Historically inaccurate for no reason

Rating: 7/10 (13 November 2019)

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!