince, resisting the crown and seeking solace in his own brand of peace, before being thrust into leadership after a dying father. While slow, I didn't mind this section much because it took the time to really establish Henry's character and his borderline pacifist nature. It gave him trauma and motivation in an abusive father, and laid the stage for the French campaign. It's not until halfway into the movie that the French campaign even begins, and even then it's a slow start thanks to a castle siege depicted as slow and uneventful as a castle siege would really be. It all culminates in the Battle of Agincourt and the French surrender, leaving ten to fifteen minutes for a coda at the end, complete with story-defining plot twist. Pacing is not this movie's strongest suit, that's for sure, but for me it never dragged and kept my attention throughout.
Arguably The King's most visceral aspect would be its battles and fights. While the Battle of Agincourt lacks the historical accuracy of the strategies utilised, it worked because the focus was put on the press in the muddy field, complete with claustrophobia and brutal, ugly brawling. In many ways it felt reminiscent of the Battle of the Bastards in Game of Thrones, which is certainly no complaint. When charged by a vanguard of cavalry, the hero of the battle doesn't casually step aside and carve the horse in half, dismounting its rider. Instead the horse crashes into the line and the hero is catapulted off his feet into the line of men behind him. Similarly Henry's challenge early on starts out like knights in shining armour, but a sword fight quickly becomes a wrestling brawl on the ground, clanking armour plates, and exhausted breathing from both parties. Even the siege in its uneventful presentation still felt surprisingly visceral as three trebuchets launch flaming projectiles into the castle day and night, and the looming threat of hunger and disease is never forgotten.
Another aspect in The King's favour lies in its pure acting talent. I didn't always dig it as sometimes it felt like certain actors were taking the film too seriously, begging for awards with gravely whispers erupting into dominating shouts, but that's honestly not much of a criticism. Hey actors, how dare you take your craft seriously and put out great performances! Timothée Chalamet was the worst offender for this, but he pulls off the role of Henry V so well, balancing the tender desire for peace with the anger and authority required to be a strong leader. His portrayal was definitely full of layers worthy of dissection. Ben Mendelsohn chewed up his small runtime the only way he can, Sean Harris played the advisor William with as much ingenuity as required, Joel Edgerton was the perfect best friend, tired soldier, and wise mentor. And then there's Robert Pattinson who took his role as The Dauphin as seriously as was necessary and had fun sinking into the role of a slimey, privileged villain. His French accent was not authentic at all, but deliberately so, mocking Henry and the English and insulting their language.
The third big plus for The King comes from Nicholas Britell's domineering score as it sweeps high and low and keeps the plodding pace of the movie moving ever forward. It embraces the medieval setting with authentic-sounding instrumentation and composition, while also maintaining a brooding string section throughout. It is equal parts melancholic and bombastic, changing as required without losing its uniform tonal quality that brings the whole film together. Similarly Adam Arkapaw's cinematography once again proves he deserves to be up there with Deakins and Hoytema. Every shot is oozing with artistic merit worthy of being framed, and the Battle of Agincourt wouldn't have been nearly as spectacular to watch without his eye behind it. For me his most successful shots lie in the more subdued and tender moments, framing a solder against a sunset, or the montage of trebuchets in the siege, or the decidedly muted colour pallet in the royal courts.
The King has some big problems, mostly in pacing, historical accuracy, and mumbling line delivery, but when it does something right, it goes the extra mile. Chalamet is great as Henry V, offering us an interesting character to follow and sink our teeth into, the battles and action scenes feel true to realism despite how inaccurate they might be, focussing on both the thrill and monotony of war and not hiding from the brutality of either, and in almost all technical regardless I don't have a single complaint. I give The King a good 7/10, pushing up the higher end to an 8, but not quite topping the crest.
https://qyrosmovies.blogspot.com/