Reviews on movie Henri 4 (5)

I like the image of Henry of Navarre becoming King of France. But before seeing this picture, I had a slightly different idea of him. Yes, I knew that he was a lover of women and would not mind to hang out, in this regard nothing new is shown! What struck the film? The thing is, I knew that the Navarre court was basically poor, but it was something to make it look so poor! I guess that was the case at the time!

The contrast between Navarres and French courts is striking. In one poverty (well, you can’t say that a king can live like this, albeit a small one, but a country!), on the other – luxury of a simply blinding scale. So it's amazing that Henry became King of France. Yes, it happened because of his ancestry, allowing him to claim the French throne, and he was married to Margot, and no one else was found, but still!
There’s a lot of naturalism in the film, but it’s only more spectacular. Actually, it's a great movie. It’s worth watching to better understand history. The image of Henry is generally cool - the artist 5 points with a plus. It is impossible not to give in to its charm. Apparently, all the women were crazy about him. The actor managed to convey this unique charisma!

The film makes a sad impression of a dumpster, where they decided to dump all the speculations of the director, gossip that remained in history, disgusting costumes and inappropriate historical landscapes, and on top of it all season with strawberries from the disgusting play of actors.
First of all, I didn't understand: was it a drunken innkeeper or was it the king of France? No, of course, his mother ran everything there, but it is unlikely that her high-aged child was such a moron.

The other brother's sweet too... He seems to think only of boys and nothing else. Believe me, at that time, even the king was not allowed to show his interest in his sex so openly.
And who is this whore on the screen who is called Princess Margaret? Get her out of here now!

Heinrich of Navarre makes a very depressing impression, not the king, but some beautiful fool who does not understand the current situation in his country.
Historical landscapes are puzzling. Is it the Louvre? Dirty, grooved something?

In general, you can not look.

2 out of 10

The painting is a biography of King Henry of Navarre, from early childhood until his death. To begin with, the film left ambivalent feeling. It is almost impossible to show such a rich life of Navarresky in a three-hour picture. Not badly staged and interesting, with beautiful shots and beautifully staged battle scenes. Scared, similar interiors and worn costumes of the characters add charm and do not distract from the game of some actors. And it's worth paying attention to. Henry himself was magnificently played by Julien Boisselier. The image turned out to be alive, intriguing and bright, his smile is difficult to forget. Queen Margot is not exactly like the usual image, as in the film “Queen Margot” in 1994. Or such a familiar image created by Eugene Dobrovolskaya in the picture of the same name. Hannelor Hoger appears in the guise of Catherine de Medici, zealously protecting her sons from the Valois branch, coped perfectly. I really believe that this woman has been through a lot and has a lot of experience in politics. Her eldest son, Charles IX, performed by Ulrich Noeten, turned out quite reliably, almost as well as his death. But his brothers and Guiz got smeared, they just didn't have time to open up. The main love of Henry, Gabriel d’Estra was not expressive as well as the second wife, was affected not by the grip of screen time.
The era, not washed bodies, worn clothes are not poorly shown, but the spirit of Paris itself was not enough. Lack of palace etiquette is a frequent phenomenon in the latest cinema, behind-the-scenes wrestling and beautiful scenery.
Bayer managed to make a good movie, even with the errors that are.
King Genich he turned out to be some special kind, cheerful, lively. A real king who saw both good and evil in the world. And despite all the shortcomings, it is worth seeing.

6 out of 10

PS. For those of you who haven’t read Mann, you’ll love the movie.

"Henry 4 of Navarre" (2010) - so simply and simultaneously succinctly called a new European (France, Germany and some other EU countries) historical film, based on the famous Heinrich Mann dilogy about King Henry IV, King of Navarre and France. I would say right away that I considered and still consider this dilogy of Mann one of the best representatives of the genre of historical novel. Along with the best works of A. Dumas and M. Druon with L. Feuchtwanger, and from domestic authors - D. Balashov and V. Pikul.

In short, this dilogy, especially her first novel, The Young Years of King Henry IV, has been read by me more than once or twice. In grades 10-11, I was in love with this book. After a while came the realization that the same Huguenots were by no means 100% "white and fluffy" as the nights of St. John. Bartholomew was preceded, albeit by a more modest, but also bloody night. Michael, and that the Huguenots, no worse than their Catholic opponents, tore France apart and without a blaze of conscience invited themselves to the aid of fellow-believers. To be fair, that slips into Mann's. But only in a glimpse, almost as in some novels by A. Perez-Revert, where although it is mentioned (in a glimpse) about how Croatian soldiers took the Serbian population “in an unknown direction”, but the atrocities of the Serbs are painted without sparing either paper or the darkest colors. But nevertheless, the book was and is, I do not fear this word, a masterpiece of the genre. And the main advantage of the film is that in addition to the brilliant acting talent of the main actors, as well as beautiful natural and historical views, the spirit of the original book is preserved in it. The spirit of genuine humanism. And it's been preserved amazingly. Before the viewer unfolds a little more than three-hour story of Henry Bourbon, ranging from the barefoot boy-prince of a small mountain kingdom and ending with the wise gray-haired king of united France and Navarre. This boy has come a long way... baptism with the fire of religious wars, Bartholomew’s night, repeated change of faith, a long war for the independence of his kingdom and the cessation of unrest in it, reconciliation and maneuvering between various parties and elite clans... He was able to bring peace to the country after nearly forty years of brutal strife. Although the radicals of both camps of the king, of course, did not like it. But there are no easy solutions in such matters. It is necessary to crawl out of the abyss carefully, so as not to collapse into it again.
And he had a great many women who loved him and a lot of people who tried to kill him. And in the end still "... death, full of insidiousness, he waited, and struck his knife from around the corner ..." (c). And all this found its place in the film by D. Bayer. The historical canvas shown by him turned out to be quite large-scale.

Many have written about the merry King Henri, but this Mann dilogy... This is not a scruffy memoir or a scientific monograph, but rather a great mix of historical adventures, a growing-up novel and essay novels. And the film was able to convey that. As the play of Julien Beußelier, and his scenes, his music ... Not everything follows the book strictly. But the main thing from the book in the film is there. And as a result, we got a beautiful European historical epic, a great costume film, a wonderful historical drama. This film deserves to stand on the same shelf next to “Queen Margot” (with I. Adjani), “Captain Alatriste” (with V. Mortensen) and, say, classic series based on the “trilogy about the hardship of France”. A. Dumas – our “Queen Margot” and two “Countess de Monsoro” – domestic (1997) and French (1971).
The beginning and ending of the film (the scene with the heart of Henry (?)) perfectly echoes the finale of Mann’s novel about the “only people’s king”. And although the ashes of the king were, almost two centuries after his death, thrown from the coffin by rabid revolutionary rabble, Henry IV remained in history, in the memory of people, and in literature with cinema. And Joe Bayer's film is another example of that.
Summary: Excellent historical film. Nice movie. Beautiful and smart, almost like a mini-series. Look at this picture, for we are not so often pampered with such strong and curious works.

I want to say right away, the film adaptation of the book is very dubious and controversial. But maybe this is for the best, at least the film does not leave you indifferent after watching. I have a double opinion of the painting.

On the one hand, it’s a film for those who haven’t read the book and aren’t interested in history, because the cast is simply disgusting (in terms of age). Take as an example at least historical facts: at the time of the wedding, Margaret was 19 years old, and Henry was not yet 19, Charles was generally 22 years old. However, in the film we see the newlyweds and the king of France, who is almost suitable for them as a father. The entire Louvre resembles a royal residence with a great stretch: its size in the film just makes you cry, and the interior decoration is a quiet horror. Smart, educated Margarita, who knew several languages, is exhibited exclusively as a girl of easy behavior. One can guess only in the finale of the film about Catherine Medici’s favorite hobby – witchcraft, and it is far from a fact that those of the audience who have not read the book will understand why Henry cut off a strand of his hair. And then you can move on to the other side.

The plot is very crumpled. Well, you can't put that much time into 150 minutes of screen time. If I hadn’t read the books about that time period and Henry 4, I wouldn’t have understood much of what was happening on screen. In my opinion, many important aspects of Henry’s life were not included in the film by the writers, and they ask for scenes that would link the plot. Moreover, the whole abyss of intrigues and conspiracies for which the French court was so famous in the Middle Ages has not been revealed.
Perhaps if other actors were selected and the film was divided into at least 3 parts, something interesting turned out. But since we have these actors, and it is these 150 minutes, I can say that the film did not live up to expectations, I would even say disappointing.