An adaptation of Henry V. Anybody else watched this? 30 minutes in and it seems very well done.

I enjoyed it but I am a sucker for English history and movies about the monarchy. The battle Agincourt was fairly portrayed in the movie - as accurate as movies tend to be.

It's a slow build to the climax and the ending was a bit surprising. Well worth the two hour investment.

Micah97 said:

---

I enjoyed it but I am a sucker for English history and movies about the monarchy. The battle Agincourt was fairly portrayed in the movie - as accurate as movies tend to be.

It's a slow build to the climax and the ending was a bit surprising. Well worth the two hour investment.

---

I've really enjoyed this and the other one Netflix came out with a year ago with Chris Pine, The Outlaw King.

Good movie! Wish there was more like this on Netflix.

Champ Bailey said:

---

Micah97 said:

---

I enjoyed it but I am a sucker for English history and movies about the monarchy. The battle Agincourt was fairly portrayed in the movie - as accurate as movies tend to be.

It's a slow build to the climax and the ending was a bit surprising. Well worth the two hour investment.

---

I've really enjoyed this and the other one Netflix came out with a year ago with Chris Pine, The Outlaw King.

---

Agreed. They were very enjoyable. Both were not "must see " movies, but were very well done, and a great way to kill two hours.

I really enjoyed this movie. I thought it gave a decent representation of what a medieval battle would've been like.

About halfway through and really enjoying it. Acting, production, cast and costumes/makeup all top notch imo.

Some might consider a good chunk of the movie to be slow but I don't at all. Even if it isn't packed with action and violence, there is a building tension that keeps you sucked in.

Saint Pablo said:

---

Really enjoyed the movie! Well done. Robert Pattinson was hilarious

---

Yeah, he had a real Targaryen vibe. Kind of insane, doesn't know dick about strategy.

Micah97 said:

---

I enjoyed it but I am a sucker for English history and movies about the monarchy. The battle Agincourt was fairly portrayed in the movie - as accurate as movies tend to be.

It's a slow build to the climax and the ending was a bit surprising. Well worth the two hour investment.

---

Let me ask you this, had they really moved away from the shield wall tactics at this point in history? If so, is it just because plate armor and archers had neutralized the effectiveness of it? I've been reading the Last Kingdom series which is set 600 years earlier, and that is basically the only tactics they have fighting the Vikings, other than picking the location of the battlefield.

Just finished this up after starting yesterday. Solid movie! We enjoyed it. Makes me excited for Dune!

That was a great portrayal of the Battle of the Bast**ds. (That overhead shot of Falstaff was lifted STRAIGHT out of GoT.)

But seriously. That was an awesome battle scene and made the movie for me. Although I have to say the performances kept me engaged pretty much the full runtime. Very solid movie.

It was ight.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

That was a great portrayal of the Battle of the Bast**ds. (That overhead shot of Falstaff was lifted STRAIGHT out of GoT.)

But seriously. That was an awesome battle scene and made the movie for me. Although I have to say the performances kept me engaged pretty much the full runtime. Very solid movie.

---

Echoes my take. Watched it yesterday. The suffocating aspects of war, even the cavalry charging in at the beginning of the battle had me having BotB flashbacks. Nice.

I thought it was very good not excellent but very good. I thought all the roles were very well cast. I love Joel Edgerton.

Oddly, Johnny Depp's daughter played the Catherine and Brad Pitt was a producer.

But maybe it was better that I'm giving it credit for because I kind of wished it had been a limited series instead of just a one time film. Robert Pattinson really played the Dauphin creepy.

Just got around to watching this, because 9 month old baby. I thought Robert Pattinson really stole the show. A good show, especially with the idea that you are watching what was period propaganda. Shakespeare was writing for an English audience about the English war hero. Back then this was like having John Wayne play Davy Crockett.

Quote:

---

Let me ask you this, had they really moved away from the shield wall tactics at this point in history? If so, is it just because plate armor and archers had neutralized the effectiveness of it?

---

It had largely evolved at this point in history. The shield wall is really just a phalanx by another name and era. As the armies of the shield wall were not professional soldiers, the shield wall was a good tool to take a largely ill-equipped and untrained mass and field some semblance of order. Really only the first couple lines needed to have much armor. The weakness was that it was not very flexible, somewhat hard to control, and once disordered it was quick to panic. There is a reason the Romans abandoned the phalanx formation prior to the late Republican era. (I can't remember exactly when.)

In the Middle Ages, cavalry was effective about swinging in from the side and disrupting this formation. The other factor though was that it became a comical race for the longest spear. If you could engage them before they engaged you, you win. The evolution of that was the pike, which was so long that you needed both hands. For protection, plate armor was used. I think the Tercio was the first use of pike and musket. The pike formations did most of the fighting by the English Civil War, though the ratio of pike men to archers (and then musketeers), slowly moved toward the projectile side. In the end, all that was left of the shield wall tactics was the bayonet on the end of the musket.