THE KING Ending Explained & Did That TWIST Really Happen?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ต.ค. 2024
- In this video we take a deep dive into Netflix's historical epic "The King" starring Timothée Chalamet and Joel Edgerton explaining the ending and whether or not that twist actually happened.
Follow me on twitter: thinkstoryYT
Help me translate this video: www.youtube.co...
#TheKing #Netflix
I need pronunciation lessons! A-gin-court? Aging-cor? If I do it again it'll be off with my head!
yeah
I think you pronounced it correctly. I would love to see more of Catherine and Hal’s sister.
Azhin-cor. French pronunciation is with a soft 'g' and the 't' isn't heard
Dauphin : Daw - fah ...
No T!
Movie was thoroughly magnificent. It's sad that people are bringing up Robert Pattinson and Twilight. Like bruh, he moved on from that. He turned out to be a great actor. Let us acknowledge his skills.
No, that shit will haunt him to his last day. On his deathbed his grandson will whisper in his ear "fuck twilight".
He is the new Batman.
@@Fankas2000 i can see that😂😂
He is a great actor. I used to hate on him for twilight also. Dudes killing it now.
Honestly his performance in twilight isnt even that bad kristen Stewart was the bad one in the scenes. His performance as the prince was great and I have high Hope's for his batman
Really enjoyed The King more than I was planning on, it was a wonderfully shot, beautiful, well acted, well written historical period piece, and wasn't trying to do too much or trick the viewer with some nonsensical gotcha, the twist at the end made perfect sense, and was telegraphed throughout the movie. Well worth the watch.
As a movie, it's really good. In parts also quite historically authentic. But as a historical piece, it's utter bullshit. Chalamet's Henry, while intriguing, is neither Shakespeare's Herny nor the historical Henry.
@@bernhardmeysel knig Herny the ferft
@@niclasjohansson5992 Gink Ernyh het Thiff
The twist was very nice and helps make the movie rewatchable
Too bad the twist is a complete farce and William was obviously scapegoated. We all know the deceit as well as the funding was done by the Vatican.
Never would have thought that my favorite movie this year would come from Netflix.
Me too! I've watched it thrice already. I know it's not historically accurate but there's just something about this film and Chalamet's performance is mesmerizing, simply electrifying. This film needs a sequel.
Endgames?
Right? I dont even have netflix.
Brenda Ingrid Kipkemoi Er Henry VI?
You mean you haven’t seen joker yet?
The actor who played Thomas is good at playing weak leaders.
He played Tommen 😭 he knows how to play a weak king
u mean Tommen
@@ZackyDaley Yes, he played Tommen in GOT and Thomas in this movie.
This blew my mind! I never paid much thought as to why he looked familiar
@Stxr KillerX Henry's younger brother.
just on the movie alone, the performances, way it was shot, sound, i thought the movie was amazing n gorgeous. I really enjoyed it n know i will be watching it on repeat
I loved that when the Army marched through France it felt like uncharted territory and the Dauphine was paying with them.
what are you talking about? Timothée looked hot in that haircut!
to be fair he already look "objectively" pretty hot in the first place.
Agreed He looked so fineeee
I somehow prefer him with that haircut. It makes no sense.
PERIOTD
Sooooo hotttt!!!! 🔥
The strength of this movie is really how they tell the story. Almost perfect execution.
Its really good but not historical
I agree it doesn’t matter that it isn’t historically correct it’s story and filming are brilliant
@@semperperatus11 Shame really cause the actor's and actress played there parts really well and the battel was really good. But if they just made it more historical they could of had a better movie and i think that what most people's complaints was how it was not historical
@salty chip or the small person haham yeah these days they have the black person and small person in movies.
THe performances , on the part of the actors , especially Chalanet , added to the film.
F*cking Tommen... 🙄 😂
Skorpion_Kween oh my god, that was Tommen!
Skorpion_Kween my thoughts exactly.
Laurel Malinowski same.
always dying n shit
I recognized him immediately lmao
The ending hurt me. They took away Timothee morals and way of thinking. When Lily was talking to him, she was confused about him receiving a ball from her father, then I realized everything before he did. His own people manipulated him, into having a battle that the French didn't even want either. He killed thousands for no reason, he basically killed his best friend and he killed his cousin because he was tricked. They made a mockery out of him. He wanted peace but not in that way. What did it cost?? It cost him everything.
Well said very accurate
bro what can you explain this more bc i don’t understand
@@mansoorahmed1676 😂
It's fictitious and historically incorrect on almost every level, so don't beat yourself up too much.
@@blahblahblah5256 thank for clarifying this. To many people think period pieces or movies are actual historical facts then base their opinions based on such assumptions.
Like someone once said you can’t fix stupid.
Knowledge is power
The most important thing to remember is that Henry did not choose to go to war because of the assassination. He thought the provocation was not enough to justify war. It was the internal pressures from his inner circle that made Henry fear more strife that led him to concede to his counsel pushing for war. The causes for war were internal. It may be impossible to know if human nature is good or bad, but it is certainly weak, and the psychological and emotional compulsions for humans to relieve stress by responding to pressure with concession, and to fear with force is a common human tendency and this movie in my opinion is an attempt to show how, regardless of a leaders intentions, morality, etc. the systematic pressures common within human beings which are amplified in positions of power, regularly lead to crisis, misjudgement, misunderstanding, violence, and chaos in general, all that could have been easily avoided through sober reflection. It is just that the pressures of power are not conducive to sober reflection. This is the reason why brilliant men in power so often commit to such disasterously stupid policies.
Paragraph separations are your friend
Men...this is not a speech (proceeds to give one of the best speeches ever)
Phila Mlaba hardly anywhere near best speech... thought was a tad cringe
Zed said by a moron with the cringiest video I have ever seen in my life on his moronic channel.
Darhan Sansyzbaı lamo I went to watch it on his channel god I have cringebumps
If this was a series that speech would have been 100x better. Like imagine after 8 episodes of struggle and doubt he gives that speech, it'd be on the same level as king Theoden's speech imo
Zed you’re lack of self awareness baffles me.
Omg how he knifed that traitor in the back of his head was insane!
he deserve it
@@nindcitra finally someone who actually gets it 👏 🙌 👌
@UC8tPOe8wrKa8c3R-1QwKtcg haha wtf lol
Did you watch it?
The guy was a traitor..... Dumbass
@Calm Beast He was absolutely a traitor.
He lied to his King and tricked him into a war with France.
@Calm Beast he was a traitor to his King but was loyal to England, the King is a symbol of England but the real England is the English people. Dont get me wrong he did steer it towrds him making more money on wool for example but his subversive action did bring a time of short peace.
i feel bad for henry’s character bc he had good intentions but the toxic people around him made it impossible for him to keep them , so then he turned into the person he absolutely wanted to avoid. he was manipulated by selfishness and it turned him
Yes perhaps but remember his character in this wasn't the real Henry. Or Shakespeare's version of him . He wasn't manipulated in real life and although there were political reasons. And the assassination thing or Catherine's part is just the filmmakers. Along with a few other things. Henry wanted the war . He waited 10 years for a good excuse. And he was a born soldier. ( he took a crossbow bold to the face at 16 , stayed standing won the battle and had surgery without medication on the battlefield while talking to his men and his father who heard he was hurt ) and remember the French king was insane ( he thought he was made of glass) anything she saw or heard was unreliable. He could have ordered it and genuinely not recalled doing it . And the war didn't start over tennis balls . And both kingdoms had spies ( highly placed) in eachothers courts . Henry needed a war to unite England behind his dynasty before of the civil war his father ( a usurper ) won . And land was a major reason, and taxes the church supported and helped fund the war for a tax break . Its very post modern Hollywood. Take away the ( hero) s ending, and better yet if its a woman to do it . Even the traditional fictional Henry ( Shakespeare) when its inaccurate is more honest. The ending changes everything. And doesn't really make sense. ( in many ways )
The movie is based on Shakespeare’s Henriad. Not actually on the history
WE have no idea of the 'actual' history. All of history is a pack of lies written by the victors and the church.
Nautilus1972 Wrong. We know a lot of things who are definitely fake in the fiction from shakespear, and the movie put this fiction to another level. I don’t talk about point of view, but facts.
Some example in the movie: The personality of Henry and Louis are the exact opposite of what we know about them.
Henry was the most feared king at this time, well know to be a viscious bastard, and he make execute all french prisoners after this battle, battle who are never took place in this kind of environment, but on a plains, from the choice of french army who try to stop invaders (yes, english are not « heroes » in this war, even if the movie try to make it).
Louis are know to be a shy and kind person, and he was not on the battlefield at all (not even close) because he was sick.
But this is an English production, this is exactly like American war movies, fiction with main theme « we are the good and we fight the bad, and we f*** facts and history ».
Tibo Smolders some of it is historically accurate, but like some isn’t
@@Wayne72LEVRAI It's not an English production its American. And the French are just as bad with their films i.e. Besson's Joan of Arc, where they portray the English as burning her village as a child and raping people, and then the English burning her at the stake, when it was French on both occasions. Get over it.
@@Wayne72LEVRAI You totally misunderstood the film. It is true that Shakespeare's play made the English seem only like heroes, but this film didn't! Did you even listen to Catherine of Valois's speech at the end? And this film did indeed show Henry to be a bastard who executed all the French prisoners after the battle. Did you even watch the film properly? I don't think you did.
I think the moral of the story is: Get yourself a queen.
No, moral of the story is..... stay in the pub!
@@Nemoticon 😺👍
Nah the moral of the story is only trust your mates.
Unless she’s been sent to take them down from with in
A honest loving queen..
Not really understanding some of the hate this movie is getting from some viewers. I thought the acting was superb and I was engaged the entire time.
Joanna Guerriero agree
The main criticism I see is that the movie is not historically accurate at all, but leads viewers to think it is.
@@JulienFrey It's much closer to the truth than Shakespeare's play, which made the English seem like absolute heroes, without any shading.
It's a movie, not the history channel.
I imagine it comes from Agincourt being one of the most researched battles of medieval history and they did not even closely attempt to portray it as it actually happened; where is the muddy deep furrows in the field from preparing the field for winter which caused the French charge to stall, where is the stakes which were moved pre battle twice to protect the archers on both flanks. There was no hiding in the woods for Henry V; he fought at the front with his knights while his longbowmen killed horses with arrows and finished the knights off in the mud with mallets? Also, Henry V was not a flat chested, pencilled neck soy boy who wanted to party all day and not fight. He was raised to be a King and pacifism did not exist in monarchies of the time. He was a warrior, before this campaign he took an arrow to the face and survived. There's taking artistic licenses with history and the grey areas that naturally occur from limited records and then there's messing up all the keys facts to fit your story.
Wow I failed to see the humour in you reducing Robert Pattinson's stunning performance down to nothing by referencing his twilight role. All of his scenes became scene stealers. I was never a fan of his but we should give credit where it's due. Just a feedback for the future especially since you run a film critic channel.
Straight facts. Hate when creators do that.
I disliked Twilight as much as the next person but the cracks at Pattinson are old and cheap at this point.
He was very good in this.
Qudsia Ali I appreciate seeing this comment
Couldn’t agree more, left a very foul taste
this movie was a treat for the eyes, stunning cinematography, the use of natural lights as in the revenant was really great, hdr was incredible, the acting is also really good. Only thing i thought they've done poorly is the importance of the longbow in the battle.
Actually one of the few things I give the film credit for on the historical accuracy side. The effectivness of the longbow at outright killing armored knights at that period is quite overblown nowadays. At Agincourt, it served mostly to get the french to charge, and to get them of the horses. What won the day was the terrain (enclosed, and it was a freshly plowed field) and the french decision to attack after 3 hours of holding back.
And mostly fictitious.
That stab in the head was graphic af, well acted by both actors, especially the dead one.
ian mcnab ikr it’s one of the realest looking stabbing in movies i seen
The "battle" between Timothee and Robert was just hilarious!! I laughed so hard at that part. Robert's character was talking all that smack and was talking all that noise and then. . .homie can't even walk without falling!! Seriously?! Yea the mud was a little slippery but Timothee was just standing there like. . ."really bruh? Really?! I'm not even gonna waste my time on you, the rest of y'all kill him instead." I laughed so hard at that part. Not sure if that is how the battle really happened but if it is, that's a terrible way to go.
The battle its not. But the mid is, knights armor was super heavy and bad in the mud.
That was funny, and a bit anticlimactic.
@@baronessvondengler very anticlimactic. He was a better fighter when he was running around as a glow in the dark vampire.
@@DeeL3 maybe is kinda philosophical
D. L. - It’s not about how good a fighter he was. The whole plan was that the English went in without armour precisely so that they could beat the fully armoured French who would get stuck in the mud.
That Twilight bit was unnecessary. That's why I need to constantly explain to some friends that Robert is a terrific actor and they need to watch his recent films. And I believe he's gonna be awesome as Batman.
Here from the future, he did great
"The only thing scarier than medieval battles are these haircuts"
Hah! Nice one
The diphtheria and stds
SuperJohn12354 and the dysentery Henry V died from at a young age leaving a less than a year old son.
It’s funny when the people saying this are the same going to super cuts and getting a trim.
Also the fact that Lord Dorset who appears throughout the film as a close adviser to Henry, would have been his uncle. Dorset at the time was better known as Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter and Bastard half brother of Henry IV
One of the reasons why he asked Catherine to always speak to him clear and true was because after his friend died in the war (who said that line before) she was the only 'confidant' or whatever that he had
In real life, it is unlikely that Henry V confided that much in his wife. Henry V was not manipulated into attacking France. It was his own ambition.
I just feel like this movie is so underrated, it’s actually so good.
Well, the movie is more of based upon Shakespeare play "Henriad." It's more about the drama & not a movie that strive to be historically accurate. But, it's still a great & very suspenseful movie imo. Especially with the actors performances that just excellent all around imo.
Overall it was a good movie, but Henry’s role in the battle and his armor and or crown helmet, was way different. it was important because he wasn’t trying to hide and was on the front lines fighting inspired his men. I don’t see how that would have been less theatrical.
I just don't understand the decision here. It strays so far from the original that basically the only thing it has in common with Henry IV 1., 2. and Henry V is the source material. So why not create a (somewhat) historically accurate version of the events to stand on its own, instead of another fictionalised version which has to compete with the original fictionalised version, which it can't really.
@@farmdaddy510 Actually, his equipment/armor in battle of Agincourt kinda sucks. His dueling armor with the rebel son was much better. how the battle happened itself is purely non-historical. Again, it all comes down to adapting the Henriad play instead following historical accuracy.
@@bernhardmeysel That's just the mind of Hollywood mate. Idk why they wanna re-adapt it again from the Henriad play version instead of following a more historical accuracy approach, in which clearly easily obtained that plebs like me able to self learned it on internet.
@@crozraven Just to pick semantics, but the Henriad is a group of plays, not a play itself. This film adaptation doesn't include any themes from Richard II, so calling this a film adaptation of the epic Henriad is kind of incorrect as it doesn't include 1/4 of it's plays.
They left out that Henry has an ugly wound in his face from an arrow. It could have been a nice device for demonstrating the power of the longbow and the fact that Henry has been fighting since his teens.
in some scenes you can actually see they added a scar on his cheek from the old arrow wound! But I do not believe it is ever mentioned in the movie whatsoever. still a nice detail tho!
The Netflix series is bassed closer to Shakespearses work rather than the pressent historical percieved wisdom.
Even then it's way off though. How many historical films have to be made concentrating on theatrical premise rather than historical fact. Shame, was really looking forward to this film, but, the number of historical fantasies were just too frequent and numerous to do so.
Wolf Hall 2 (Bring up the bodies) has been promised by BBC but there still seems to be no sign of it. Waiting in anticipation because WH is one of the greatest pieces of TV ever.
@@roryboytube I so want another season of Wolf Hall. I think it's one of the shows that enthralled me about historical shows. Love from New Mexico.
@@anthonyclennell8643 historical Henry V is mostly written by propaganda
@@badfoodysome yes (as is most history), but certainly not mostly. Or do you think as depicted, that Henry being removed from the line of succession, the Dauphin being at Agincourt, Percy's death, Thomas's death, the Game of Thrones 'Battle of the Bastards' type sacrifice was just propaganda? The movie is not even close to Shakespeare's play never mind the actual historical fact.
I think they should have been more open about the fact this was actually based off the Shakespeare play and not the actual history and people probably would have understood the film more or at least went into it with the proper frame of mind. It seems a lot of the critics and audience were expecting a film like Outlaw King or The Last Kingdom and instead got Shakespearean language and all that comes with his plays.
Jaqen H'Ghar agreed. I was dismayed at how the film didn’t follow the actual history until I read it was a play on Shakespeare.
The writers had said multiple times before release that it was a mix of Shakespeare and actual history.
Idk about you guys. But i watched it in Netflix and it said right there it was based pm a Shakespeare play.
Gundislav - wasn’t even based on Shakespeare as far as I can tell
What I don't get is why then did they stray so far from Shakespeare? Henry in The King is a completely different person than he is in Herny V (and Herny V's version of Hal is arguably far more accurate to the real Henry)
The ball thing was stolen from the story of King Darius sending a polo ball and mallet to Alexander the Great.
You skipped a HUGE point -- Falstaff is not a historical person -- he is entirely fictional from Shakespeare.
Why cant people enjoy the film for what it is? it has brilliant performances, its beautifully shot and, from my point of view, also has an engaging plot. All the coments about the historical accuracy are really unnecessary beacuse the movie doesnt even pretend to be its actually based off of two shakespeare plays not real life.
Criticising a movie does not magically make it worse for you, does it? Agreed, it is a very well made movie. I just regret the creative direction taken in the story. It is not a retelling of Shakespeare, for that too many important aspects have been changed (first and formost Henry's character). And it is not a historcal retelling of the story. So it is just another fictionalised version of the story of Agincourt, and as such it has to compete with the original fictionalised version, which it can't really since that has proven to be a timeless classic for the last 400+ years.
I got to see robert pattinson shanked to death in a mudpit, Thats good enough for me
While we may have read about historical figures in history books in school, the visual narrative of film is what forms our memories of the characters and events.
Some of us want to be conscious that we are not overwriting our knowledge of the often muddled historical accounts with our memories of the flashier fictional accounts.
Give this woman a medal. Exactly!
@@bernhardmeysel Dumb arguments, all the points you mentioned don't mean this is a bad movie. Allot of people have not seen the older version as well so there is not allot of competing going on. Nevertheless its a good movie, simply just not something you wanted.
Not mention Falstaff that was the best part of this movie, they actually did a much more sympathetic character than the Shakespeare version, a truly father figure to Henry, loyal to the end, and his death was what made Henry began to question the lies that his Chief Justice tell him.
considering Falstaff actually didn’t exist in history.
@@darthvirgin7157 Yeah, and the real Henry was a total warmonger that really wanted to conquer France, at least they portray the battle of Agincourt right, Henry didn't win because he was more kind to the peasants and let them be in the army with their longbows, the are there because they are cheap, comparing to a Knight, and using armour in a rainy muddy terrain was the downfall of the French army, they become easy targets to the archers, Henry didn't win because he was strategic genius, most of his actions during the campaign were bold and suicidal, if France wasn't so divided during the time, his troops would have been slaughter, but he had luck in Agincourt.
@@TheKeyser94
well, the fact the real henry v was STILL in france making war even AFTER agincourt and marrying catherine, kinda defeats the whole “henry v only wanted peace” thesis in the movie.
@@darthvirgin7157 To be honest I only watched this adaptation of William Shakespeare because they redeem Falstaff, after the second act, and Henry go to France, Falstaff began to be portrayed as a skimmer and someone that steal from the death, even in the Orson Wells adaptation, even that they rightfully portray Henry V as a entitled prick, in this adaptation for all his flaws try to be what Henry father wasn't, a father figure, and the tragedy is that he end dying in the end.
I thought you said Tommen instead of Thomas and forgot where I was for a minute. 😂😂
I thought I recognised him; nice! Grown up quickly hasn't he?
Apparently henry had actually been in many battles already, so he'd been quite experienced by that 1v1
Johannes Liechtenauer a physical predator? 🧐
Yup, he spent his youth commanding armies silencing rebellions
Yeah, he had been fighting since he was but a wee lad.
Henry lost everyone he trusted - his cousin, his best friend - and did everything he didn't want to do... because he listened to the advice of that William bastard.
The cousin was plotting a coup.
Is the actress playing Catherine the daughter of johnny depp and vanessa paradis?
Pachot Javier yes she is
@@margaretroseduchessofpough8485 thanks for the info 😇
I feel old now. Hahah
I remember when i was a child reading about her parents dating.. Now she is a grown woman. Geezz..
All love 💗💗💗
This is the sort of question you need Google for...
Yep. Doesn't make her a great actress though.
@@saradecapua3264 she was bloody brilliant in this, not sure what you're suggesting here 😐
I really enjoyed the king! Great film.
Robert Pattinson is actually really good actor
If you are going to talk about historical inaccuracies, the biggest one would be the fact that Henry had Falstaff (Oldcastle) burned at the stake in 1416 for religious heresy instead of Falstaff dying a warrior’s death on the battlefield. His transformation into a ruthless leader was entirely complete a year after Agincourt.
This was an underrated movie. Very well written, directed, and acted by numerous characters. The fight scenes were also real, not exaggerated. I ended up watching this movies numerous times.
you lost me at "army of twilight" I can't believe people still make fun of robert pattinson for that movie.. Get over it, that fashion is long finished
That kid who played Henry the 5th did a freaking outstanding job. I got the feeling we'll be seeing that kid in up and coming stuff soon. Kid sells it like an young Cruise or Pitt. Haven't seen that in along while.
You're correct: Wes Anderson's The French Dispatch in July, followed by DUNE in December, and a Bob Dylan biopic provisionally titled "Going Electric" next year.
The fact that the Chief Justice character uses the phrase 'regime change' earlier in the movie, coupled with the ending where we find out how much the guy profited from the war, got me believing the filmmakers indulged in another favorite pastime of historical films: using them to make references to modern times. In this case, they parallel the impression, rightly or wrongly, that a capricious, impulsive new ruler was manipulated by greedy advisors into a war that had no just cause.
Of course, there is no historical evidence to suggest this depiction is accurate, or that Henry was at all reluctant about war with the French. He had a Tower of London-sized... desire... to do so.
Wait I was confused because I thought Hal found out that the "assassin" was fake already so, that's why he killed two of his own because he thought they faked it to get him to go to war with France. I was so confused later when Henry went to war with France because I thought he knew the assassin wasn't actually sent by them.Also, am I the only one who knew that assassin wasn't real as soon as he first said he was sent.
I absolutely loved this movie. I’ll be fair I’m a huge Joel Edgerton, Timothee Chalamet, and Robert Pattinson fan so this was nice to see. I liked how more dramatic and epic it was, don’t really care if it’s not historically accurate
This movie is simply fantastic. I still can't believe Netflix hasn't tried to adapt other Shakespearean tales in this kind of format with the same director. They could be great movies as long as they're done in the same vein as the king.
I did not get the impression that Somerset was really trying to assassinate Henry V, just faking an assassination plot to get Henry to war on France. But, yeah, that was really low.
That was probably one of the darkest funniest finales
"Did That TWIST Really Happen?" This is NOT explained in this video.
The twist is the false flag assassination attempt by his own side blamed on the french, its explained in the video
That was, quite simply, brilliant!!!
From the production design, to the performances and especially the dialogue. As a student of film I can say without a doubt in my mind that was the greatest 'historical' film I've ever seen. Just outstanding
One thing that frustrates me as a fan of this movie is a lot of the reviews mark it down in score because of historical inaccuracies. The problem is it's never made very clear to most people that the script wasn't supposed to be historically accurate - it's a reinterpretation of the play about Henry V that William Shakespeare wrote as part of his 4 part collection 'The Henriad'. I honestly have gained such a massive appreciation for the film the more I've watched it.
Okay but timothee had me falling with that bowl cut. He pulls it perfectly. I thought he was not attractive but now-
Interesting, but what I want to know is why Lord Chief Justice William - closest advisor to the King of England - had the voice, look and demeanour of a village peasant.
I think it was for our benefit. The movie builds on it being difficult to trust the people around the king. It was easier for us to see william as trustworthy because he was more personable
Thomas was entirely justified for being outraged by Henry. Thomas was named the next king after Henry IV but now Henry V comes in, who supposedly has no ambition to the throne, takes the stage and steals the attention from Thomas, harming his prestige and possibly causing contempt from his vassals. Henry V portrayed in the film might appear be a good person in the beginning, but for someone who grew up in court politics, it does not excuse his actions against Thomas, which was clearly challenging his authority as the heir apparent and showing an impression of an ambition to the throne whether he intended it or not.
Lee Jung-Woo expect in reality Henry IV never named Thomas his heir. In reality Prince Hal was trained as a knight by Hotspurs father and grew close to the family whilst preparing to become the next king
When the family rebelled, Henry returned to his father and trounced Hotspur soundly in a full scale battle at Shrewsbury
As Henry IV aged and grew sicker, Hal became king in all but name. And the two fought constantly over the changes the prince was making
Thomas was one of Henry Vs closest advisors and his heir apparent until he had a child. He would be left in charge of English troops in France when Henry returned to London with his soon to be wife. Thomas made some bad choices and died fighting
@@owenbutters9610 The viewpoint is from within the story of the film
Lee Jung-Woo Thomas was a glory seeking little boy who couldn’t see pass his own nose.
So basically you didn't explain anything new but the facts that everyone whos watched the movie got already
I always had planned to watch this movie but never got around to actually watching it because I kept putting it off!
Then I recently watched it because of watching Timothy in Dune recently (Yes Im a Dune fan dont hound me) lol, but I like movies based on historical events or events that were possibly true or legends as well, and I finally watched it today and I enjoyed every minute of it, the movie has a slow pace but its perfect for this type of genre and cinematography accompanied with the the score that sets an ominous tone throughout from the start!
I was surprised that was supposed to be a twist. Chief Justice was like "Hey I really, really, really want you to go to war with France and we all want to go to war with France all of us." and then the very next thing he does is say "Oh look, I personally found an assassin sent by those dastardly French to kill you, ma lord! They also said your mother is fat! What do you want to dooooo??!??!?!?"
Thanks for the video, I wouldn't describe the conversation of Henry and Catherine as an interrogation of her rather than the opposite, It was Catherine who asked the daring questions, not as a plea for her families innocence or even to get answers she didn't know already, It was to make Henry introspect and him to reveal what he had failed to realize.
This movie was like 35% accurate . That ending was hilarious
Its an adaptation of Shakespeare's play not a historical account hence all the inaccuracies and embellishments
it doesn't f*cking mater.
@@gandalfthegrey2592 is someone booty hurt?
@@amys495 yes
@@amys495 who tf says booty hurt
Hall charachter's development was magnificent, and the end explanation in this video resum alla what i felt during watching this underrated masterpiece
I watched it three times, that's my review.
I must have seen Henry V over a couple of dozen times on stage, film etc. I studied History and English at a school and Henry V was set for our exam. I did the prologue in school play also. So, I enjoyed this adaptation but it left me feeling uneasy. That doesn't mean I didn't like it: quite the contrary. Sean Harris, I thought showed his experience as i think he played his role so very well.
This story shall the old man teach his son.....
Henry V dies of dysentery in 1422.
Henry VI had already been born but never saw his father.
Henry's widowed wife, the Dowager Queen Katherine of Valois is sent to live at Windsor.
There, she began a relationship with Owen ap Mrdudd ap Tdr (Owen Tudor).
They married. Two sons: Edmund and Jasper. were born.
Edmund marries Lady Margaret Beaufort.
They have a son, Henry, later, 1st Earl of Richmond.
Lady Margaret was descended through a minor branch of the Lancastrians from Edward III via his third son John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster.
Thus setting up perfectly many of the threads, and also one major one, of the later Wars of the Roses: their son, Henry, was to become Henry VII after the great battle of Bosworth and the defeat of Richard III in 1485.
Bosworth is down the road from me and one may still pick up shot in the field where the battle occurred (were one allowed to walk the field there).
I did a report and a presentation on Henry and the battle in the movie in school. It was exciting to see this made into a movie. It was done so well.
"Started from the bottom now i'm king"
The movie was phenomenal. Very much a coming of age movie recognizing how 4 teenage boys were lead to their death because they had too much responsibility at an early age, and the the last boy becoming a man all while loosing his soul. Brilliant execution and excellent acting.
Even tho it's not accurate, this is still a great movie. Edward Cullen's accent is pretty funny tho. LOL !
My fav part was literally the fact that robert p and timothee c. Swapped accents (as im into zero war movies… this one was good)
In my opinion of course 😂
I get it, he was in Twilight and the joke is getting old. Probably one of the best actors out there right now. just look at all the smaller films he did.
It’s my understanding that the battle of Agincourt was won due to superior participation (and attrition) of the English knights, greater number of English archers then the French, and the British army was better suited for fighting under the muddy conditions as they relied less on armor& horse
Ah.. Those haircuts! I remember my dad use to cut me and my bros hair to look like that
The tone of this movie was masterful. Paranoia. Betrayal. Manipulation.
Problems with the film.
Thomas is there but there’s no sign of Humphrey or John?
Henry IV wasn’t a tyrant and they portray him badly
Cousin Cambridge and Lord Grey we’re executed for trying to overthrow Henry, not a fictional assassination attempt. And arguably Cambridge had a better claim to the throne than Henry
Yeah that what I thought in regards to Henry IV. Both Henry IV and V seemed like decent guys from what little I read. I was a little confused about their decision to make IV an asshole.
@@awakenow7147 The made him paranoid, though not necessarily an asshole
More wise and weary then paranoid if you ask me.
Cambridge definitely didn’t have a greater claim to the throne than Henry V. He was the second son of the Duke of York, who was Edward III’s 4th son. However, the son of Cambridge was descended from Edward III’s second son through his mother, while Henry V was descended through John of Gaunt, Edward III’s third son. Which ultimately gave rise to the Wars of the Roses....
Ami Johnson fair point. I got my Yorkists mixed up. I thought he was the one descended from Edmund and Lionel but it’s his son
this is one of the greatest films I have ever watched and I have seen them pretty much all, a masterpiece
God Almighty.That boy did genius to the role. WOW!!!
This film deserves to be rewatched
I didn't like this movie as much as another Netflix medieval film Outlaw King that came out last year. I recommend giving that movie a look.
Oh wow I did see that, utterly forgettable. The King was a better film easily imo.
Nah. The King was far better in my opinion
@Johannes Liechtenauer I may need to give the King another view. It just didn't hit me. Sceam in the daaarrk, sceam in the daaarrk, and yeah let's go to France cause I'm a teenage brat. It just didn't appeal to me (keep in mind I love this time period). I just think it would have worked better as a miniseries I did however like that we see legit knight v knight fights.
GREAT VIDEO! Thank You! very useful and informative.
A Very good film. Great writing, beautiful language, superbly delivered...
The cousin may not have been involved in the assassination plot, but he still joined that other guy in wanting to talk seriously with the French king about Henry. Doesn’t really matter if it was a real messenger, dude was disloyal
His cousin is Cambridge
This movie was really good. I like the action scenes
around 2:00 You make the case that his brother Thomas was being vain. I argue that his brother Thomas being the younger brother, had to prove himself. He had never been distinguished in battle, and up until a few months before he was not even the heir.
He was there to establish his dominion, to make a name for himself so that his people would want to follow him. His own father called him soft in front of the bishops and the court.
This was his opportunity to eat a full grown man into battle so they will tell the tale of his heroism and so they would respect him
He was just told he had to become the king of England, he needed to build a reputation and quickly
Or specifically he needed to change his reputation which was that he was soft, too young, and unable to handle the duties
A victorious battle over someone who challenged your fathers and subsequently your reign is Exactly the thing that he needed to secure his position
You are approaching this not like a king, not like a monarch. Which is such a shame because the movie does a good job of showcasing how the decisions a monarch makes cannot be the same as that of a normal man.
Falstaff gives an entire speech on the burdens Henry carries alone. I believe his advisor does the same thing
Put yourself in young Thomas’s shoes. He is 15 or 16, and his whole life he was always the second son, he would not have been raised or trained nearly the same way that Henry was. An entire lifetime of knowledge would have to be trust upon him, and the responsibilities and weight of an entire kingdom. And it is known that he was not loved or respected, his father is openly disparaging of him as he named him the heir.
Honest had changed his position of course he would be angry at Henry. If I were Thomas, I would’ve had Henry arrested on the spot before he could ruin my battle, but the fact that Thomas does nothing I think plays into the fact that he was too young and unequipped for the role. Perhaps he would’ve made a man of himself that day
Also, he would not have been killed. He would’ve been captured and Ransomed.
Actual Thomas lived and fight alongside Henry, I don’t even understand this division it was completely unnecessary and historically in accurate
really good movie, one of the best from netflix, along with beast of no nation. It shows that historical accuracy isn't important in a movie, i for one ain't looking to learn history watching movies, im there for entertainment, a good historical movie makes you want to learn more about its history, a accurate historical movie that sucks as a movie, is forgettable.
God forbid one should strive to see a good and historically accurate movie to be made. Oh, the hubris!
The saddest thing about this is, more than 400 years before the release of "The King", someone wrote a more captivating and on top of that, also more historically accurate fictionalised story about the life of Herny the Fifth.
@@bernhardmeysel want historical accuracy go read a history book. If it were accurate as a plus it would be great, but it wouldn't make it any more entertaining then it is.
But people think it is accurate while it's 100% english propaganda, that's the problem.
Doesn’t have to get the blow by blow right I don’t watch Movies for a full on history lesson, making an entertaining movie based off history is a good way of getting people to care about what actually happened.
I can see how a movie that ruins a historical figures reputation or the opposite can be frustrating though.
Henry V apparently used my olde local pub in Southampton as a court to try conspirators. Incidentally the same place he sailed from to invade France. The pub is freakishly olde.The Red Lion if of interest to ye.
Henry: "STOP THIS FUCKING CHARADE! STOP IT!"
Williams: "I HAVE GIVEN YOU WHAT YOU WANTED, BOY! HAVE I NOT!"
i dont think Kings like to be called boy by those of lesser stations. so anyone
The thing is the plot of murdering Henry was literally done by France. It's stated in the sources that the three english nobles Cambrigde Scoop and grey was bribed by the French to murder Henry.
Then the biggest issues with the film were the motivation to invade France, the film showed it as Henry V being tricked into it, when in reality it was centuries long claim to French lands by the English crown, both England and France were seen as one Kingdom at the time and Henry invaded to take back what he saw as his rightful lands, not because he was tricked.
And the second problem was the Battle itself. The true story of how the English won at Agincourt was far far better than the film portrayed, the use of the archers was minimised, when that was the crucial tactic.
Then many minor changes in history they did that honestly don't know why it needed to change as it would not matter for the pace of the movie or the plot.
Entertaining film but it could have been so much better if they stuck to history.
"In this video we take a *deep* dive ino Netflix's historical epic 'The King'..."
Not only was this NOT a 'deep' dive into the history of the real King Henry, but this honestly really didn't even need to be a video. You answer the question in one sentence; "There is no evidence to suggest that he killed his chief justice" - BOOM, video over.
This video is effectively just a brief summary of the plot and you saying hand-wavingly, "No it probably didn't happen that way, but it's a movie so who cares."
If someone clicked on the video they've obviously seen the movie, why spend so much time on summarizing the entire thing?
Haven't seen any of your other videos, but I think it's safe to say you pretty much just upload the typical video-essay-format where you recount the plots of movies and gesticulate about the obvious surface-level themes and give vague interpretations of symbols...
Subscribed.
In any kind of situation after a huge victory murdering your own Chief Justice with no understandable reason at all(no one in the realm would accept that lying in order to get this huge victory is a negative thing) seems like a pretty bad idea if not for public opinion then certainly for other people in high positions...it basically shows a mad and unstable king who kills his subjects after victories, imagine what he'll do after a loss. I'm just saying that if it wasn't a movie this probably would've been a stupid move. Not to mention usualy one reserved for rulers portrayed as weak or mad on screen. It was an odd choice for a ending beat in the movie imo. I would've prefered some public dishonour for him, stripping of titles or something similar with the explanation of lying to the king and manifacturing conspiracies or something. It would've repalced the whole scene entirely with a court scene(similar to when Henry was summoned to be informed he won't be the successor of the throne). But I guess it's hard ti find a spot to put it in then. IDK this whole thing made the movie finish odd for me...because of it I didn't feel like the movie was ending, there was barely a sense of commupence and we're left without the knowledge how people surrounding the King reacted to that(since...they all agreed France should be invaded so...they were more or less on the chief of justice' side I'd reckon).
A lot was not accurate about this movie.
It was based more on Shakespeare plays more than the actual history
BTW< one thing you see here that reflects a major historical change. Henry IV decided who would succeed him, not Henry but Timothy. That was the way it worked in medieval times. The king could decide in his will who was the successor.
All that changed later when Parliament took over and determined how the succession should go, accordingly rules formulated in law. Today, the Queen has no ability to decide who will succeed her , only Parliament can. (They recently changed the rules to allow daughters to succeed ahead of younger brothers.)
It seems like a detail, but it reflects a major shift in power from the monarch to Parliament, that happened in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Robert Pattinson truly is a vampire.
wow man I really appreciate your interpretation and insight into this. I have spent some small time to research and have seen that the play/Movie is very directly paying attention to natural human nature vs what seems to be mentioned in history by documents never mentions such tantalizing and enticing opposing battles "mentally" within Henry V. just my thoughts at the moment.
The problem with The King is that it is mostly fiction and vaguely historical. Henry was a warrior king in the making for years before he actually became king. He was always the next in line after Henry IV, and it was never a question whether he would be the successor to the throne. In fact he and Henry IV had a good relationship, and Henry V supported most of his father’s policies, but stood apart from his father on the point of France, and a handful of his domestic policies. Henry believed that the throne of France was his birthright (as did the past 78 years of English Sovereigns), and his wish was to finally bring victory for England to end the 100 Years War, over France. He never faltered in that goal, nor did he ever shy away from war, or seek peace with France prior to conquering the French realm. In fact, until Henry’s reign, French was the common language of England, and Henry was actually a fluent speaker of French. Henry’s brother Thomas lived to fight the French with Henry, and was one of his most trusted captains! Princess Catherine would never have spoken to Henry the way the film portrays, if she had she surely would have been beheaded for it. Henry was 32 when he married Catherine, and had conquered France through his tactical brilliance, not his advisors. He was always front and center on the battle line, because he had been at war since he was 13 years old, and he was a brutal conquerer, that starved women and children. This film castrates the character by painting him as a unthinking child that has to be led by his elders, that couldn’t be farther than the truth. He led an entire English army when he was only 16. Henry’s actual character arc, told truthfully would have been much better than this fictitious depiction in “The king”! Case in point...check out ‘Outlaw King,’ it is a much truer telling of a story about a Middle Ages warrior king. Beside, it’s a much better cast as well !!
It's based on Shakespeare's version bruh .. no need to type a novel about it 🤷♀️ just enjoy the movie
@@noestoo4225 - Not your bruh, and if it's based on Shakespeare's Henry V, it's the worst adaptation of that work, ever. Kenneth Branagh's version is epically better, with an excellent cast that can actually act. Instead The King's portrayal of Henry is a Millennial waif, that looks like he could barely hold a broad sword, let alone lift and fight with it in a one to one duel, let alone pitched combat. This cast is trying to make this a modern story that looks sort of period. It fails, just a movie or not...
If you wear metal headwear you might cut your hair that way. Also, if you look at the Bayeux Tapestry, the Normans had similar hair styles. For the same reason.
That needed explaining?
One of the best movie from netflix,,,, i watched more than once and i will probably watch again in future
It’s a French bashing propaganda movie, nothing more
@@chiracultrainstinct3d629 Boo hoo keep crying
@@jaelo00I’m not « crying », just disappointed but not surprised
In real life, Robert Pattinson won. Just think about that for a moment.
Although he still needed a teenage girl to do it for him :P