Just got through my second time watching it and even though filled with many historical inaccuracies, is one kick ass movie.
Netflix: The King
- Thread starter fsu1jreed
- Start date
I’ve been debating on giving this a watch. Looks good, I haven’t seen any reviews yet.
It’s on my queue to watch. I’ll have to bump it up the list.
started watching when I was tired thinking I'd just fall asleep... ended up watching the whole thing and going on a wiki deep dive for an hour after the movie
That said, what historical inaccuracies are there? Not that I'm doubting you, I just don't know much about that time period.[/QUOTE]
I think the biggest fallacy is the people portrayed in the movie are actually dead since it’s been 500-600 years and are played by current day actors.
I think the biggest fallacy is the people portrayed in the movie are actually dead since it’s been 500-600 years and are played by current day actors.
FYI I'm not even halfway through it but I started it last night.
That said whenever I watch a film like this I look up the history behind it.
One thing I noticed was that Henry "Hotspur" Percy was not killed in individual combat with the Prince of Wales. He was killed in the Battle of Shrewsbury and there where rumors that the Prince of Wales killed him during the battle but these are most likely not true. Also the Prince of Wales took an arrow to the face in this battle and was left with a scar. This was not depicted at all.
Another thing is that Henry IV while he did favor his younger son Thomas probably did not set up Thomas to succeed him as generally in the era Kings had limited ability to choose their own successors. It always just went to the eldest son regardless, even if the King thought he was an idiot. In any event Thomas died about 8 years after his father.
Also in all likelyhood Henry V probably never went around extoling the virtues of peace. That bit seems to have been put into the movie to make the audience like him. He was called a warrior king for a reason, because he was always fighting with someone and that was typically by his own choice.
It's historically inaccurate because it's based on Shakespeare's plays, not actual events. I don't think Falstaff is even a real person.
Next you guys are going to tell me William Wallace didn't shoot bolts of lightning out his arse.
After my Operation Barbarossa kick, I went on a British Medieval History kick (with the help of some key ShowTime and Starz shows), so I was real hesitant about this movie, but after I binged watched the new season of Jack Ryan I gave it a try. So glad I did, the Cinematography puts it over the edge.
Oh, check out this:
10 things you (probably) didn’t know about Henry V and the battle of Agincourt
Good movie and yes inaccurate in a lot of the details. They condensed 20 years of history into a two hour film. Watch the movie then watch some Henry V documentaries on YouTube and read the Wiki page.
I went to google maps and saw the battlefield at Azincourt France which was cool too.
I went to google maps and saw the battlefield at Azincourt France which was cool too.
He may have....but he didn't wear a kilt...that much is known.
William Wallace won many bar bets with his ability to escape from a straitjacket by dislocating his own shoulder and then slamming it back into place.
I watched quite a bit of "The Tudors" because it was so highly touted, but finally quit because they took such amazing liberties with history.
