Der Brief für den König

Aimed squarely at a children and young teenage audience, this film from the Netherlands is a reasonable entry into the medieval fantasy genre. A lot of the negative reviews here come from people comparing it to the popular children's book upon which is based, but not having read the book I can say this worked on me on its own. Working with a relatively small budget, it tells the story of young Tiuri (Yannick Van de Velde), who is to become a knight. As a last task he must stay the night in a church chapel with three other pupils, without talking, leaving or listening to anybody. But at night a cry for help is heard from behind the door, and a dying stranger tells Tiuri he must bring a secret letter to the king of a foreign country…So the adventure begins. There are some nice outdoor mountain locations, not filmed in flat Netherlands obviously, but in Scotland, France and Germany.

I do not know the book. so, the opinion about a good or bad adaptation is missing. but , it is obvious than "The letter for the king" is a nice children film. not surprising . each expected ingredient is present. the sacrifice for noble cause, the adventure, the young hero discovering himself, the friendship, the danger, the important mission and, sure, the aura of return . so, a seductive film.

After hearing Tonke Dragt's "brief voor de koning" was about to be filmed I really was looking forward to it. "Kruistocht in spuikerbroek" showed a dutch filmmaker can do really well. So when I saw the trailer and read about it, I hasted myself towards the cinema, assuming this would be a great two hours movie.

In the beginning all was fine, nice locations, beautiful costumes, all looked like it could be part of the book. But then, after ten minutes or so, the audio became very irritating with horrible lip syncing. It looked like afterwards in the audio recording studio the director forgot to show the movie and actors had to read their lines straight from paper … at once, without retries or any rehearsal. And why didn't any one bother to think about distance?? On film the actors turn their head, walk away, stand one meter from the camera or ten, but the volume is always the same.

I guess I could get used to this, wasn't it for the horrible stage acting pronunciation. I mean, if an actor is on stage he should speak as clear as possible. But hey, this is cinema, the audio comes from several speakers, speak naturally, do not overdo it! Then there's the acting, how many shots did it take to make this movie, only one? Was half of all shooting days wasted on rehearsals? With every single scene I was under the impression the director shouted "Great, well done! Next one!" You can sometimes even see main characters without lines looking around like "what am I doing here, or hey, what kind of lens is that cameraman using?" And then the locations, though well chosen, did anyone really bother to recheck them before filming?? Why are electricity cables running on walls in a medieval setting? And was it so hard to cover up twenty century electricity boxes?? After this, I think it was twenty minutes into the movie, everything became very annoying. The night shots taken at day time with dark filters, but with the sunny shadows so clearly visible. The rare good acting of even fewer actors became bad, rapped by bad voice recording.

And then, halfway through the movie I became angry, very angry, this was not a movie made to do just to the book or to entertain the audience. It was made so uninspired famous actors had a job and a film crew without any talent could make a full movie.

Was it all bad then? No, the choice of many locations was great, even some actors really tried hard and costume design was great, but what remained was this horrible feeling I completely wasted my time, money and even worse, my good mood. So I left the cinema with an very angry feeling. This movie was an insult, a blasphemy of what good cinema is all about. Besides very few efforts it all looked like the makers wanted to make a very, very quick buck.

But hey, this is my opinion. I still would say, go see for yourself. But please, rent it, or much better, try to lend it from friends or family or any one who was drunk enough to buy this one, because in all honesty, the idea the creators of this flick receive any more money makes me sick: they should be in the TV business, not the film industry.

The original Tonke Dragt children's book was one of my favorites as a child. Having recently read the book to my own children, I discovered that it hasn't quite stood the test of time: slow, sometimes contrived, with stilted dialogue and sexist tendencies to make Tolkien proud. How fortunate, then, that a movie was made; what an excellent opportunity to reinvent the story while still staying true to the source material, like Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings.

No such luck.

Brief voor de Koning as a film is rooted firmly in the Dutch tradition of shameless mediocrity. The screenplay includes most crucial scenes from the book, but presents them in a bloodless, uninspired sequence, completely draining what little tension the original story carried. The acting is community theater level and worse, the entire cast delivering badly written lines with wooden expressions and clumsy body language. Direction, production, and even camera work and lighting were so bad I began to notice them.

Dutch film critics and moviegoers alike have a tendency to embrace Dutch products and grant them an extra star (on a five-star scale) or two for effort and out of misplaced chauvinism. This is the only explanation I can think of for the 5.8 on IMDb. Even the four I gave this atrocity feels too high.

My kids loved it, though.

This movie is dreadful. I really can not understand why the director is being praised for what he created here.

Every scene seems to be rushed, as if there wasn't enough film in the camera. Like when Piak throws Tiuri his sword. Piak doesn't throw it further than a few feet yet when the camera changes its angle, all of a sudden the sword flies another 8 feet. Is it such a bother to just throw that sword a few times more often?

And then there are the actors, almost all of them the best Holland has to offer and a few of Germany's great. How come none of these fine actors seem to shine in their parts? Isn't it a big part of the directors work to ensure they do their best?

Then there are parts of the book that are altered for no good reason. Why doesn't this film start with Tiuri in the chapel? That would have been a great introduction for the main character. A dim lit chapel, and then the knock on the door and the cry for help. It is easy to convey a bit a drama to that, but it doesn't happen. Vokia is also wounded, no idea why, he wasn't in the book. And it doesn't quite fit either.

There are parts that I liked in this movie. The shots of the landscape through which Tiuri goes are pretty good. The actor that plays Jaro does a good job. And when Tiuri meets the lord of the toll I got an emotional response from this performance, even though it doesn't really make sense in light of the book.

All in all, I just think it is too bad they didn't put some more effort into this. It could have been something if the makers would have just spend some more time in preparing dramatic effect, storyboard and a decent script.

I sincerely hope they don't ruin another great book by Tonke Dragt.

A disappointed fan.