Henri 4 (2010) User Reviews

Above average period film

[Andy-296 · 7/10 · 22 September 2011]

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.

Originally a mini series and sadly it shows.

[Jester222 · 5/10 · 28 July 2019]

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.

Rushed

[Ana_Banana · 6/10 · 17 April 2015]

Ambitious in its intentions, based on Heinrich Mann's historical novel, this movie looks apparently pretty good: it surely has a much more authentic atmosphere especially compared to the infamous 'La Reine Margot', good cinematography, and decent acting (except Charles IX). But, contrary to another reviewer who thought it too long, actually it's too short and over-simplified.

The dire, murderous and suspicious atmosphere is very well realized, as many of those admired crowned heads have behaved sometimes like insane mass murderers, and luckily the glamorized feel of too many historical films has not crept in here. But the script looks rushed, hurrying and compressing events, decades, characters and their motivations. Thus, even the action is unclear for a viewer unfamiliar with that age and place, and important historical or dramatic events are but hinted at or simply omitted (the Ligue and its rebellion, the deaths of Charles IX, Henri III and of his brother, the last Valois heir, and also Caterina's death).

In reality, the historical characters have been pretty complex and contradictory: Caterina was not only an evil and scheming hag such as her portrayal in Dumas' novels, but an active and courageous politician striving (mostly in vain) to maintain a fragile balance in a kingdom devastated by three rival factions (the Court, the Guise family with its Ligue, and the Huguenots led by the future Henri IV). Or Henri III, her favorite son, was indeed a weird, undecided, bisexual, perhaps bipolar fellow, but certainly not an idiot: it was him who 'eliminated' his main rival the duke de Guise and finally allied with the future Henri IV against the Ligue and named him heir presumptive. The death of Gabrielle is not elucidated in the film (was it Rosny, the king's main adviser, really? Unbelievable).

Maria de Medici is treated in an infantile manner, and even the king's assassination is very poorly explained. Also lacking are many other tentatives of assassinating him throughout all his life course. The pacification of France after his last conversion and crowning took in reality many years and required much effort, from battles to bribery for rebellious dukes. By the way, the duke d'Epernon, the last standing rebel and a main mastermind of the king's assassination, is absent from this film.

To sum all these up: despite its ambitious luster, strangely the film has the feel of a low budget one: too few characters, rushed situations, poorly explored motivations, quite few extras in the scenes at the Court. Which is in fact bad for a film treating such dramatic and surprising events.

Excellent portrayal of an eventful life lived in 'interesting times'.

[max-vernon · 27 July 2011]

Two and a half hours well spent – if you know the history of the French Wars of Religion. If not and you think the DVD cover promises a battlefest then you may be disappointed. The one major battle scene is short and adequate but war – or how to end it - remains the background theme to this film and occupies little of the screenplay. The film is more about politics than war.

As such, it is pretty faithful to the events and characters involved. Charles IX was only 23 when he died but appears older. The protagonist Henry of Navarre, one of the few French kings regarded as 'good', had a reputation for lechery and the opening scene shows our hero embarking on his lascivious path at a very young age. It also establishes his persona as a down-to-earth lover of peasants enjoying the bucolic life in his small kingdom in SW France.

Standing between Henry and the French throne we have the last two Valois kings Charles IX and Henri III – childless, weak and dominated by their mother Catherine de Medici who is depicted unsympathetically as scheming and unscrupulous. History dealt Catherine a bad hand. She gave her husband Henri II 10 children in 12 years. He then got himself killed in a joust and left her to run a country where religious civil war was about to break out.

Secure in her island fortress on the other side of the Channel, the childless Elizabeth I of England has been credited with preserving religious peace over the same period. Catherine's position was weaker. Effectively the ruler of France for 30 years, she desperately bought time for her sons to grow up. To complicate matters further, we have the powerful Catholic Guise family with their own ambitions for the French throne and the fact that Henry of Navarre is a Protestant in a land where the majority are still Catholic.

Grappling with the French Wars of Religion is difficult enough for any history student. Making a film about this topic demands a careful balance between detail and entertainment. The screenplay includes all the main characters and events and will mainly appeal to those with some background knowledge. More battles would not have explained the story.

To sum up, we have one battle, four political assassinations, a lot of rampant sex between the hero and various women, one dramatic escape, the famous St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of Protestants and the good King Henri IV dispensing religious toleration and material well-being to his subjects. To do all this in only 150 minutes is a remarkable achievement.

Inevitably, this film will be compared with the award-winning 'La Reine Margot' (1994). The Margot of 'Henri 4' is a much less sympathetic character. This film tells a different story and covers a longer time span. Of the two films, I think I prefer this one.

All in all a decent period piece

[Horst_In_Translation · 6/10 · 25 April 2015]

Henri 4 is, as the name already suggests a biopic about the French king mentioned in the title. Biopic fits in the truest sense as the film starts with the main character as a boy and ends with his assassination. I am not sure how close it is to the Heinrich Mann novel it is based on, but it's a historic drama from 5 years ago and while it is usually not particularly my favorite genre, I was nicely entertained most of the time. Here and there there was a scene where it dragged a bit, but it was still bearable for a 2.5 hour film. It's packed with intrigue, violence, killings, sex and relationship struggles, most of these pretty graphic. These relationships involved queens, wives and, last but not least, God. There are many emotional scenes in this film. The film is written and directed by Jo Baier, a man who won several Adolf Grimme awards in the past already for his works. It is a multi-cultural movie. Many countries involved here and actors from these countries too, especially Germany and France. You may have come across Król, Pippig, Hüller, Hoger, Striesow, Markovics, Urspruch and Monot already if you are interested in German movies.

Ulrich Noethen scored a supporting actor nomination at the German Film Awards for his performance here and he was certainly one of the standouts of this movie. Julien Boisselier (did not know him before) was a good choice for the lead character, but not a perfect one. All in all, the movie did not have any real moments of greatness, but no major weaknesses wither. If you like the genre, this certainly deserves a watch. Give it a chance.

Porn in a historical setting or "Game of Thrones" at minimum salaries

[lyubitelfilmov · 4/10 · 6 February 2021]

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!

The man who would be king of France

[jotix100 · 8/10 · 16 April 2012]

From an early start Henri of Navarre, the protestant nobleman saw war first hand. As a child he was present in battles that would mark him for all his life. He also knew fear in his own person when he was surrounded by warriors engaging in combat. In fact, Henri's fate was predicted by Nostradamus himself, when Henri's mother brought the seer to take a look at her young son. Henri was a man destined for great things, as indeed it was the case with his life took him from a small kingdom to be the ruler of one of the most powerful European nations.

Born protestant, Henri had everything stacked against him, when France totally dominated by the Pope and his strict Catholic Church. The throne of France was dominated by the powerful Catherine De Medici. Her weak son Francis was the ruler of the land, but her ambition was to make her other son Henri, to succeed his brother. That way Catherine was able to control everything. In a bold move, Catherine decided to marry her daughter Margaret to Henri of Navarre to cement France's dominance. The union proved to be stormy at best. The reign of Henri III, a homosexual, ended with his assassination.

Henri of Navarre became the king of France. He wanted the best for the country he loved, but had to yield to entering a conversion that no one really believed came from his heart, but it was a sort of marriage of convenience. Henri true love was Gabrielle D'Estress, who was not accepted by the Pope. Instead he endured a terrible marriage to another Medici, Marie, who gave him an heir to continue the lineage. Henri had a horrible end as he was slain in the streets of Paris.

An ambitious project "Henri 4" is an epic of great proportions. A co- production between Germany, France, Spain and the Czech Republic, the film tries to make justice to those turbulent years in a country dominated by religious wars. Directed by Jo Baier, the film will surely delight history fans for it shows powerful individuals whose ambitions were incredible. The cinematography of Gernot Roll, the veteran German cameraman, is amazing. Mr. Roll catches nuances as well as the fury of the battles in details seldom seen. The incidental music is by Hans Zimmer and Henry Jackman. The mainly German cast does a wonderful rendition of the drama as staged by Mr. Baier.

decent

[Vincentiu · 19 January 2014]

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.

a decent movie

[dhalmagean · 9/10 · 24 February 2019]

What I liked the most, first impression:

• furniture decorations of interiors in castles. Big rooms with massive and few furniture pieces. Very realistic. Impressive.

Than:

• the human factor that was so present in anything at that time, big historical events, decisions, etc. There was no institution, only king institution.

No real control possible. A never ending lottery.

• the key people (aristocrats, not ordinary people) were not ashamed of their passions, even they were out of common sens. Superiority and excesses (as normality) was well represented.
• the Henry's good taste for women. All were very beautiful ladies, like with model bodies. Margot and Gabrielle are very beautiful.
• relation with Gabrielle was very special. A calm relation that reveal a true match between them. They match at all levels, it is so well represented and in so few words (really impressive).
• they reproduce realistically the life in middle age. But Germany and France have a huge inheritance in terms of middle age history - a living inheritance even in nowadays - so this is not a real surprise. (the opposite would be a surprise)

What was not so good credible:

• a bit too much aggressive (battles) and sex scenes. A bit like Hollywood style.
• the intrigues at Louvre seemed to me over complicated and they contradicted childish (e.g.: supporting as king the preferred boy (gay), killing everybody for this, just to end up realizing that he can not have any inheritor and propose the throne to Henry Navarra, WTF ?)
• I don't think that noble women could get undressed so quickly at that time, due to many dress layers they were usually wearing.
• really no wigs ?
• all were men in black ? All Huguenots were wearing black ? common...

The overall impression: even at beginning it seems that violence is too much and not adding value, at the end I would say it left a state of relatively calm in me, due to the fact that the true love to Gabrielle was dominating the movie I would say. Some characters understanding in the end that the success they had following the reason (expected from a king) was emptied by losing the calm and fulfill of a true love.

Brilliant historical piece by a great director

[martinpersson97 · 10/10 · 16 November 2023]

This biographical and historical epic is definitely very well deserving of a watch from any lover of film.

The actors all do an incredible job, conveying the beautiful, thourough and stellar script gracefully - it is truly an epic, very vast in scale and filled with lots of drama, intrigue and incredible action set pieces.

The cinematography, cutting and editing is stellar, as one would expect from such an excellent director. It is very remarkable indeed, very beautifully put together.

Overall, truly one in the line of historical epics, and a great one at that. Highly recommended for any lover of film!

decent introduction

[Kirpianuscus · 5 June 2017]

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.