Wrote a film review for the first time, pure passerby, slight spoiler. This movie has been following for a long time, I heard about it before the official trailer came out, and I look forward to it very much. Recently, after Netflix went online, I found resources on the Internet to help me out. To be honest, I really can't figure out why the score is so low, only 6.2 points. After reading everyone’s comments, some people complained about the accents of the hero and Wufang, some complained about Shakespeare’s original work, and others complained about the hero’s lack of burly, and the style of complaining was too dim, etc., but I still pointed to this passage The love of history read it without hesitation. Throughout the article, the pictures and soundtracks don’t say that Netflix is of top-notch level, and although the rhythm of the plot needs to be improved, I am personally satisfied. The male protagonist’s growth experience from street gangster to king of a country is a bit abrupt, but the actors performed very delicately. The brewing process of restarting the Hundred Years’ War is full of the director’s personalized understanding. Agincourt, which looks like the battle of bastards, is both realistic and literary. The ending The climax of the movie after the main face of the male and female main faces is handled very well. As for the doubts about the adaptation of Shakespeare's original work, I think it is really far from the original, especially the changed beyond recognition Falstaff, most of the lines are "big vernacular" without the need to read subtitles, which can almost be regarded as Netflix. Original works, just like last year's "The King of Outside the Law". The original party should look back at the "Henry IV (Part 2)" and "Henry V" of the "Empty Crown" series, which basically coincides with the timeline of the film. In addition, I think that many commentators should have misunderstood the director’s intentions. If the director really wanted to create a traditional medieval king image of the 1989 edition of "Henry V", he would not look for the male protagonist of the film, who prefers Asian aesthetics. Facial value, skinny figure (many sweet tea powder has already begun to scold me), Hollywood hormonal actors are both hot and not hot. The movie actually wanted to depict the weakness, loneliness and helplessness of a ruler who seemed to be in power: his mother died young (not explained in the movie), his father’s perverse personality led to the betrayal of the family, and his beloved younger brother only saw power and honor, and he was finally killed by his father. , The only friend is a downhearted jazz, and the only subordinate who is loyal to him, and finally died heroically on the battlefield (in the original book, this man is a speculative speculator). After the king defeated the enemy triumphantly, he learned from his fiancée-a seemingly weak woman-that he was actually deceived by his subordinates. The outbreak of this unnecessary war was entirely a conspiracy of the nobles. In response to Falstaff in the movie, King has no friends, king has only followers and foes. The king asked himself (I am obscene, the movie did not show), what is this war for? Is it for the peace of the so-called victor? Is it for the honor of the king and the family? Is it to divert domestic conflicts? Or is it just a tool for the nobles to grab profits? In any case, he himself is just a pawn, and may be replaced at any time-his father is a usurper. Therefore, although the male protagonist in the movie has a facial paralysis and pretends to be forced, but it makes people feel that the smell is not dry, as if there is no take control-this is a point that many people complain about. But this is exactly what the director wants to show: the male protagonist and the French Dauphin played by Wufang are actually not fundamentally different-the two John Snow, who is played by power but complacent, has actually made a sharp complaint at the end of the film.
In addition, the director did not deliberately show the hero's extraordinary military talents-singled out by stealing a dagger to win (lack of knighthood), fights relying on subordinates to make suggestions-also have a purpose. The title of the film is The King rather than The King of Lancaster or Henry V, indicating that the director wants to express a general image of a ruler, not a special Henry V. Throughout the ages, the most important trait that determines the success of a ruler is often not about martial arts or talents, but how to use people. This is also the most tortured and tortured point of the male protagonist in the film: loyalty or evil, you should listen to it. who? From a historical point of view, Shakespeare’s original works were originally joking (in fact, Henry V was involved in political affairs in his early years, and there was no saying that the prodigal son turned his back). The director’s interpretation of the original works is even more unlikely to be historical facts, but it is not blasphemous. Anyone familiar with British history knows that the kings of the Gorse family changed frequently at the end of the Middle Ages, especially during the War of the Roses. The famous king maker, Earl Warwick, successively adopted the people of York and Lancaster as kings. It reflects that in the middle ages where the inheritance law was chaotic and immature, the legitimacy of the throne was difficult to guarantee. Since the Magna Carta and Simon de Montfort, the power of the nobility has been promoted by virtue of England’s unique parliament and sheriff system, so It is very possible that Henry V and some other gorse kings were controlled by the great aristocracy (Henry VI, the son of Henry V, was emptied by a real hammer), and sometimes he did not know it. Therefore, the setting of the king being manipulated by the nobility in the movie makes logical sense. In history, the recognized reason for the war was the conflict between the Almack and the Burgundians at that time. Now the market is full of remakes of fried cold rice, and as a "remake", this film is at least sincere in production (Daddy Netflix can burn money), and the director is also very thoughtful. It really shouldn't have such a low score. If someone really looks at it, spray lightly.
Ps: Thinking of an important thing, there is no black face in the whole film! ! ! Only the Frenchman, who was separated from the king's cousin, seemed to have a Middle Eastern appearance. The king chanted Unite in his pre-war speech. Political correctness is hard to find in this movie. Niu batch!
The image of the male protagonist created by the film also reminds me of a "net celebrity" who is about to pass away.
It's just a Lenovo, there is not much similarity between the two, there is no need to forcibly pull on the succubus, I believe the director just wants to tell a good story.
renew:
Inspired by my friends, I discovered the most essential problem of the film-improper selection of materials. The original intention of the director was to represent a relatively ordinary king, but for the sake of the eyeballs, he chose one of the most outstanding and cruel kings in the history of England. It is far away from history, and very different from Shakespeare’s original work. It is like a remake of the Three Kingdoms, which is neither based on historical facts nor based on the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which naturally offends both sides.
In fact, the director can choose the relatively mediocre gorse kings such as John, Henry III, and even Edward II to show their true side in history, without paying too much attention to the audience’s preconceived stereotypes. The effect may not be so contradictory.
View more about The King reviews
