From the YT clips I’ve seen…this looks really well done. Pattinson of course is riveting, and I’m not familiar with Timothy Chalamet’s work but he looks to be doing very well-crafted acting.
It’s interesting to see an age-appropriate Henry V with a slight build tackling this role.
I got into it just for the full-armored-knight vs full-armored-knight action the cover promised, and in that respect it mostly delivered. Honestly, I skipped right past all the boring politics in between. But the fighting was good.
I was gravely disappointed by Agincourt. I wanted to see knights in full armor, foundering in the mud. I wanted to see a rain of arrows blotting out the sun. Instead the archers only loosed their arrows twice and we got a pretty much Hollywood-standard sword melee. The Dauphin’s demise was pretty satisfying, though.
We liked it though I wasn’t sure it offered anything new. The only thing I didn’t like the scenes between Hal and Catherine (Lily Depp). Though it was necessary to reveal certain plot points , it was kind of tagged on the end and I wasn’t all that impressed with Lily Depp, though she did not have many scenes to show a full performance range.
It wasn’t bad, as sword and sandal epics go, but they took some serious liberties with history (Falstaff wasn’t really a person, for instance, but rather a Shakespeare creation). Not a bad yarn, though, with some decent acting.
The French have a point when complaining that it’s even less accurate than Shakespeare’s version! Mind you, it did seem a bit odd that having had Robert Pattinson do his embarrassingly bad, 'Allo 'Allo turn as the Dauphin, they then made Charles VI quite so restrained - they could easily have made the French look even sillier. Also, Henry as peacenik and the assassination subplot manage to be even less plausible than the Shakespearean tennis balls.
The only interesting thing about Timothée Chalamet’s hairstyle is the way that, without explanation, it suddenly changes from his usual look as soon as he becomes King.