Review of The King (2019) by Meritcoba — 01 Feb 2020

Perhaps this is the moment to blame Monty Python for emphasizing all that is wrong with medieval movies. Then again it was all meant to be silly and so The King could have been if it hadn't been so depressing. Gloomy isn't funny.

The King depicts the life of one of the more remarkable kings of England: Henry the Fifth, a man immortalized in a play by Shakespeare. He wasn't king for long, but almost succeeded in joining France and England into one union after remarkable successes on the field of battle, of which the battle of Agincourt in 1415 is the most notable. History would certainly have been different had that lasted. Given all that, it should be easy to make a movie of this grander than life figure. No need to embellish or twist things to make an otherwise boring historical figure into something watchable. Alas, the movie makers beg to differ. Let's toss all that boring historical stuff aside and just make up new things as we go along. And throw in some Holy Grail things, like dirty peasants, down trodden poor clothing and anything else that have been cliched to death by now.

It is fascinating to see them turn Henry into an erratic angsty teen that would fit right in with the Twilight saga cast. Henry, leader of men, the warrior king, mumbles his lines and sits in depressed silence throughout the film. Into the breach once more, he mumbles and listlessly waves his sword. His men stare at him. Sorry, did you say something?

The movie is almost drained of any color, like it is shot on an overcast or rainy day. The characters are drained of any liveliness as well. Like half dead men they stumble about. They look sick, or undead, or drunk. Oh... look.... the enemy.... Let's gape at them for a while. That movies aren't well versed in depicting war will not surprise you, but that they even get the most basic things wrong is amazing. Like having your fully equipped knights march on foot overland without any cavalry screen to find out where your enemy is. At one moment the column of men, and it is actually a long column without any flanking forces, comes up on a hill and then somehow Henry senses the French army is behind the hill. And by Jove, they are! And neither army has any scouts out, or screening forces or camp guards. I swear that the French army didn't even notice that one figure in plain sight on the top of the hill. Why make a movie about a king who spends most of his live on the battlefield while you have totally no understanding of how war is waged? Or, apparently, no interest whatsoever to ask people who do know? I bet there are enough people in England who can tell you how to avoid the most basic of errors? But all of this isn't the worst about this movie. The worst is how amazingly uninspiring it is and weird. For some reason the French king is disdainful of Henry. Apparently it is, so we are told, because of Henry's rowdy live before he became king. Let's just rewind this a little. Henry is a lazy layabout who spends his live whoring, drinking and doing nothing much until he becomes king. And then he changes from that into an experienced warrior who bests experienced knights in duels and defeats one of the most powerful armies in medieval Europe. Picture that.

SO the French king thinks Henry to be a weak king and thus mocks him, sends assassins and plots against him. And eventually, Henry has enough and thus invades France to teach their kind a lesson.

So far the totally made up history of the movie. In reality the story was different. The rumor that Henry was a whoring drunk was just that: a rumor. In fact he was well experienced in war. And the reason he invades France is not because he was insulted, but because he claimed the throne of France.

It baffles why you need to twist history if history is good enough to tell an engaging story? Anyway.. this uninspired movie exasperates. Maybe they should call it: the mumbler saga: breaking history.