The comment below was nonsense. There are many positive reviews, which is why it is rated fresh and green on RT and MC. All the complaints about the film boil down to just one thing: "I can't believe they changed that!" They come from Shakespeare purists who aren't perceptive enough to notice that the Henry V play contains great speeches but no human truths, being merely a piece of pandering Tudor propaganda.

As festival tweets indicate, when this film is reviewed by the general public who don't know the Henriad or aren't attached to it, it has mostly raves.

Personally I was holding my breath, fearing disappointment, but the reviewer came through, pausing long enough in a generally positive vein to include the truly indispensable. There were at least 3 points where it was strongly likely that the writer/filmmakers intended allusion to: 1) Trump; 2) a feminist theme; and 3)) "contemporary and corrupt institutions of power and even(emphasis added) the dangers of male hegemony". Phew. There they were, some of them even doubled up in the same sentence, combining economy with insight. I can breathe easier now, restoring my faith in the reviewer's nod to wokeness. And there was I, simple as a young king gullible enough to believe a trusted advisor would deceive him with a faked assassination plot, thinking the filmmakers were intent on the resultant excellent film they produced, themselves wise enough to know that actually, in the past too, there have been people in power that weren't popular with the have-nots, there were wise, intelligent and outspoken beautiful women, and--how unbelievable is this--history is replete with accounts of males wielding swords and dominating nations and societies--for literally millenia!

I don't think this critic or the filmmakers intended any allusion to Trump. For a start, Trump is not a warmonger, preferring to pursue an isolationist foreign policy. There might have been an allusion to George W Bush, but that would be a very outdated reference now. I sincerely hope the filmmakers understood the timelessness of this story, which would preclude any connection to any specific US presidents.

I am certain the filmmakers absolutely could not have cared less about including allusions to, allegories about, or any other nonsense about Trump, any past, present or current US or international politician or any current event of any kind. They had their hands full creating a great script, evoking great photography from that department and fantastic performances from their actors, on whose shoulders their fortunes rested. However, read the review again and you'll see the critic feels otherwise or at least wants to believe otherwise, where I note them above--and here's another one: "There is also the Dauphin’s sister Catherine de Valois (Lily Rose-Depp, terrific in a late-arriving sequence)—putting a feminist turn to the events (and perhaps hinting a tiniest Trump allegory)..." A feminist turn? Tiniest Trump allegory? No feminist turn intended, women of intelligence have always spoken their mind within intimate circles of people they trust, regardless of the era; and how in the world is there a tiny Trump allegory? His daughter Ivanka's influence on him? There must be a set of Harry Potter spectacles worn by modern critics which are designed to flash red whenever the eye scans screen imagery or dialogue capable of invoking woke commentary. As far as I can tell this is either just simple near-Freudian projection of underlying political bias or some clause in a critic's work performance contract. Seeing such messages in most films requires more suspension of disbelief than the plots themselves.

Agree regarding Tudor propaganda. One part of the Shakespeare play that I found simply not believable was when they assessed the lopsided body count following the Battle of Agincourt.

Yes, I know. Shakespeare simply presented Agincourt as a glorious victory with no losses and no consequences, ignoring the fact that Henry V wasted English troops and treasure in capturing a vast territory they would never be able to hold. The later defeats in France weren't the fault of the men who came after him, as Shakespeare put it. It was Henry V's own fault for making this disastrous foreign policy decision in the first place. If he had focused on ruling England wisely instead, perhaps the Wars of the Roses wouldn't have started under Henry VI.

I would compare Shakespeare's Henry V play in the 1590s to a genius filmmaker in the 2190s who makes a dazzling film about the shock-and-awe capture of Baghdad in 2003, but ignores the decade-long Iraq quagmire that came after it. We would be outraged by that, but perhaps crowds in the 2190s would lap it up.

Poetry anyone? Art? Dramaturgy? We're not talking history here; we're talking art. Get the playing field right. Shakespeare did not write to correct wrongs or fix problems. That was Parliament's job.

Not really correct, the near destruction of the french nobility lead to Henry ruling Normandy and named heir to french crown. The modern structure of France and England was not remotely in place at the time and not a given, but beside the point anyway. No one reads or watches Shakespeare for history lessons or at least they shouldn't. And under no circumstances change the prose.

And the battle of Agincourt itself was a defining moment in history, the beginning of the end of the heavily plated armored knight and the rise of the common soldier i.e. peasant on the battlefield.

What I said was absolutely correct, and nothing in your post refuted any of mine. Everybody knows that Henry V became the heir to the French crown, but the point was that the English would never be able to hold the vast French territories forever, as all the English defeats from 1429-1453 showed. Everybody also knows that the French nobility suffered far greater losses than the English nobility at Agincourt, but the English victory in that particular battle was not free from loss, as Shakespeare put it. More importantly, it was ultimately futile, since the joint kingdom was doomed from the start and the heavy continental defeats suffered by the English later became a contributing factor to the Wars of the Roses civil war in England.

People do not expect the details of history to be correct in Shakespeare's plays, but the entire gist of the Henry V play was wrong. He presented a king who made a disastrous foreign policy decision as a great English hero. He blamed the men who came after him for the loss of the French territories later, instead of blaming Henry V himself for his mistake. Similarly, George W Bush is responsible for the decade-plus quagmire in Iraq, not the soldiers and governors who later, inevitably, found Iraq impossible to manage.

"Henry V contains great speeches but no human truths"? Apparently, you don't know a human truth when you read it? What else are we to assume? Shakespeare was no historian; he was a poet. Read the play again. Here is one speech. Just one.

"Upon the King! Let us our lives, our souls, our
debts, our careful wives, our children, and our sins,
lay on the King!
We must bear all. O hard condition,
Twin-born with greatness, subject to the breath
Of every fool whose sense no more can feel
But his own wringing. What infinite heart’s ease
Must kings neglect that private men enjoy?
And what have kings that privates have not too,
Save ceremony, save general ceremony?
And what art thou, thou idol ceremony?
What kind of god art thou that suffer’st more
Of mortal griefs than do thy worshipers?
What are thy rents? What are thy comings-in?
O ceremony, show me but thy worth!
What is thy soul of adoration?
Art thou aught else but place, degree, and form,
Creating awe and fear in other men,
Wherein thou art less happy, being feared,
Than they in fearing?
What drink’st thou oft, instead of homage sweet,
But poisoned flattery? O, be sick, great greatness,
And bid thy ceremony give thee cure!
Think’st thou the fiery fever will go out
With titles blown from adulation?
Will it give place to flexure and low bending?
Canst thou, when thou command’st the beggar’s knee,
Command the health of it? No, thou proud dream,
That play’st so subtly with a king’s repose.
I am a king that find thee, and I know
’Tis not the balm, the scepter, and the ball,
The sword, the mace, the crown imperial,
The intertissued robe of gold and pearl,
The farcèd title running ’fore the King,
The throne he sits on, nor the tide of pomp
That beats upon the high shore of this world;
No, not all these, thrice-gorgeous ceremony,
Not all these, laid in bed majestical,
Can sleep so soundly as the wretched slave
Who, with a body filled and vacant mind,
Gets him to rest, crammed with distressful bread;
Never sees horrid night, the child of hell,
But, like a lackey, from the rise to set
Sweats in the eye of Phoebus, and all night
Sleeps in Elysium; next day after dawn
Doth rise and help Hyperion to his horse,
And follows so the ever-running year
With profitable labor to his grave.
And, but for ceremony, such a wretch,
Winding up days with toil and nights with sleep,
Had the forehand and vantage of a king.
The slave, a member of the country’s peace,
Enjoys it, but in gross brain little wots
What watch the King keeps to maintain the peace,
Whose hours the peasant best advantages."

Not much human truth here, right? And strange, that such a propagandist would so traduce the royalty he has set up on a pedestal for adulation! If that speech were a ship, the ballast of human truth it carries would have sunk it!

Since the review is fixated on haircuts it needs to be noted that the FBI now uses the bowl cut sported by the King as a way to profile potential computer hackers.

I re-read the review, and it seems you're the one who is fixated on haircuts. In the first paragraph, the review correctly noted he had "a brooding gaze and a serious haircut" (in contrast to the unserious haircut he sported at the start of the movie), and then the review moved on to more serious matters.

Actually, the review mentions the haircut repeatedly Sporting Chalamet’s famous, mid-parted locks, Hal unreservedly womanizes and boozes a

Oh hair we go again!

The review mentioned hair exactly twice, both of which I also mentioned in my post. (Two different hairstyles = one haircut. The change occurs about 30 minutes into the movie.) After making this observation, the review goes one to discuss a whole raft of serious topics. You, on the other hand, have been unable to mention anything but hair in two posts.

That's fine, your criticisms of this film are about as deep as anyone else's. Good job.

Thank you, never be too deep!

I cannot wait to watch this.

This is the only positive review I've read of the film so far. Also the only one to bring up gifs.

Just imagine reading a review where a film critic talks about the dangers of female hegemony. Exactly. Unthinkable. Just another sad reminder of the double standard rampant in today's discussions about gender.

I love this movie, I had never heard of Chalamet, as he got cast as Paul Atredies in Dune I sought out his other work to see if he was up to the task, after watching this, I’m much relieved. I’ve read the Henriad, seen other movie versions, this was easily my favorite, I thought the updated script was marvelous, and the cast perfect. Edgerton made an astounding, believable Falstaff and Sean Harris excelled yet again, his delivery subtle and menacing. The cinematography, direction, production details including sets and costumes are all first rate, I bought the score just for the siege scene alone. It’s one of the best films based in this era that I’ve seen, I loved every frame.

As he is apt to do, I thought Edgerton stole the show here. Harris was pretty great too. A well rounded film with a nice twist at the end. Though I wasn't as impressed with Chalamet as everyone else seems to be. It's probably not a good sign when his big war speech makes you laugh (which is the effect it had on me). Patterson was amusing, though mostly just a caricature with zero development.

A good film. But I wouldn't have given it more than 3 stars. The battle scene was kind of dull, with too much slow motion and rolling around in the mud. And there is only so much teenage emo I can take before I start to get bored with it. But it's definitely worth at least one watch.

The big war speech was vastly underwritten compared to Shakespeare's, and that was painfully obvious to anyone who knows the Henriad. However, listening to it a second time, e.g. on YouTube, shows that it is powerful in its own right. ("Make it England!") Bear in mind that the writer did not have the same intentions as Shakespeare, as this film shows the war to be a folly and not simply a grand victory. Also, only a "teenage emo", as you put it, could have conveyed this writer's intentions correctly. Looking at the only painting of Prince Hal we have, this casting was certainly more accurate than Olivier or Branagh or most previous versions.

I rarely like the big speech scenes before a fight. They almost always seem contrived and silly to me and this film was no exception. Maybe scenes such as that just aren't to my taste or something.

And I didn't mind his casting so much, just the development of the character itself. It was flat. The teenage emo thing worked in the beginning. But it grew tedious as the film went on. It would have been more interesting to see the character mature as he grew into being King.

But I'm sure the speech was supposed to feel contrived and silly, because he was an immature king rousing an army to fight in a pointless war (in the filmmakers' view). Shakespeare's speech was far more poetic, but also unironically jingoistic. (Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!') By contrast, the film's prosaic line "Make it England!" was shouted by the actor twice with a snarl on his face, while pointing to French soil, and the words betrayed the true nature of this conflict.

The age of the character was correct. He did mature by the end of the film, but in a serious way, not as a barrel of laughs as in Shakespeare's play. One did feel that the courtiers bowing in the penultimate shot were not doing so simply out of duty.

I saw no maturation. He seemed the exact same character at the end that he was in the beginning. So I just don't know what you are referring to. His character had no depth to it, which would have been alright as a supporting character. But cast as the central role he just didn't have the personality to fill all that screen time.

And if the speech was suppose to feel contrived and silly, then all I can say is they accomplished that in spades.

If you saw no maturation, then you simply weren't paying attention. The mop-haired drunk wastrel in the early scenes was in no way comparable to the king who (spoiler) carried out a sudden, shocking act in the penultimate scene, and then walked through a court of bowing courtiers to address his queen. On reflection, I found it hard to believe the two were the same person.

I asked people to listen to the speech a second time, on YouTube. I doubt you have. Never mind. It is a powerful speech in its own right, if one can erase the Henriad from one's mind, and if one understands that the filmmakers wish to show clearly at that point the futility of the young king's mission. If you didn't get that, it's fine.

You need to make up your mind. First you agree with me the speech was contrived and silly. Now it's suddenly "powerful". Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Because that's the impression I'm starting to get.

He was a moody teenager at the beginning of the film. He was a moody teenager at the end of the film. There was no change. Sorry.

Sorry for the confusion. To be clearer, I didn't agree with you that the speech was "contrived and silly", I merely gave you an explanation for why it might have felt like that to you. (However, I now think you were just being negative for its own sake.)

In fact, I think your phrasing might be more apt for Shakespeare's flowery, poetic battle speeches. Listening to the speech again on YouTube, I am convinced this is a more realistic speech a young leader would give to an army.

(I have agreed with you that he could have been less moody and more jovial before his coronation. Yet, to be fair, Shakespeare's Prince Hal also had a dark, foreboding undertone right from his very first appearance in Henry IV, Part I.)

Why do people have to change during a movie's runtime?

I found it a little slow, but Pattinson is so delicious and Chalamet is good. That face really does tell the tale. And 'gravitas' is really the correct word for his presence. Wish there were more Edgerton as well.

I liked Chalamet... at first. But eventually the "brooding gaze" started to get a little over cooked. I think the actor had too much of a role for him to handle.

He gave the role exactly what it required. No other actor could have done any better with this script. (Note that he didn't have Shakespeare's script.) Furthermore, I doubt Henry V brutally conquered France and then showed himself to be a barrel of laughs at the French court. (Sorry, Mr Shakespeare, but that's another black mark against your play.)

I disagree. It was a flat performance. The movie would have benefited from a more versatile actor capable of presenting something other than a sulking teenager.

I disagree. Perhaps the script could have benefited from more laughs at the *start* (the pub revelry scene shouldn't have been shot in slow-mo, as it made him look like a demonic scarecrow), but it would be ridiculous to have him show a lighter side later in the film. It would have defeated the entire purpose. Immature masculinity is exactly what the filmmakers wanted to show. Also, perhaps you are knowledgeable about history but ignorant about film, as this actor has shown himself to be highly versatile in other films. This film didn't require anything else from him, not when it started getting serious, which was after about 20 minutes.

You're correct when you say I'm not familiar with this actor's other work. I'm not. This film did not encourage me to explore it either. Whether it was the actor's fault or the film maker's I can't say. All I know is his brooding teenager routine grew stale. The other characters (Edgerton, Harris) were far more interesting and saved the film from mediocrity.

Well, thank you for readily admitting your ignorance. You shouldn't have said an actor is not versatile if you're not familiar with his work. (Note: he is the only actor of his generation to have a Best Lead Actor Oscar nomination, and the youngest since Mickey Rooney in the 1930s.) I think you unfortunately failed to understand the filmmakers' intentions here. The character was fully intended to be a dark, brooding and immature male, an example of "toxic masculinity", as Chalamet said in an interview (don't get upset at that term, as it refers to a subset of masculinity and never to the whole), and it would have defeated the purpose to have him show a lighter side later in the film. The stark contrast with the overt silliness of Pattinson's character, along with Edgerton occasionally, was an indication that the filmmakers didn't want it from their lead.

He wasn't versatile on The King. And I can share my opinions about an actor if I like. You do not get to tell me what I should or shouldn't do. You aren't my daddy. ^^

I should also point out earning an Oscar doesn't mean much to me. The Shape of Water also won an Oscar for best picture. But that doesn't change the fact I still think it's one of the dumbest movies I have ever seen.

The "dark, brooding and immature male" would have been a lot more interesting if the film had allowed him to grow as a character and become something more. It didn't. Edgerton's character by contrast went from a washed up drunk to a heroic knight who gave his life for his friend and king. It's a pity Chalamet's character was so shallow by comparison.

If you saw no maturation, then you simply weren't paying attention. The mop-haired drunk wastrel in the early scenes was in no way comparable to the king who (spoiler alert) carried out a sudden, shocking act in the penultimate scene, and then walked through a court of bowing courtiers to address his queen. After that scene, I found it hard to believe the two were the same person.

I have agreed with you that he could have been shown as less brooding and more jovial before his coronation. Yet, to be fair, Shakespeare's Prince Hal also had a dark, foreboding undertone right from his very first appearance in Henry IV, Part I, and even right in the middle of his supposedly jovial pub scene. ("I do... I will.")

I think the movie would've been better served had Pattison delivered the Dauphin's lines in his natural French.