Neither historical nor entertaining - A rather dull effort by Michôd

Rating: 5/10 (1 November 2019)

While I appreciate Netflix for still financing big budget historical epics in a time when no major studio does, I couldn't help but feel quite disappointed by David Michôd's THE KING.
Once you look past its stunning visuals, there is really not much substance to the film. Being almost entirely deprived of historical markings - e.g. location informations, time specifications or even just names of historical figures - and filled with inaccuracies, THE KING basically fails as a historical film. Now, that in itself wouldn't be a problem as shown by films like BRAVEHEART, which are highly inaccurate in their depiction of historic events and figures, but nevertheless work from a cinematic perspective. Michôd however, who clearly wants his film to play out as a dramatic character study, never achieves depth, empathy or even a sense of urgency for his story to be told at all.
Watching this film, its obvious flaws made me think a lot about last year's OUTLAW KING. But while Mackenzie's Netflix epic at least had an exciting core to it as well as somewhat compelling characters backed up by memorable performances, THE KING is ultimately a dull and sluggish two-and-a-half-hour drag. And who on earth thought casting Robert Pattinson as the (English-speaking!) Dauphin of France was a good idea? At a time when this man is starring in films like GOOD TIME and THE LIGHTHOUSE, Michôd's script manages to craft a role that may be good meme material but is embarassing to watch and almost an insult to Pattinson as an actor.
In the end, THE KING is a very average film, potentially boosted by great visuals and an undeniably high production value. Thinking about all the talent involved though, it's definitely one of the bigger disappointments of 2019.