The King has no friends, nor future

Rating: 6/10 (10 November 2019)

"The King" is an entertaining movie which offers great costumes, battle scenes and effects. However, it's quite forgettable and mediocre when it comes to the plot, its development and the characters -an issue that also plagues "Outlaw King" (2016), Netflix's previous try on the Middle Ages.
The creators of "The King" just couldn't decide what they wanted the movie to be. Shakespeare or history? An oppressed protagonist, belittled by all, or a fearful warrior ready to lead his country? Falstaff, the coward, or Falstof, the brave? Joel attempts to make a blend out of these options, but the result is utterly unsatisfying.
Let's elaborate a bit. A movie on Henry V. It won't include St. Crispin's Day speech, won't depict Falstaff accurately, won't spit archaic terms and witty humor profusely and won't glorify the English cause. Sorry, mate -Shakespeare knows thee not.
We can't argue "The King" aims for historical accuracy, either. Many reviewers have outlined in good detail the blatant twists poor dame History has suffered on the hands of wicked and gloomy Joel and his companions.
Of course, the movie never claims to be a recitation of the Henriad (we already have "The Hollow Crown" for that purpose) or a dramatization of the actual life of Henry V (such an intent would better fit a documentary or a mini-series). Indeed, movies are supposed to be creative, thrilling and impactful; deliver quick, but powerful messages; surprise the viewer most acquainted with its underlying story.
Now, "The King" has none of these qualities. It's a dull piece about a ruler, somewhere in the world, fighting a national war, pressed by the sword of Damocles -one of the most overused plots in cinema history. It's riddled with clichés and cheesy dialogues which disrespect the talented cast here assembled, so badly wasted.
Speaking of the cast, again we contemplate the creators' indecisiveness. They're evidently unsure as to who is their protagonist. At first he's a pacific, unserious scoundrel, repealed by his father's warmongering nature. Crowned, he's despised by followers and foes, for his young likeness. Suddenly, however, he becomes grave; a ruthless patriot; a cold and virtuous despot; a Netflix-sponsored music video of Sabaton's "Carolus Rex".
Yes, I understand that's called "coming-of-age drama". That he's fooled in the end, as an epitome of the blind masculine ambition. But everything is too fast, too unsubtle, too unconvincing.
Now, contrary to some, I wouldn't say the director miscasted the main role. It's just that it lacks verisimilitude, which is paramount in a movie of such serious atmosphere. When they cast Chalamet, creators evidently want us to expect him to overcome hardships with a cunning mind or a strategist spirit. But what we see is the very opposite: they make him prove his mettle in the battlecore, in duels, in the mud.
I'm sorry, Joel, but as you yourself said, Chalamet isn't that guy. Next time, invert his role with Pattinson's.