RyothChatty ridiculous rating

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Red-125 Sir Laurence Olivier's Henry V (1944) is very much a movie of its time. Filmed during WW II, the film is an overt example of pro-British propaganda. I don't see that as a problem, because Shakespeare wrote the play in a way that would glorify Britain and its king.So, director Olivier had no problem directing himself as a strong, warlike king, who rules a strong warlike country. More important is what Olivier didn't portray--the king's flaws and the horrific nature of war. Mud played a major role in the British victory at Agincourt. However, in this film, all we see is a brief shot of a horse prancing through a puddle. The combat scenes aren't very graphic. (If your husband or son is serving in combat, you don't want to be reminded of the horrors he is undergoing.)Olivier begins the film as if we were seeing it at the Globe theatre in London. Then he opens the film up, and we get "realistic" outdoor scenes. (For safety, the location scenes were filmed in neutral Ireland.). At the end, we return to the Globe to remind us that we are seeing a play. This is an interesting device; I thought it worked.The movie was shot in color, which looks garish today. However, even garish color is better than b/w in my opinion, because the heraldic colors meant so much within the chivalric code of the times.We saw this film on a classroom-sized large screen. Some of the pageantry will be lost on a small screen, but it will work well enough. This is an enjoyable and important movie. It's worth seeking out and viewing.

Jem Odewahn Laurence Olivier's HENRY V could very well be the premier Shakespeare film on which to judge all others. Shakespeare's play Henry V is not regarded among his greatest works, yet Olivier's film HENRY V represents the pinnacle of the Bard's translation to the screen.HENRY V works well on film because of the stirring subject matter and Olivier's brilliantly conceived 'play-within-a-play' idea. This concept allows moments of Shakespeare's wonderfully bawdy humor to come through alongside his powerful monologues and stunning language. HENRY V also contains a very fresh, almost Post-Modernist feel to it, with the narrator constantly reminding the viewer that they are watching a play.Olivier's performance as the King stands tall as one of his very best. His Battle Of Agincourt speech is justifiably famous, yet he also delivers many other wonderful pieces of theatrical acting throughout the film. His soliloquy in voice-over as he visits his soldiers is subtle and compelling, equally effective as his inspirational cries preceding the battlefield sequences. Olivier is always convincing, whether as a King leading his men or in his romantic wooing of Princess Katherine.Robert Krasker's fine Technicolour enhances the production, with HENRY V holding up very well in terms of it's visuals and cinematic scale.9/10.

bobtaurus Olivier's conceit of beginning the performance as if performed in the Globe Theater in Shakespeare's time (even depicting the actors backstage), and gradually expanding out to the "real world" works both for and against the film. While it is interesting and educational to see what the experience might have been like for an Elizabethen audience and the performers, it is ultimately slow-paced and distracting from the real story.The film becomes more engaging once we move out of the theater. However, even then, the general style of acting is too broad, and is more suited for the stage. That is why I'm surprised to see this version rated only a few tenths of a point lower than Kenneth Branagh's vastly superior 1989 production of Henry V.

ckeller-6 Laurence Olivier made this movie during World War II. He wanted it to be a propaganda movie, and unfortunately this is still visible. His Henry is a king and war hero shining in perfect light. All the rough edges and darker points of Shakespeare's original play are left out: We don't see how Bardolph is hanged, Henry doesn't kill his French prisoners in retribution for the attack on his camp, and Pistol is actually looking forward to becoming a pimp and cut-purse in England again. All this makes the movie a bit too simple-minded and one-dimensional.But apart from that, both Olivier's acting and directing are good. Especially the opening is very innovative: It takes place in a theater, the story is presented as a real play. This gives room for comments on Elisabethean theater and interaction with the audience - look for instance how they react whenever Falstaff is mentioned. Unfortunately this angle is lost later on and the movie continues in a more conventional fashion.All in all a classic certainly worth watching, but it won't hurt to check out Kenneth Branagh's version as well for a more balanced view on the original play.