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.

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.

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.

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