A boring mess of a movie

Rating: 2/10 (6 November 2019)

The biggest problem with this movie is that it doesn't know what it wants to be. On the one hand, it tries to take a fresh look at the person of King Henry V, but ta the same time, it tries to be an adaptation of Shakespeare's play. As a result it false at both, lacking the flair and drama of the play, while at the same time managing to be LESS historically accurate than Shakespeare's work. E.g. It shows the Battle of Shrewsbury as being settled with a single duel. (The 5000 or so casualties of the battle would be surprised to hear that!) It states that Henry's brother Thomas dies in Wales before Henry's coronation (The real Thomas, duke of Clarenc, lived another 20 years and died in France.) It claims that Sir John Falstaff led the vanguard at Agincourt. (The person Falstaff was based on was already dead by then and the vanguard was led by the Duke of York.) And, finally, it claims that the Dauphin (Played by Pattinson and arguably the only watchable part of the movie)was killed at Agincourt, whereas in reality he never went anywhere near the battle.
None of this was necessary.
So, lacking even the pretense of historical accuracy, does the film at least present an engaging story? Not at all. It presents us with a moping, emo, Prince Hal turned King Henry V (I swear Chamelet's expression doesn't change even once during the entire movie), who lacks the determination and dynamic personality of Shakespeare's eponymous character. For two thirds of the movie, the audience watches as this charisma-challenged individual stumbles around in a mental fog and allows himself to be pushed around by events leading up to the climactic battle, where, instead of actually taking charge, he has to learn basic tactics from other people. Then, to top it all off, we are treated to the meeting between King Henry and Princess Katherine of France. Whereas Shakespeare used this final scene as release tension by showing the two protagonists in an comically awkward courtship, hampered by language and cultural difficulties, the makers of 'The King' use it to show the world how WOKE they are. Within seconds, Princess Katherine, the only meaningful female character in the movie, unravels the conspiracy, analyses Henry's character and generally demonstrates the infinite superiority of the female mind over the poor befuddled males. I have some advice for you: If the only way you can write a strong female character is by making all men look dumb, I suggest you find another job. This does not show social awareness, it shows a lack of writing skill.
So, where does this leave us? If you want to learn about the real King Henry V, this movie is useless, because it lacks even a veneer of historical truth. If you want to be entertained, I strongly recommend watching the 1989 movie starring Kenneth Brannagh. I gave The King more than one star, simply because I liked Pattinson as the Dauphin but his role is too small to make the movie watchable.