Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Kirpianuscus 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.

gwynyth-liss-travis Having read the book as a kid, I was really looking forward to seeing this movie, and because I couldn't watch it immediately, my anticipations were only rising.Checking the list of actors in here, I stumbled upon some bad reactions this movie didn't entirely deserved in my eyes.First of all, this is a film of a children's book, you can't expect all blood and gore. Second of all, like mentioned in one of the reviews above, it's a 2hour movie! You can't expect the characters to get a hold on you the very same way they did in the book you were reading.This movie was more true to the book than Crusade in Jeans (which I really didn't like because they've modernized it so much, that they deleted a main character for the sake of having a leading woman for the leading man), from beginning to end. There was no need to make Piak a girl, or for a deep romance between him and the other knights daughter... This is a book of adventure, go watch romance if you want romance. This was about bravery, not giving up, and dangers among the way.The landscapes, castles and costumes were great, the choice of actors was a bit less good: some actors looked like they loved to be there, just because now they'd be more famous. But others were really well cast and they all looked the part. The reason why I checked this site in the first place, was because I recognized a lot of voices, but not the faces. Congrats to the grime indeed! Things I didn't really like, but I understand why they did is, is the intro: I wanted the movie to start, and instead I got a history lesson! But then I knew the story already. Other movies start like this, like The Golden Compass, and I disliked it all the same. But I can understand people would probably appreciate to know a bit of the setting where the story would be, before it started.The movie rushed a bit at times, for no apparent reason except maybe to save time and keep as much from the book as possible. So yeah, maybe I felt rushed from one scene into the next at times, but it followed the book, so I wasn't too unhappy about it. What I was a bit unhappy about, was a scene in the beginning, where Knight Edwinen's helper just sends him out, without giving him the password that I so loved from the first time I read it (and memorized ;) ), and the scene at the end, where the King doesn't shake his head in disbelieve because he can't understand a word of Tiuri's gibberish, and Tiuri tells him he also memorized the spelling, in case his pronunciation was wrong. So OK, it would have made the movie a bit longer, I know, but for me, I wanted those 2 scenes in there as well.So I'm giving it a 7 out of 10: my childhood memories are mainly in the movie, great costumes, settings, scenes, some great actors and fantastic grime, this movie was everything my memory told me and so it stayed in tact. But the rushing through scenes, the sometimes bad acting and the lacking of the 2 scenes I really wanted to see, made it a 7.

mdaf_2 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.

c-i-z-ler 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.