I just finished it. I thought it was really well done. If you have any interest in medieval era history, I highly recommend giving it a watch. I wanted to watch it with my wife, but after seeing the trailer, she thought it was going to be all battle scenes the entire time and told me to watch it first and let her know. So I'm looking forward to seeing it again with her. It's a well-rounded film.






Spoiler discussion below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The trailer makes it look like the whole film is all about war. It's not. It's mostly political jockeying leading up to Agincourt. It was amazing seeing many lines deep of mounted knights in heavy plate armor charging down the hill. The battle was graphic and brutal. Reminded me a lot of Braveheart. Seeing a knight get drowned in the mud was a bit of a reminder how nasty that kinda of combat must have been.

The young man playing Henry did a great job. I totally bought every bit of his performance, and the writing was really good. I also enjoyed the performance of "Sir John" who balanced out a lot of the dark, brooding feel of the film.

I really enjoyed it.

I started watching it not know what exactly it was about, hoping it was a series.

It would be nice to see a sequel film, I suppose. He did spend two more campaigns in France, after all.

It seems like Netflix learned not to drag stuff out so much. The Borgia and Medici series were really well done, but they both drug on longer than necessary.

That said, it was nice to see Sean Harris on screen again. He's talented and somehow seems like a perfect fit in this sort of period piece.

I don't know anything about the movie, but medieval warfare is a fascinating subject. The English/Welsh longbow was the machine gun of the day. They had draw weights of well over 100 lbs. It took years of practice to even draw one, let alone shoot it with any accuracy. The preferred wood for making them was yew, and the countryside was practically denuded of these trees.

If that aspect of medieval warfare interests you, I suggest you watch, without saying too much. About halfway through the film, I found myself thinking "Yes, but English longbows dominated the battlefields in that era!"

Watch it. You won't be disappointed if medieval warfare is even remotely interesting to you.

Being a huge medieval enthusiast, and recreational fighter for 25+ years, I enjoyed it quite a lot.

I've watched those videos and I'll simply say I found the film to be pretty true to the conclusions Tod's workshop drew from the arrow vs armor tests. Watch it, you'll enjoy it.

Leaving aside the longbow and whatever arrowheads were used, the use of the warhammer on plate armor is... effectively demonstrated. That's how you crack open a crab. That, and a rondel dagger.

The professor, todd, the armorer, and the archer all worked on the movie IIRC. I know todd and the professor did for sure.

I think what they set out to do was well documented. Tod mentions what I think likely happened in a roundabout way.

In what you had to say, he says the knights dismounted and charged up the hill on foot. Stumbling through the mud. The English flat shot. Likely down the necks, shoulders and backs. Possibly in the legs. After that, it was clubs, and knives to finish them off.

Oh, that's damn cool! I didn't realize they were involved!

Yeah, even a charge of mounted knights would've had a hard time against the range of the longbows, I imagine, given how difficult it is to armor a horse with plate. Gambeson or chain caparisons, and I could be entirely wrong, are what I would imagine a lot of them to have been wearing with some additional plate. If your horse gets shot out from under you in the middle of a charge, you're at a disadvantage at best. If the knights who were behind you ride over you, your day only gets worse from there even if no arrow hit your armor.

I thought so also, This recreation series by todd and the others really filled in quite a few gaps. It doesn't cover everything. It worked out well. I think it as great a start to understanding the actual facts of that day.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge: It was amazing seeing many lines deep of mounted knights in heavy plate armor charging down the hill. The battle was graphic and brutal. Reminded me a lot of Braveheart. Seeing a knight get drowned in the mud was a bit of a reminder how nasty that kinda of combat must have been.

If you haven't seen it, Netflx came out with another middle-aged film about Robert the Bruce with Chris Pine, the final battle scene is quite something, particularly the conditions that were fought.

quote:

The young man playing Henry did a great job. I totally bought every bit of his performance, and the writing was really good. I also enjoyed the performance of "Sir John" who balanced out a lot of the dark, brooding feel of the film.

I was not as taken with Timothee Chalamet's performance, perhaps it was the director, but, I found his near whispering in his dialogue distracting and didn't lend much gravitas to his role. I get that he's a reluctant king however he came across as meek up until he charged-in.

Thanks for the recommendation. The trailer looks pretty good. I'm going to watch one or the other with my wife tonight and the other tomorrow night.

I agree that he seemed somewhat meek and reluctant at times and had to be pushed to his resolve. I think that was an intentional move with the performance, though. When he really started to become king was the scene where he told the two lords, one of them his cousin, that in the morning, they'd have their heads cut off for treason, and then presiding over the execution. But yes, he didn't really seem to finish that transformation until he found his dead friend on the battlefield and ordered the French prisoners put to death. By the time of the final scenes, I think he was firm in his footing as a young king, but it took a lot to get there.

Great flick, although not remotely historically accurate other than arrow/armor/French knights in the mud and defeated. Henry's pal Falstaff (Sir John Oldcastle) was actually executed more than two years later (hanged and burned), with Henry's complicity or at least permission, for rebellion and heresy, although Henry did purportedly give him several breaks. The Church did not. Interesting that Catherine de Valois was the great-great Granny of the later Henry, Henry Tudor, eighth of the name, whose dynasty was begun by the late Catherine and her housekeeper Owen Tudor. Henry (the latter) never really got over being illegitimate. Ah, such is royalty. And incidentally, L.B.J.'s (yes, that L.B.J.) 15th great Granny.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Doc H.,

Sooooo... about like Braveheart, then?

I thought it was decent, but not great overall. I didn't feel like they did a very good job with the climactic battle as far as showing everything that was supposedly going to happen, in particular in regards to armor, or lack thereof. Maybe it was just me not understanding.

That being said, there were some cool scenes and shots.

It was entertaining.

The film was based off Shakespeare’s plays. That is reason it is more drama than history.