Onlinewsma Absolutely Brilliant!

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

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.

lossowitz When filming a book, one has the possibility to correct the flaws of the story to make it fit the two hours attention span that the audience needs to have. Reading a book for two weeks, immersing yourself in another world, is a different feeling than watching a story unfold in front of your eyes.Sadly no one bothered with this book to make it into a believable script. First of all there is a never ending list of invented names: kings, kingdoms, cities, knights, princes... After the first minute you don't know where you are, whom you're watching and even in which country you are. Confusion is created. That goes on with the next scene in which the aspiring knight Tiuri just has to sit quiet in a chapel for one night. Not an impossible task. But with the first knock on the door and a voice whispering for help, he opens it and has failed the test. No internal struggle, no struggle with the other aspiring knights, just plain stupid behaviour.And after this unbelievable act, there follow many. If the main character, which of course needs to be the one with whom the audience identifies itself, takes these kind of inexplicable decisions, he never gets any compassion. And he is not the only one with strange behaviour. The scoundrels who rob him, let him choose between a ring an a horse, and set him free after he has made his choice! Then there are the characterizations. No character gets any depth. No one is tormented by doubt. Every thought is said out loud. The "writer" helps Tiuri "because strange things are happening in the country". Even the red knight that decides not to kill Tiuri after he has saved him from falling of the cliff, tells him as if it is a material issue instead of a moral one: "Now I cannot kill you anymore." (-Why, is his sword stolen? -No, it's something moral but I'm not sure what it is.) The friendship that can evolve between characters who need each other is missed here completely. Tiuri and Piak, his, yes, what? Helper? He never helps him. His companion? They never share anything. They just ride next to one another through the endless woods.The letter in the end turns out to be nothing that couldn't have been told to the king via other ways. The way that the treason is stated by the king: "He wanted to murder him!" is plain painful. We are watching a movie for eight year olds! (And even they might be bored.) To cast not really beautiful people is not a crime, as long as they either can act well or have a devastating charisma. The role of Tiuri, a boy we have to watch almost the full two hours, is played by the not so handsome Yannick van de Velde and he neither can act very well nor has any charisma of sorts. He is like a spoilt, artistic kid from Amsterdam, complete with pretentious brawl. His hair is strangely yellow although the whole film the evil people are looking for a boy "with brown hair".The rest of the casting is made up of TV-actors, never taking the time to deliver the lines, being used to the "just say them"-regime. With a good script you can get away with that. With this crappy writing you can not. (Only exceptions are Jeroen Willems as the Lord of the Toll and the first Broeder Martijn.) To take this script, these actors and head for eastern Europe with all the medieval rental costumes of Holland ("voor al uw feesten en partijen"- no costume seems to be made especially for this movie) plus the ugliest wigs ever made borders on hubris. Let's hope this director, these producers get punished for that.

John van den Berg An entertaining movie. I even want to go so far to say it's a "must see". The actors speak like they are in a movie that's taking place in the present time, but that,s something you forget soon. The movie keeps me interested. Like in the book, the surroundings en clothing are perfect. Famous actors in the Netherlands are almost unrecognizable, so the grime(make-up) is good also. Furthermore I want to say that the previous comment is a bit far-fetched. If you look hard in any movie you find some problems en bloopers. With the knowledge of his comment i saw this movie again and stay to my opinion as mentioned above. The book is very old. It's written in the sixties. The movie however can compete with every other.

Joejoesan Not long ago De Brief voor de koning - A letter for the King - was voted most popular Dutch children's book ever. The story of Tonke Dragt's book takes place in the Middle Ages. Young Tiuri is to become a knight, but as a last task he must stay the night in a church chapel with three other pupils. They must not talk. They must not leave. They must not listen to anybody. Late at night a voice is heard from behind the door. A cry for help! Tiuri is the only one who dares opening the door. Knowing he will not be knighted the morning after, he still goes out and helps this stranger. He must bring a secret letter to the king from a foreign country. But is he up to the task? The movie De Brief voor de koning stays true to the book and that turns out to be a bad choice. Things that worked fine in the book suddenly seem not enough to turn it into an exciting movie. As a film the story could have used more tension and perhaps more action. I loved the book. But seeing it as a film... As a sort of road movie most of the scenery looked the same. The locations were beautiful though, but the tone of most scenes was rather dark. Only at the end there were scenes filmed in daylight.But the main flaw of this movie is the casting. Yannick van de Velde (who did very well in In Oranje) is a rather colourless hero. He isn't helped by the dialogue either. It uses polite Medieval sentences which makes it even harder for the audience to live along with his triumphs and disappointments and deprives it from any emotion. To make an audience believe that a young inexperienced boy can complete a dangerous task like Tiuri does, you'd expect the hero to have something extra. But Tiuri isn't extremely smart, strong or charming. He can fight, okay. But he should at least have a dark side - to ignore the rules to win after all when he's outnumbered. How far would he go to complete his task?His sidekick is Piak, played by Quinten Schram. He's a young actor known from his two Pietje Bell movies. Quinten doesn't have as much screen time as Yannick, but somehow his relationship with Tiuri never comes off the ground. There's hardly a spark between these two and that's a real shame. His haircut looks rather silly.Being a fan of the book for so many years I've always imagined that Hollywood would take up this story. The way it was done now - with a small Dutch budget - is courageous. But it does not do justice to the quality of the book. Brief voor de Koning is a nice attempt to turn one of the most popular Dutch children's books into a movie. But unlike a similar project like Kruistocht in Spijkerbroek (Crusade in Jeans) - in which the director had the courage to make some remarkable changes in the story to make a good movie translation - this one is a small disappointment. I say small, because it isn't a bad movie and maybe the fact that I'm a big fan of the book is in the way of a truly objective movie judgement. In Holland it turned out to be a huge hit at the box office. 6,5 out of 10