In creating a “modernized” retelling of the story of the Battle of Agincourt, David Michod and Joel Edgerton give us The King, a film that replaces the well-trodden ground of Shakespeare with present-day action film drear, historical anachronism, and plenty of lost opportunities. The biggest sin this film commits is in its portrayal of Henry V. He is, firstly, horribly miscast – the short, delicate Timothee Chalamet bears little resemblance to the 6-foot-4-inch king, even after his hair is shorn to its iconic bowl cut, nor is he written as the warmonger and lifelong soldier that he was. The actual figure was very much in favor of warring in France, a dispute which put him at odds with his father and was the actual dispute at the heart of his “riotous youth.” Edgerton’s Falstaff trades one cliché for another – instead of the jovial drunk, we have a gruff man-at-arms with an earthy accent, contemptuous of the one-dimensional collection of incompetent noblemen. This feels like a make-work kind of role for Edgerton, who really should have portrayed the Duke of York if he was so insistent on playing Henry’s older mentor who dies at Agincourt. On the other side, we have the Dauphin of France, a figure who wasn’t even present at the battle and whose focus deprives us of potentially nuanced portrayals of the people who were. His sniveling, arrogant personality as portrayed by Robert Pattinson is entertaining in isolation, but ultimately boring and cartoonish in a way that lessens the overall film. The French generals on the other side were not wholly stupid or as arrogant as this, and would have made for more interesting antagonists. William Gascoigne, far removed from the medieval judge of history, is a laughable conniver who somehow managed to trick Henry into continuing the war with France – the historical Henry was deeply invested in the effort and needed no convincing. The portrayal of Agincourt somehow manages to be the least accurate portrayal ever – the role of the longbowmen is deemphasized, the line of English knights is casually overwhelmed onscreen, yet somehow emerges victorious, Henry barely participates in the fighting, and the dense forest so essential for the English victory is nowhere to be seen. There was an opportunity for this to be a lot better than it was, but at least it's not Shakespeare again.
Film Tries to be different, but forgets to be good
In creating a “modernized” retelling of the story of the Battle of Agincourt, David Michod and Joel Edgerton give us The King, a film that replaces the well-trodden ground of Shakespeare with present-day action film drear, historical anachronism, and plenty of lost opportunities. The biggest sin this film commits is in its portrayal of Henry V. He is, firstly, horribly miscast – the short, delicate Timothee Chalamet bears little resemblance to the 6-foot-4-inch king, even after his hair is shorn to its iconic bowl cut, nor is he written as the warmonger and lifelong soldier that he was. The actual figure was very much in favor of warring in France, a dispute which put him at odds with his father and was the actual dispute at the heart of his “riotous youth.” Edgerton’s Falstaff trades one cliché for another – instead of the jovial drunk, we have a gruff man-at-arms with an earthy accent, contemptuous of the one-dimensional collection of incompetent noblemen. This feels like a make-work kind of role for Edgerton, who really should have portrayed the Duke of York if he was so insistent on playing Henry’s older mentor who dies at Agincourt. On the other side, we have the Dauphin of France, a figure who wasn’t even present at the battle and whose focus deprives us of potentially nuanced portrayals of the people who were. His sniveling, arrogant personality as portrayed by Robert Pattinson is entertaining in isolation, but ultimately boring and cartoonish in a way that lessens the overall film. The French generals on the other side were not wholly stupid or as arrogant as this, and would have made for more interesting antagonists. William Gascoigne, far removed from the medieval judge of history, is a laughable conniver who somehow managed to trick Henry into continuing the war with France – the historical Henry was deeply invested in the effort and needed no convincing. The portrayal of Agincourt somehow manages to be the least accurate portrayal ever – the role of the longbowmen is deemphasized, the line of English knights is casually overwhelmed onscreen, yet somehow emerges victorious, Henry barely participates in the fighting, and the dense forest so essential for the English victory is nowhere to be seen. There was an opportunity for this to be a lot better than it was, but at least it's not Shakespeare again.