It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

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.

The original Tonke Dragt children's book was one of my favorites as a child. Having recently read the book to my own children, I discovered that it hasn't quite stood the test of time: slow, sometimes contrived, with stilted dialogue and sexist tendencies to make Tolkien proud. How fortunate, then, that a movie was made; what an excellent opportunity to reinvent the story while still staying true to the source material, like Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings.No such luck.Brief voor de Koning as a film is rooted firmly in the Dutch tradition of shameless mediocrity. The screenplay includes most crucial scenes from the book, but presents them in a bloodless, uninspired sequence, completely draining what little tension the original story carried. The acting is community theater level and worse, the entire cast delivering badly written lines with wooden expressions and clumsy body language. Direction, production, and even camera work and lighting were so bad I began to notice them.Dutch film critics and moviegoers alike have a tendency to embrace Dutch products and grant them an extra star (on a five-star scale) or two for effort and out of misplaced chauvinism. This is the only explanation I can think of for the 5.8 on IMDb. Even the four I gave this atrocity feels too high.My kids loved it, though.

Aimed squarely at a children and young teenage audience, this film from the Netherlands is a reasonable entry into the medieval fantasy genre. A lot of the negative reviews here come from people comparing it to the popular children's book upon which is based, but not having read the book I can say this worked on me on its own. Working with a relatively small budget, it tells the story of young Tiuri (Yannick Van de Velde), who is to become a knight. As a last task he must stay the night in a church chapel with three other pupils, without talking, leaving or listening to anybody. But at night a cry for help is heard from behind the door, and a dying stranger tells Tiuri he must bring a secret letter to the king of a foreign country…So the adventure begins. There are some nice outdoor mountain locations, not filmed in flat Netherlands obviously, but in Scotland, France and Germany.

Mechanical translation from book to celluloid. No heart, no passion. An attempt to quickly earn as much money based on the popularity of the (audio)book. Wrong persons casted for the medieval roles. Love story of 2 scenes and 2 minutes. Friendship in 3 scenes and 3 minutes. Nevertheless - when the endless dragging thru the woods is finished - some beautiful castle pictures. Dark knights with white shields, grey knights with red shields: a film can do better than that. Director and producer should be a bit ashamed to have this film on his record. See "Kruistocht in spijkerbroek" for a much better NL book to film exercise.