XoWizIama Excellent adaptation.

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

James Hitchcock During the 1980s received opinion had it that Laurence Olivier was the greatest actor ever to have trodden the British stage. Received opinion was divided as to whether he was also our greatest-ever screen actor- he had some rather dodgy entries on his filmography, such as "The Prince and the Showgirl", "Khartoum" and the remake of "The Jazz Singer"- but his three Shakespearean adaptations were widely regarded as national treasures, especially his "Henry V" from 1944. So when it became known that a brash young actor-director named Kenneth Branagh was tackling the same play, received opinion was not impressed. "He'll never be another Olivier" was a common reaction. I have never considered "Henry V" to be one of Shakespeare's greatest plays. It lacks the philosophical depth and emotional power of the great tragedies or even of some other history plays, such as "Richard III". It mythologises an English king whose main achievement was to start an unnecessary war with France. As Shakespeare knew well, Agincourt was a great victory in the short term but a futile one in the long term. Henry's early death meant that his great ambition of uniting the French and English crowns was never realised; the United Kingdom of England and France remains one of the great might-have-beens of world history. Moreover, modern audiences might have another problem with this play. By modern standards the English were the aggressors in the Hundred Years War; even by mediaeval standards, Henry's claim to the French throne was by no means as clear-cut as he imagined. The play does, however, contain some of Shakespeare's most magnificent poetry and some of his greatest set-piece speeches, mostly put into the mouth of Henry himself, and makes a very tempting role for Shakespearean actors.Branagh's film is very different to Olivier's. Both edit the play heavily, as do most films based upon Shakespeare. (Branagh's "Hamlet", which runs for around four hours, is a rare example of a Shakespeare film using an uncut text). The differences reflect the historical periods during which they were made. Olivier's, made at the height of World War II, is an overtly patriotic pageant-style propaganda, full of magnificent costumes and scenery. It is noted for its bright colours, unusual at a time when few British films were shot in colour. Branagh's film, by contrast, was made in 1989, at the end of the Cold War (and, coincidentally, the year in which Olivier died). In 1944 war had been widely viewed as something heroic and glorious, a view which by 1989 had been eroded by forty years of life under the shadow of the nuclear bomb. Had Branagh attempted to make a drama in the same vein as Olivier's it would doubtless have been greeted with considerable cynicism from the public. His film is much darker in tone, both literally and metaphorically. The battle of Agincourt was famously fought on St Crispin's day, in late October, and the visual look of the film is appropriately autumnal. Olivier's battle is fought in brilliant sunlight, Branagh's in rain and mud, recalling the popular view of the trenches of Flanders during World War One. (In this respect Branagh is more historically accurate. The bad weather worked to the advantage of the English, enabling their archers to pick off the enemy when the French cavalry became bogged down in heavy mud). Even those scenes set away from the battlefield are less vivid than their equivalents in the earlier film. In editing Shakespeare's play for the screen, Branagh concentrates on those scenes which stress the cruelty and suffering involved in warfare. His Henry is not a villain- he has a quite genuine belief in the justice of his cause- but he is youthful and inexperienced, and possibly naïve. (Branagh was still in his twenties in 1989; Olivier had been nearly forty in 1944). In the opening scene we see two bishops manipulating Henry into declaring war on France for their own self-seeking reasons. For all his inexperience, Henry cannot avoid the harsh realities of war and politics. In one scene he is forced to hang Bardolph, an old companion from his wild youth, for looting a church. The French are badly served by their leaders; the Dauphin is a conceited popinjay who refuses to take Henry seriously, mocking him by suggesting he play tennis rather than wage war, and the Constable of France is dangerously over-confident. The film ends with Patrick Doyle's setting of the Latin hymn "Non nobis, Domine", perhaps an acknowledgement of the fact that the English victory seemingly owed more to Divine intervention than it did to their own merits. Branagh's interpretation of the leading role is very different from Olivier's much more self-confident, assured monarch, but proves himself to be at least the equal of his illustrious predecessor in delivering Shakespearean blank verse. Other noteworthy performances come from Derek Jacobi as the Chorus, Branagh's then wife Emma Thompson as Princess Katherine, the larger-than-life Brian Blessed as the Duke of Exeter, Ian Holm as Fluellen, Paul Scofield as King Charles VI of France (not played as mad in this production, although he undoubtedly was in reality), Robbie Coltrane Falstaff (shown here in flashback, although he does not actually appear in the play) and the normally genial Richard Briers, here cast against type, as the rascally Bardolph. Received opinion was proved wrong. The film was greeted by many critics as a masterpiece, a judgement with which I would not disagree. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the brash young pretender succeeded in stealing Olivier's crown. Branagh was later to direct and star in what I regard as the greatest ever screen version of a Shakespeare comedy ("Much Ado About Nothing") and the greatest ever screen version of a Shakespeare tragedy ("Hamlet"), but his "Henry V", the greatest ever screen version of a Shakespeare history, represented the first leg of a remarkable hat-trick. 9/10

Filipe Neto This film is an adaptation of a play written by William Shakespeare, and was the cinematographic debut of Kenneth Branagh. Although the purists continue to think that cinema is no place for Shakespeare, Branagh has shown that they're wrong. This film does full justice to Shakespeare's text, keeping dialogues with a fairly small margin of modification. Of course this is a risk, in cinema adaptations are truly imperative, but the fact is that there were very few moments when I felt the spoken text getting heavy, boring or left over. So it was worked well.The focus here is the military incursion that Henry V of England makes on French soil, determined to end the Hundred Years War by joining the French and English crowns over his head. By exploiting the weakness of the French king, Charles VI, who suffered from dementia, and the little military experience of the Dauphin (future Charles VII), the English succeeded in defeating a numerically superior force in the Battle of Agincourt and forcing a highly favorable peace in 1415, by the marriage of the English king with the daughter of the French king and an agreement, in which both crowns would be inherited by the first son to be born of this marriage. Of course, as we know, this union would never happen... Henry V dies too early, his heir is crowned in diapers and a girl, Joan of Arc, would provoke a decisive turnaround that guaranteed the breaking of these agreements and protected French independence.The film is visually great and historically accurate, both in the choice of sets and in the making of costumes, which are excellent. For me, the battle and the final scenes were the best part of the film. I liked the way the battle was recreated by the great historical care shown, and to avoid falling into the error of appealing to English patriotism. War is never good for anyone. The only people who can find war a good thing are those who have never seen one, or who expect to profit at their expense. Thus, some nostalgia is felt here, especially in the scenes in which the dead are buried. The rest of the film is also good, but dark scenarios and somewhat hazy cinematography didn't help. Branagh reserved the main role for himself and shone with a very good performance. Judy Dench was wonderful too, but this veteran is almost always flawless. Derek Jacobi masterfully secured the role of narrator.

freemantle_uk Kenneth Branagh and Laurence Olivier are two men that have often been compared to one another. Both are Shakespearian actors with a love for The Bard and both made their directional debut with an adaptation of Henry V.In 1413 Henry V (Branagh) has ascended to the English throne. Worried that the King may take property from the Church The Bishop of Ely (Alec McCowen) and The Archbishop of Canterbury (Charles Kay) convince Henry V to claim the throne of France and go to war with their rival. The English storm through France, but with disease, fatigue and horrible weather Henry attempts to bring the army back to England, leading to the Battle of Agincourt.Branagh's version of Henry V has often been compared to Olivier version, for good reason. Olivier takes a more stylised approach, his art direction was routed in Medieval Art and his film started as a play and slowly become more realistic. Branagh takes a more realistic approach, setting his film in castles, halls and muddy fields and he uses darker, more natural lighting as places are lit by candles. The 1944 film was made as to be a pro-war film to help morale the British public, whilst Branagh takes a much more anti-war view, showing the horrors and hardships of Medieval war.Branagh gave a terrific performance as Henry V, someone with intensity behind him and quiet determination whilst still being able to deliver a speech. There is pain and doubt on his face as he sees the war at first hand, the death and destruction and even doubts about his mission. This is particularly the case during his monologue of self-doubt. Branagh is surrounded by talented actors, all giving excellent performances; the most surprising being Brian Blessed who is much calmer to his usual larger-than-life persona.Branagh's direction has a Kubrickian edge to it, sharing camera angles and movements and a visual look, having similar lighting and sets. There are many moments where Branagh he allows a long take when more are debating or monologuing and zones in very slowly. There is a gorgeous four minute tracking shot showing the aftermath of the battle whilst a Latin song is playing in the background.It was clear that the production was limited on the scope of the numbers of people it could, shooting very closely to mask this. But an advantage was that it show that the Battle of Agincourt was a very close, tough battle it really was as it was fought on a muddy, wet, narrow field. The 1989 version got the tactics right but the costumes wrong and the 1944 got the costumes right but the battle wrong.The 1989 Henry V is a great adaptation of one of Shakespeare's most quotable plays. It is a great realisation of the play and one of Branagh's best films.

Michael Neumann It takes a little arrogance and a lot of nerve to challenge Lord Olivier for the crown of King Henry V. Fortunately for Kenneth Branagh that's exactly what the role itself calls for, and in his debut as a director the 29-year old actor attempts, like Henry himself, to impress his friends and overwhelm his foes by the sheer regal impact of his personality. Branagh does what he can to make the material more accessible with dramatic photography and a stirring music score, but the Bard of Avon isn't easily adapted to the big screen under the best of circumstances, and his beautiful Olde English prose can sound too remote when taken outside the theater. Anglophiles and Shakespeare buffs will no doubt embrace it, but don't be surprised to find that the strongest and most cinematic moments occur during the Agincourt battle scene, which of course could never be recreated on stage. The rest of the film is anticlimax: an almost comic relief romancing by the king of his French cousin Catherine.