Condensed soup, "inspired period-piece family melodrama" flavor. Enjoy!

Rating: 6/10 (18 November 2019)

As many reviews have already noted, this film takes liberties to historical accuracy like a knife to butter. A hot knife through room temperature butter. (i.e. Thomas was never considered as an heir in lieu of Henry, both boys were experienced soldiers by their late teens, and Henry's "party boy" years were a literary flourish by William Shakespeare - historical documents show he was consistently involved in war and politics since youth. He was also not one to shy away from war and his marriage to Catherine of Valois was considered/negotiated when they were very young, in part to give him legitimacy/acknowledge his right to the French throne. He was also 6' 3", but perhaps that's nitpicking. Battles were also inaccurate: Hotspur was actually 23 years older than Henry, who was only 16 when Hotspur was killed at the Battle of Shrewsbury at the age of 39; the one-on-one battle never happened, being yet another invention of Shakespeare's. Finally, the Dauphin, Louis, Duke of Guyenne, was not present at the Battle of Agincourt.)
So, we'll continue as if this was a period/historical drama inspired by real people (except the fictional Falstaff) and real... er... general events. Again, said by other reviewers, this movie had so much potential but for some reason was forced into a 2hr + film format; a damn shame considering it was on the perfect platform for any other alternative. Characters were underdeveloped to the point that I didn't care about them. Henry's sister, Queen Phillippa of Denmark and Princess Catherine of Valois, his future wife, each had only one scene of dialogue; the bar hostess had more screen time/character development than two of the most important/influential women in the film. It's not just the ladies - Henry's father, who he did have a difficult relationship with, was not given enough opportunity to show their troubled relationship, making the deathbed scene was unmoving. Henry's cousin, 3rd Earl of Cambridge, who he says was "like an older brother" to him, is beheaded after telling Gascoigne he accepted a surprise meeting with a French agent... and I kind of didn't feel anything. All these characters needed much more screen time for us to feel like they mattered, for us to be invested, and for us to relate/sympathize with Henry after their betrayal. It should have been easy... in real life/actual history, he and Sir Thomas Grey were executed for an actual conspiracy again Henry, known as the Southampton Plot. There was also a third guy - but let's not bite off more than we can chew. The only character I felt for was Falstaff... the only fictional character in the movie. I know I echo the sentiments of other reviewers, here and other places on the 'net, but this should have been a mini-series. If it were structured/presented in "acts" (each titled ambiguously like "The Rise", "The Plot", "The Betrayal"...or something) then it would hint/hearken to Shakespeare and all these historical inaccuracies would/could be ignored/explained. Finally, I had a problem with the accents - something I feel would have been fixed with a miniseries, considering the caliber/abilites of the cast. Pattinson and Chalamet slip up noticeably several times, to the point where it interrupted my viewing. Pattinson might have had an easier time, considering that with Chalamet, it was not only pronunciation, but also cadence - he pauses/takes breaths/speeds through parts of sentences in the way American speakers do. It was most apparent in his private conversation scene with Lily-Rose Depp (who did a lovely job, by the way) near the end of the movie; several entire sentences are delivered in an American accent; it also doesn't help that he's the only American in the main cast and Chapman, who plays his younger brother Thomas, is actually British. In any case, I think both actors would have been fully able to deliver more convincing accents if given more time, i.e. a mini-series.
All in all, the acting was great, the script felt natural and unforced, the cinematography and speed reminded me a bit of Macbeth (2015) and The Lost City of Z (2016), both of which I enjoyed. Not a waste of time, but not as good as I had hoped/as advertised - definitely a missed opportunity.