What did?

What did Cinemaphile think of it?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    thoroughly enjoyed it

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >That's right, Goys, England had no justification invading France, it was all made up warmongering nonsense. We never tried to assassinate any English Kings, we never invaded sovereign English territory in 1066, we never funded the Scottish and Irish terrorists.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >we never invaded sovereign English territory in 1066
      Interestingly the Norman invasion started the conflict between England and France. The conflicts in the hundred years war were fights over Norman territory in France.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >we never invaded sovereign English territory in 1066,
      The English monarchy were the ones that invaded dipshit

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    it was meh. outlaw king was better. among other things it didn't fall for the bleak filters.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    1. Henry V being Henry IV's heir was never in question.
    2. Henry was an apathetic loser who thought war was le bad like a 21st century liberal. He is widely considered one of the greatest kings of England. He was accomplished in battle before becoming King, not a drunkard with no ambition.
    3. The Prince of France was not at the battle. He was not important to the campaign

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Falstaff's portrayal as a wise and grizzled veteran mentor is so baffling, I assume it was because the writers didn't have any idea of what to do with his character because they didn't fricking read the play.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Because actors have a hardon for Falstaff and think he's secretly a 3deep5u wise and noble character and not a fat drunken cowardly liar.

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Why is this movie trying to make the English the good guys? They were invaders ravaging France all so that the King of England (a French speaking dynasty) could rule over France instead of the existing dynasty. France before the kingdom of England chimped out, was in a golden age. It had been decades since the last real famine, it held a sizeable fraction of Europe total population and wealth, and was a centre of culture.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The French seeded territory to literal Viking barbarians who used their foothold ravage northern Europe and the Mediterranean. Who would have guessed it would come back to bite them in the ass a few centuries later?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      It's a shakespeare adaptation and almost every shakespeare story about the bong empire was for dicksucking, propaganda and revisionism

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      there were no good guys. The hundred years war was just an autistic dynastic struggle between rival members of the same families while the average bloke busted his ass tilling fields and brewing beer

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        While you're right about the nature of the struggle, Joan of Arc was 100% the good guy (girl) of the war. And I say that as someone who doesn't really like France much.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Jeanne is literally blameless she's a saint for a reason. And you see what she got for her trouble, burned at the stake by conniving fools

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >centre of culture.
      Don't they eat bread that's been thoroughly soaked in piss though?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Cultureless boeotian

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The whole story is ridiculous since most of the nobility were in favour of taking the opportunity to normalize relationships with France when Henry V inherited the throne, since it was them that got slapped with huge taxes by the monarchs to fund the armies.

    The crown stood to benefit far more from renewed conflict with the French monarchs than any collection of nobles in England, many of whom had actually lost ancestral lands on the continent as a result of the Plantagenet kings pressing their claims through warfare and were thoroughly fed up with the whole situation, as demonstrated by the unrest during Henry IV's reign.

    I dunno if it was meant to be some hamfisted metaphor for lobbyists of the modern military-industrial complex or they just needed something for the wise, courageous, feminist French princess at the end of the movie to reveal and show what an idiot the violent cishet m*le Henry had been.

    Either way, the whole thing felt very out of place in a Hundred Years War setting where no conspiracy was needed to justify fighting anyway.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    great movie with tight writing and fantastic battle scenes. Unfortunately, this board is filled with fricking election tourists and contrarians.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      sup reddit

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Why not just watch this instead?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      or better yet

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Why not just watch this instead?

        different henrys and about 250 yrs apart. watch both

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Kenneth Branaugh has put out a lot of shit in his time, but I will forgive it all because of this kino.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    literally watching it currently, it's decent at least. really lives up to what people actually want in these kinds of movies, a focus on the action.
    Imagine if The Last Duel focused as heavily on battles and war instead of muh wife's boring life in my castle

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It was a decent premise. But Chalamet is a really horrid miscast. He plays fricking Henry V as some kind of meek moody boy. We're talking about the biggest chad warrior king since Richard Lionheart here.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      the only time he was really worthy was during the "Make it England" speech

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Calm down. It's based on Shakespeare's play, which bends history already.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      it must be hard to write a script when Shakespeare already wrote the same one but better in every possible way

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Woah don't get excited, dude. People are just pointing out that turning the king into a anti-war twink was gay and the grey filter was lame. You don't need to throw a tantrum over it.

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Ni!

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Wasn't Falstaff supposed to be comically fat and bumbling? That's what made it tragic when he turned out to be a real person with real worries and emotions in pt. 2. The best Falstaff was and will always be Orson.

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >shows Falstaff wearing the chainmail and then the helmet but creates a justification for him to take it off before they can do the whole "character you resemble has no head protection"
    that was really good.

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I really enjoyed it, but it is still interesting to know the differences between historical fact and historical fantasy/fiction. The film, though, is innacurate but it is entertaining.

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    > Entire noble families were wiped out in the male line, and in some regions an entire generation of landed nobility was annihilated.[101] The bailiffs of nine major northern towns were killed, often along with their sons, relatives and supporters. In the words of Juliet Barker, the battle "cut a great swath through the natural leaders of French society in Artois, Ponthieu, Normandy, Picardy

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *