I found that the cinematography, costumes (chain mail everywhere!), acting and fast-paced and suspenseful plot of The King all combined to produce a satisfying and fairly gripping film.
After reading some of the negative reviews, I see that a significant contingent of people are quite angry about the historical inaccuracies. That´s always a problem with fact-based films. There are so many people who believe themselves to know all of the details (I presume because they read a lot of books? Written by other people who read a lot of books?), and they are going to be annoyed at whatever is changed or omitted for the sake of the film and at the behest of the director/writer/producer (in this case, all three are probably complicit). It is true, too, that Shakespeare wrote a very famous play entitled Henry V, and some people appear to be angry that this is not that.
My best advice would be to watch this production as an action-adventure film created in the 21st century. Thinking of The King in that way eases some of the quandaries which will surely arise in inquiring minds, such as: why was a young metrosexual male with the body of a pre-pubescent girl cast in the role of Hal? It stretched credulity, to put it mildly, that an adolescent with a toothpick thin body (his torso was displayed naked in more than one scene...) could have prevailed in any hand-to-hand, knife-to-knife battle to the death with such thick-necked, seasoned warriors.
Ultimately, The King is a fantasy tale in which a slacker with pacifist leanings eventually undergoes a transformation not unlike that of Michael Corleone in The Godfather.
After reading some of the negative reviews, I see that a significant contingent of people are quite angry about the historical inaccuracies. That´s always a problem with fact-based films. There are so many people who believe themselves to know all of the details (I presume because they read a lot of books? Written by other people who read a lot of books?), and they are going to be annoyed at whatever is changed or omitted for the sake of the film and at the behest of the director/writer/producer (in this case, all three are probably complicit). It is true, too, that Shakespeare wrote a very famous play entitled Henry V, and some people appear to be angry that this is not that.
My best advice would be to watch this production as an action-adventure film created in the 21st century. Thinking of The King in that way eases some of the quandaries which will surely arise in inquiring minds, such as: why was a young metrosexual male with the body of a pre-pubescent girl cast in the role of Hal? It stretched credulity, to put it mildly, that an adolescent with a toothpick thin body (his torso was displayed naked in more than one scene...) could have prevailed in any hand-to-hand, knife-to-knife battle to the death with such thick-necked, seasoned warriors.
Ultimately, The King is a fantasy tale in which a slacker with pacifist leanings eventually undergoes a transformation not unlike that of Michael Corleone in The Godfather.