Henri IV

it is far to be a revelation. stylized story, not extraordinary acting, battle and love scenes and the noble purpose to present in decent manner one of fundamental personalities of Modern French history. common biographic movie, without great ambition but remarkable for few scenes who reflects the roots of political crisis, it is a French past page in clothes of German. and without be impressive, the result is far to be boring or slice of time waist, sure, it could be better. but the performance of Julien Boisselier , charming and not complicated, transforming the lead character in a form of sketch, is a good thing and inspired spice for an easy film.

Historical drama. Lousy film adaptation of two novels by German writer Heinrich Mann "The Young Years of King Henry IV" and "The Mature Years of King Henry IV". I wanted to see this creation three years ago, but the circumstances were against it, and not in vain, I can tell you with a clear conscience. But now I saw this product of European production, and is full of anger from this circumstance. Therefore, here is my brief opinion - Porn in a historical setting. Despite my anger, I intend to note not only the minuses of this creation, but also a few pluses, which were also found, which is surprising. Now let me finish with the introductory part and get down to the point. So the pros: 1. An interesting topic - the life and circumstances of the death of the French king Henry the Fourth of Navarre arouse keen interest even five hundred years after his reign. A difficult fate, the undercover intrigues of the Parisian court and the leading powers of Europe, a country torn apart by religious contradictions that cannot be resolved by the world, and against this background the personality of Henry, who in a short time was able to achieve peace and prosperity for France, although in the end he paid for it is a high price. What an interesting idea, but the implementation couldn't be worse. All potential and good points merged mercilessly. 2. Costumes - what not to find fault with in this creation, so it is the costumes, because they look authentic to this historical era, and do not cause any complaints. The dressers obviously knew their stuff. 3. Music - the great and terrible Hans Zimmer was responsible for it here, together with an assistant who wrote good and high-quality music for this creation, which creates the right atmosphere and allows you to feel the whole drama of some moments. Another people who approached their business well. This is where the pros are over, now we turn to the bad and very annoying. So the cons: 1. Porn - forgive me, of course, but I wanted to see a historical drama about an important and dramatic period in French history, not a porno in a historical setting with a zeal for the budget "Game of Thrones". Such hack when shooting erotica, no, it's not even erotica, it's natural porn, I haven't seen it for a long time. Why are these scenes needed? Do we not know and do not understand where children come from? This creation has an age limit of "18+". The hack is hack. Filmed and staged these scenes are simply disgusting, and cause a gag reflex. If these scenes were not here, then this creation could be watched, and so - a disgrace. 2. Circus with horses - sometimes, when watching, he beat himself on the head with his palm because of such delirium and natural circus that the heroes of this creation did. It seems that we are facing a serious movie about dramatic events in the history of an entire country, and not "Pirates of the Caribbean", where a circus was announced and turned out to be a circus. This not only knocks out of the atmosphere, but also hits the perception of this creation. 3. Acting game - everyone who was in the frame, from kings to extras from extras for battles, worked as a log. Emotions? Reincarnation? Entering the image? Who invented such nonsense? Let's dress up the actors in historical costumes, write banal dialogues and put them in the frame. What could go wrong? Why such disregard for the viewer? 4. Boredom - there is dynamics, there are battle scenes, there are no charismatic heroes and I don't want to empathize with anyone, because they don't cling to anything. The movie is boring to watch, even for history buffs like me. I kept wondering how the murder of the king and its main reason would be played out, because there was no investigation and it still remains a mystery. As a result - banality and therefore - the boring of this creation, which is a pity. 5. Expectations - a large budget, several countries, and without the participation of Hollywood, an interesting topic, and as a result - below the plinth, against which any historical drama looks like a masterpiece, even the most average one. I expected to see a good and strong European cinema, but received not watchable garbage, which is a pity for the time spent. A little about the main characters: 1. Henry of Navarre, played by Julien Boisselier, is a young heir to the Kingdom of Navarre, who is destined to become the future king of France and bring peace and harmony to it for many years. We watch him from an early age to a fatal murder. Shown as a clown, although sometimes a sane person. 2. Margot performed by Armel Deutsch is a princess of the Valois family and the daughter of Catherine de Medici, who became Henry's wife, although their marriage cannot be called happy. Passionate, flighty, stupid and inconsistent. Although she is very red dress. I am sure that everything in the books was much more interesting, and I will try to read it. I hope that we will still see a worthy film adaptation of Heinrich Mann, and even though from our filmmakers (with "Queen Margot" it worked out!), Let this creation go to the dustbin of cinema with just censure! As a result, we have a bad historical drama based on a powerful source, with a bad and boring script, all-encompassing vulgarity, good music and costumes, and disgusting acting. Shame and censure! My rating is 4 out of 10 and I do not recommend this picture for viewing!

A German made film (originally released as a miniseries) about the life of the 16th century's Henri (or Henry) IV of France, one of the crucial kings in the French Wars of religion (by one count, Henry changed religions four times during his life between Catholicism and Protestantism). Solid and interesting, just a bit overlong at two hours and a half, it has both French actors and Germans actors dubbed in French (I didn't care much about this, though perhaps some French native speakers would). Medieval and early Modern history can be very complicated (the personal gets involved with the political, as the main political leaders tend to be relatives as well) but if you pay attention the various political plots are reasonably well explained in the film. On the minus side, the movie could have benefited from a more charismatic lead than Julien Boisselier as Henry. And Ulrich Noethen (who played Himmler in Downfall) outrageously overacts as Charles IX, one of Henry's predecessors. But the beautiful Chloe Stefani is lovely as Henry's mistress, Gabrielle d'Estrées (none more so when she appears nude, as she does frequently here). And Hannelore Hoger is suitably evil as queen Catharina de Medicis, a major plotter against Henry.

The production values are reasonably good, though as in many other historical films, battles are not very credible when it seems to involve the fight of dozens of people, instead of thousands (films like these should consider using computer generated imagery to give modern audiences the feel of a large battle).

The same subject matter was covered in La Reine Margot, a French film released in the 1990s, starring Isabelle Adjani as Marguerite de Valois (in Henri, Margot is played as a semi hysterical woman by Armelle Deutsch). I saw La Reine Margot at the time it was released, but I really don't remember a lot about it, except that it was a much stylized affair; Henri is a much more down to earth film.

it reminds many other historical films. for recipes, solutions, mixture of bloody scenes, political secrets and the recreate of a reasonable sketch for a dark period. good performances, beautiful costumes, the hero and a good looking lead actor who, far to be the best choice for the role of Henri IV, it is a reasonable one. short, a seductive film, history "ad usum delphini", good start point for discover the roots of events. and, sure, a nice story, heroic, tragic, interesting. it is one of films with a noble purpose and a smart director who knows translate, on the taste of public, Modern history in the right images. and this is the most important virtue in this case.

I enjoy historic films and this caught my eye. It was well acted and shot. Sadly because it was originally a mini series it has been massively edited into a two and a half hour film. And it shows. Some really bad edits ing makes the film a complete mess which jumps all over the place and makes viewing frustrating. People are quickly friends and then enimies, sick for no reason in the next scene and main characters simply disappear never to be seen again. If possible.....seek out the mini series and watch in its intended runtime.....which I should imagine is a lot lot longer. This slapdash editing and slapping together of scenes makes it badly disjointed.