Netflix has a habit of dropping massive historical epics that sort of just... sit there. They get a huge initial push, everyone talks about the hair (we'll get to Timothée Chalamet’s bowl cut in a second), and then the algorithm buries it under a mountain of reality dating shows. But honestly, if you decide to watch The King 2019 today, you’re looking at one of the most misunderstood and visually stunning Shakespearean adaptations of the last decade. It’s gritty. It’s muddy. It’s surprisingly quiet for a movie about a massive war.
David Michôd didn't just try to remake Henry V. He basically took the Shakespearean plays—specifically Henry IV, Part 1, Henry IV, Part 2, and Henry V—and stripped away the iambic pentameter. He replaced the poetic monologues with heavy breathing and the sound of chainmail clinking. It’s a bold move. Some purists hated it. But if you're into historical realism that feels like you can actually smell the damp earth of 15th-century France, this is your movie.
The Chalamet Factor and the Reluctant Monarch
When the casting was first announced, people were skeptical. Timothée Chalamet was the "indie darling" known for Call Me by Your Name. Could he actually lead an army? The answer is yes, but not in the way you’d expect a "war hero" to do it. His Hal starts as a total wreck—drunk, lounging in Eastcheap, avoiding his father (played by a very sickly and bitter Ben Mendelsohn). When he finally takes the crown, he isn't suddenly a brave lion. He’s a terrified kid trying to be better than the man who came before him.
📖 Related: I Will Always Love You Whitney Houston Lyrics: What Most People Get Wrong About the Song
It’s that vulnerability that makes you want to watch The King 2019 even if you aren't a history buff. He isn't playing a caricature of royalty. He’s playing a victim of a system he can't control.
Then there’s Joel Edgerton. He co-wrote the script with Michôd, and he plays Sir John Falstaff. In the original plays, Falstaff is often depicted as a bumbling, comic relief drunkard. Here? He’s a weary, tactical genius who’s seen too much blood. His chemistry with Chalamet is the actual heartbeat of the film. Their relationship feels lived-in. It feels real. When Falstaff speaks, Hal actually listens, which is more than we can say for any of the advisors whispering in the young King’s ear.
Why the Battle of Agincourt is a Masterclass in Filming Chaos
Most Hollywood battles are "clean." You see the hero spinning around, cutting down ten guys without breaking a sweat. It’s choreographed like a dance. The King takes that trope and throws it into a giant pit of wet clay.
The Battle of Agincourt is the centerpiece of the film, and it is claustrophobic as hell. Instead of wide shots showing "cool" formations, Michôd puts the camera right in the mud with the soldiers. You see men slipping. You see them suffocating under the weight of their own armor because they literally can’t stand back up in the sludge. It’s horrifying. It reminds me a lot of the "Battle of the Bastards" from Game of Thrones, but with a more grounded, historical weight.
📖 Related: Why Into the Fire Asking Alexandria Lyrics Mark the Most Controversial Comeback in Rock
- The French are overconfident.
- The English are starving and outnumbered.
- The terrain becomes the most dangerous weapon on the field.
It’s a tactical nightmare. The way the movie portrays the English longbowmen vs. the heavily armored French cavalry is actually backed by historical accounts, even if the film takes liberties with the timeline and certain characters' motivations.
Robert Pattinson Stole the Entire Movie
We have to talk about the Dauphin. Robert Pattinson enters the frame about halfway through and just decides to be in a completely different movie. He’s playing a flamboyant, cruel, and hilarious French prince with an accent that is—frankly—ridiculous. And it works perfectly.
In a movie that is so somber and gray, Pattinson is the spark of neon. He provides the perfect foil for Chalamet’s brooding seriousness. While Hal is worried about the soul of England, the Dauphin is making crude jokes about the size of Hal’s anatomy. It’s a jarring contrast that highlights just how absurd the concept of "divine right" and medieval posturing really was.
Accuracy vs. Adaptation: What Really Happened?
If you watch The King 2019 expecting a 1:1 history lesson, you're going to be disappointed. That’s okay. The film is an adaptation of a play that was already an adaptation of history. For instance, the real Henry V was a bit more of a warmonger than the "reluctant pacifist" we see on screen. He wasn't some peace-loving guy who got tricked into invading France; he was an ambitious king who saw an opportunity.
Also, the real Battle of Agincourt didn't quite play out as a one-on-one duel between the King and the Dauphin. In fact, the Dauphin wasn't even there. But for the sake of cinema, these changes make the stakes feel personal. They give us a clear antagonist to root against.
The film's production design, however, is top-tier. The armor looks heavy because it was heavy. The castles feel cold and drafty. The lighting often relies on natural sources—candles, torches, or just the gray light of a British morning. This "look" is what sets it apart from the "shiny" historical epics of the early 2000s. It feels tactile.
Is it Worth a Rewatch?
Honestly, yes. Especially now that we’ve seen Chalamet grow into roles like Dune. Looking back at his performance in The King, you can see the seeds of that "burdened leader" archetype he’s perfected.
👉 See also: Why the Dis Tew Much GIF Is the Internet’s Favorite Way to Say Enough Is Enough
The pacing might feel slow to some. It’s a slow-burn political thriller masquerading as an action movie. But the payoff—that final conversation between Henry and Catherine of Valois (played by Lily-Rose Depp)—flips the entire movie on its head. It forces you to question everything you just watched. Was the war justified? Was Henry a hero, or just another pawn in a game played by older, more cynical men?
It’s a bleak ending. It doesn't give you the "yay, we won" feeling that Braveheart does. Instead, it leaves you with a hollow pit in your stomach, which is probably exactly how a young man who just sent thousands to their deaths would feel.
Actionable Insights for Your Viewing
- Check the Sound System: This movie has incredible sound design. The "thwip" of the arrows and the crunch of the mud are essential to the experience.
- Ignore the History Books (For Two Hours): Don't get caught up in Wikipedia while watching. Enjoy the drama first, then go down the rabbit hole of the real 1415 campaign later.
- Pay Attention to the Silence: Much of the story is told through looks and pauses. It’s not a "background noise" movie. Give it your full attention.
If you haven't seen it, or if you haven't seen it since 2019, it’s time to revisit. The film has aged remarkably well, largely because it avoids the flashy CGI trends that make other movies look dated within three years. It’s a sturdy, well-crafted piece of filmmaking that deserves a spot in the "Great Historical Epics" conversation.
Before you press play, make sure you're in the mood for something heavy. This isn't a lighthearted adventure. It’s a meditation on power, the lies told to maintain it, and the cost of wearing a crown that never quite fits.
Next Steps for Historical Film Fans
Start by comparing the Agincourt scene in The King to the 1989 version of Henry V directed by Kenneth Branagh. You will see two completely different interpretations of the same event—one focused on the "Band of Brothers" heroism and the other on the brutal, muddy reality of medieval slaughter. After that, look into the actual history of the "Longbow" to understand why the French knights were so terrified of a piece of wood and string. It changes how you view the tactics in the film's final act. Finally, revisit the soundtrack by Nicholas Britell; his use of discordant strings and deep brass is what actually builds the tension when the dialogue stops.