DISCLAIMER: IF YOU ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 15, YOU MUST ASK YOUR PARENTS IF YOU ARE ALLOWED, IF THEY SAY NO…IT MEANS NO!

By: Keaton Marcus

ca-times.brightspotcdn-2.jpg — 75/100 “sweet”

“A king has no friends, only followers—and foe” mutters Falstaff, one of King Hal’s companions. That’s one of the main themes of David Michod’s “The King”, a lengthy and above-average biopic that benefits from impressive performances, beautiful cinematography and some compelling battle sequences. However, it’s still a little bit of a missed opportunity. It just isn’t fantastic. The adaptation of Shakespeare’s classic is true to its word, but the execution is too depressing to really get audiences listening for over 140 minutes. Of course, this is a Netflix film, so again, bravo to the streaming giant that keeps getting more ambitious by the day. Nevertheless, despite a couple missteps with the tone, Timothée Chalamet’s performance, and the sharp direction aid the solid, if unspectacular film.

If you are a fan of Shakespeare you know the story, but what the heck, here we go. We head to England in the beginning, with a dramatic set-up. Prince Hal of Wales’ father, King Henry IV (a limited, and grumpy Ben Mendelssohn) is dying, and will soon pass on the crown to one of his sons. Hal is the rightful ruler, since he’s the oldest child, but the teen is a complete drunken fool and considering this, the King gives the thrown to his younger son Thomas. Don’t worry, that little affair doesn’t last long. I don’t want to give out too many spoilers, so I’ll stick to what works and what doesn’t. However, what I will say is that a certain someone will go on a rampage against The Dauphin of France (Robert Pattinson with a distracting, but hilarious accent).

Really, if you’re not in to dark themes, or troubling royal drama, “The King” may be a dead end, but otherwise, this grim whirlwind of terrific acting will be your jam. Screenwriter Joel Edgerton (who also nabbed a starring role) sets the affair up exactly like this. The overwhelming angst of the plot will give you little room to breath, but Edgerton and Chalamet makes sure that once or twice the thrilling battle sequences, and the crispness of the camera-work are made worth a watch. It’s comparable to the likes of 2018’s “Mary, Queen of Scotts”, but better, and more than something solely lavish. The costume-design, Chalamet’s Oscar winning outing, and the pure intrigue of the whole thing is enough to outweigh infrequent silly dialogue. Therefore, it’s worth a debate to call it disappointing, but you can’t dub it a failure.

I’ve mentioned this before, but in terms of awards season, this Netflix production really has a chance. Perhaps not Best Picture, but the movie deserves at least nominations in the actor, costume and cinematography categories. So what if it doesn’t have a 350 million budget, or at least CGI galore, “The King” deftly blends both emotion and a substantial amount of grit to create a firm product that could have been better, but it is more than worth the price of admission. See it for the shining cast, the production value, or just the interesting history behind it—either way, this R-rated take on Henry V earns its stripes fair and square.

The final opinion is: Despite being a tad dark for an entertaining watch, “The King” makes up for it’s small loss with various brilliant performances, excellent camera work and sharp direction…$PLURGE IT