Utter Fail

Rating: 3/10 (1 November 2019)

A dark brooding medieval tale that by the end has descended into farcical melodrama held together only by the performances of Chalamet as Henry and Harris as William Chief Justice and even they are failed by a post modernist script and borgiaesque politicking and murder in the final 20 minutes.
Neither a Shakespearean reimagining nor a full blown historical drama this effort seems to be unable to make its mind up and fails in both instances. Now it is often said that historical films don't need to be completely accurate to be entertaining and that's true but this is 100% inaccurate and that effects its entertainment value because even someone with the most basic knowledge of the events will eventually say "hold on?"
Where to start?
Henry IV; a schizophrenic usurper played here as pantomime villain and a waste of the talents of Ben Mendelsohn.
Hal; the drunkard wastrel of Shakespeare duly played as such here by Chalamet supported by Edgerton as Falstaff but both are pretty unconvincing as such and of course he wasn't, in fact by this time he was playing an active part in the running of the kingdom.
Hotspur; the eternal rebel played here really well by Tom Glynn-Carney, who I thought would have been a better Henry, but no he wasn't killed in hand to hand combat by a reluctant Hal in front of two armies but died at the battle of Shrewsbury a battle Hal wasn't at.
Thomas; younger brother of Hal, no he didn't usurp Hals position, no he didn't command at Shrewsbury, no he didn't die in Wales, he actually acted as adviser to Henry IV and V and died on Henry V's French campaign, why do this when the reality is more interesting?
William Chief Justice; really well played by Sean Harris but the reveal of him not being the loyal minister but a scheming capitalist who manipulated the king into a war so he could profit is utter nonsense and a pretty poor commentary on recent US foreign adventures, it's also grossly insulting to the actor who has to mouth the final scenes and to the audience who has to listen. Yes the character existed but he resigned when Henry V was crowned.
Falstaff; played straight out of Shakespeare by Edgerton but with the addition of being a military genius who plans Agincourt, utter nonsense and why? In Shakespeare the character has a purpose in this he has none and Edgerton looks lost despite being one of the writers.
The French plot; there wasn't one, oh no it was that nasty chief justice! Henry wanted glory and didn't much care how many englishmen had to die in France to get it.
The Dauphin; was Robert Pattinson deliberately hamming this up? A quite bizarre performance that jars against the sombre mood of the film and guess what? The Dauphin wasn't at the battle so didn't die there and certainly wasn't murdered by a bunch of muddy soldiers on the nod of Henry in what is quite a disturbing scene.
Agincourt; a famous battle both in Shakespeare and history so plenty to go on but here is the worst part of the film. The English were in retreat and the French were in their way so they had to fight. Yes it rained and the ground was boggy. No a valiant advance guard didn't advance up a slope led by Falstaff. No Henry didn't hide in ambush with no armour along with the rest of the soldiers, these guys are nobles for God's sake they fought with their own class. No the French didn't trot down a slope armed only with swords, they advanced on foot with halberds, half pikes and great swords, if they had been mounted they would have used lances! Everyone wore livery otherwise who would you know who to kill or capture for ransom? Metal autonomons rolling around in the mud just looked ridiculous. The reality is far more cinematic than what we see; Henry and his men at arms stand their ground between two woods where they position their archers - you know, the famous English longbowmen who are barely seen! The French knights advance on foot enduring an arrow storm which kills many and forces them to bunch up in the mud so that they can barely raise their weapons then we have the savage hand to hand at the English line as waves of the French nobility sacrifice themselves. Had the film makers not seen Helms Deep? Had they not heard of CGI? The battle was both woeful and wrong.
Was anything any good? Well yes, the score was excellent and the overall mood for the first two thirds attractively dark but in the end it was a failure and in this day and age with the technology available and a talented cast it shouldn't have been.