The King (2019)

The critic finds the adaptation stirring, lucid, and thoughtfully balanced in its treatment of power and war. He especially praises the restrained, emotionally compelling performances of Timothée Chalamet and Joel Edgerton.

Turan finds the film an impressive, contemporary reimagining with strong storytelling. He especially praises Chalamet’s compelling portrayal of Hal and the film’s striking battle sequences.

The critic finds the film engrossing and praises Timothée Chalamet’s star presence as Henry V. He also singles out its grim, unsentimental depiction of battle.

Sexton finds the film thoroughly enjoyable, recasting Shakespeare’s history plays as a modern, violent political drama. He especially praises Robert Pattinson’s flamboyant Dauphin and Joel Edgerton’s loyal, reimagined Falstaff.

The review calls the film a sturdily entertaining historical drama. It praises Timothée Chalamet’s soulful performance as Prince Hal.

The accessible page identifies this as Screen Daily’s Venice review, but its verdict is unavailable. The paywall also hides any specific praise or complaint.

The page is inaccessible, so the critic’s verdict cannot be verified. No praise or complaint can be reliably identified from the available text.

Watts finds the film’s serious approach uneven, though it becomes more engaging once the story reaches France. She praises Robert Pattinson’s entertaining performance as the Dauphin and notes the film’s thoughtful questioning of Henry’s invasion.

Ehrlich finds the film flat and familiar, with its themes of power underdeveloped. He praises Chalamet’s performance and the realistic, emotionally revealing duel with Hotspur.

The critic finds the film confused and self-serious, with its exploration of Henry’s ideals left underdeveloped. Chalamet’s performance and the tension between Henry and the Dauphin stand out, though the film fails to make enough of the latter.

Brooks finds the film slow to win him over, though it gathers momentum and draws him into its drama. He faults Chalamet’s performance as ill-suited to the role, while praising the film’s darkening atmosphere and growing dramatic force.

Nugent finds the film lavish and occasionally effective, but ultimately too ponderous to be a definitive take on the Henriad. He praises the depiction of the Battle of Agincourt, while faulting the plodding middle and Chalamet’s unchanging performance.

The piece frames the film as a flawed revisionist Shakespeare adaptation, with Prince Hal portrayed as an aspiring pacifist who fails his own ideals. Its central complaint is that Hal cannot live up to his standards.

Lane finds the film gloomy and dramatically unconvincing, especially in its portrayal of Hal’s transformation. He praises the grimly framed battle scenes and singles out the Dauphin’s casual gesture sending his knights into combat.

Edelstein finds the film ethically clear but ultimately dull and conventional. He singles out Henry’s unexpected vigilante turn as a surprising exception, while criticizing the film’s treatment of Falstaff and its unconvincing moral logic.

The critic finds the film a smart, taut, expectation-defying historical drama that balances battle thrills with a thoughtful critique of war and imperialism. They especially praise Joel Edgerton’s Falstaff and his on-screen chemistry with Timothée Chalamet.

Dunn finds Michôd’s brooding, brisk adaptation deeply satisfying and Chalamet convincing as both prince and king. He particularly praises Joel Edgerton, whose performance brings unexpected worldliness to Falstaff.

The critic is pleasantly surprised, finding the film a sober and worthwhile take on power and war despite some flaws. Chalamet’s intense performance is singled out for carrying the film, with Pattinson’s scene-stealing turn also praised.

Marric finds the adaptation watchable and engaging despite some imperfections. She praises Chalamet’s compelling performance and criticizes Pattinson’s miscasting and accent.

The critic finds the film technically impressive and worthwhile, though pacing problems and an uneven script may limit its awards prospects. They single out Chalamet’s increasingly layered performance and Michôd’s brutal, unsentimental battle scenes for praise.

The review text is inaccessible, so its verdict cannot be determined. No praise or complaint can be identified from the page provided.

Sproull finds the film visually sumptuous and well acted, but too safe and emotionally flat to make a real impact. He particularly praises the cinematography and Robert Pattinson’s entertaining performance as the Dauphin.

The critic finds the film gripping and perfectly watchable, but ultimately frustrated by its approach and its failure to match its Shakespearean predecessor. He praises Robert Pattinson’s comic performance and the stark cinematography, while faulting the film for remaking the story without Shakespeare’s dialogue.

Han finds the film dull and ultimately short of greatness, with Chalamet’s Henry lacking charisma and convincing growth. She praises Pattinson’s brief, scene-stealing turn and Edgerton’s energetic Falstaff, while noting occasional striking battlefield imagery.

The critic finds the film a formulaic, pedestrian misstep, with Chalamet miscast and out of his depth. Edgerton’s Falstaff is singled out as the film’s one performance triumph, while the gripping ending offers some redemption.