Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Alain English This splendid adaptation of "Henry V" caps off the first part of Shakespeare's eight plays Histories Cycle.The recently crowned Henry V (David Gwillim) continues the legacy of his late father, and plans an invasion of France to advance his kingdom and consolidate his family's hold on the English throne.It is worth watching for Gwillim's performance alone. He handles the play's memorable lines and speeches with dexterity and exuberance; 'once more unto the breach', the St Crispian's day speech and the concluding courtship of Katherine (Jocelyne Boisseua) are all alive in his hands. Some of the speeches in Act IV (where Henry describes his inheriting his father's guilt about usurping the throne from Richard II) could have been cut for this version, as they heavily slow the pace here.Alec McCowen is the Chorus for this play and although he botches the famous opening speech "O for a muse of fire..." he delivers all his other lines well and brings the story together. Bryan Pringle's Pistol and Brenda Bruce's Hostess are very well played, the latter delivering a touching 'adieu' to the camera before departing.There is a chronological break of several years before Shakespeare picks up the story of Henry's son and successor Henry VI.

tonstant viewer Alec McCowen's Chorus triumphantly opens the play with a summons for a Muse of Fire, but unfortunately someone handed this Muse a fire extinguisher, and flashes of insight, or even energy, are few and far between. The usual small budget and brief shooting schedule forced videotaping in the studio, but the absence of grand vistas and real battles is not really a problem. Shakespeare's text has the Chorus apologizing for the inadequate scale of combat simulation in the confines of the Globe, and we are instructed to use our imaginations.This video is a distinct notch below the preceding two Henry IV plays, even though it shares the same director, David Giles. Playing off Anthony Quayle and Jon Finch, David Gwillim's Prince Hal was forced into some level of theatrical vitality. Here Gwillim's weepy, whispery Henry is the whole show, and he doesn't carry it comfortably on his shoulders. The supporting cast is notably weak, with such accomplished scene stealers as Thorley Walters, Julian Glover and Anna Quayle uncharacteristically ineffective. And both the Fluellen and Pistol are actively annoying.Individual scenes may work well, like the exposure and condemnation of the regicide plotters or the final scene with Henry and Katherine, but all too often the pulse stops completely, and we sit there with mild hostility, waiting until someone finds a way to switch it on again. Not recommended for classroom use, as it may provoke small arms fire and lifelong hostility to the Bard.

gerlynga First, it has taken me almost 30 years to finally get a copy of this play to view again. Previously, it was only available as an entire series (all 37 plays)for libraries or schools ONLY--and since not many libraries could afford the entire series, it was unavailable--even at the university libraries I also checked. Thank goodness for Ambrose, since PBS has been horrendous in not making it available earlier. Finally audiences could see accurate productions with excellent casts. So...know that:1) These were NOT film productions. They were part of an ambitious project to VIDEOTAPE the ENTIRE canon of plays. Therefore, they were shot on sets--RARELY on location. If you are producing all 37 plays with some of the best talent, you don't spend it on frills. Because these were 'filmed' stage plays, the sets were minimal--but tapestries, arches, crenelations, and some grassy knolls sufficed. The costumes were, with the possible exception of Olivier's film, the most accurate--and obviously derived from the 15th c. Duc de Berry's Hours. Kenneth Branagh's had hardly any costumes, and NO ARMOR! Leather armor on the king?! How ridiculous was that? Branagh's film costumes were historically inaccurate, though the french knights did sport some real armor. And the only location filming was the same muddy field for Harfleur and Agincourt.--See Branagh's autobiography for why: Budget mattered here too, just as it did to the BBC in 1978/79.2)David Giles, directed "I Claudius" about the same time for the BBC, then did "Julius Caesar", and soon after, this cycle of history plays with Derek Jacobi as Richard II, and an interesting Jon Finch (who did a memorable Macbeth for Roman Polanski)as Henry IV. And unlike later producer/directors for the series, he stayed in the historical period of the action; which makes for a better understanding of that action, than seeing "Anthony and Cleopatra" in 16th century clothes. This production also had a lead actor who looked more like the real Henry V (if the NPG portrait is to be believed) and the attention to detail of Henry's scarred cheek from Shrewsbury. 3)David Gwillim not only had the continuity of playing Prince Hal in the series immediately before doing "Henry V", he had also seen Anthony Quayle's Falstaff as a child when his father, Jack Gwillim, was in the play. So there was a rapport. But doing the plays as a continuous series, and viewing it as such, it is easy to see how the portrayal built on what came before. And how bluff, jolly Hal, becomes serious, wary Henry V; who yet still remains approachable and likable as king.4)Like Branagh's ten years later, this production tried to show a conflicted king, as well as a calculating one; a stickler for the accuracy of his claim to France (witness the close questioning of the prelates' long-winded reasoning), and yet one who could feel both the traitors', and then Bardolph's deaths, and a guilty conscience the night before Agincourt. Okay, so Branagh's and Olivier's Crispin Day speech is more inspiring--they also were enhanced by music. David Gwillim's first act--the tennis balls,and later traitors scenes have never been bettered. Gwillim didn't just glare at the French Ambassador like Branagh; you actually saw the king's surprise, rueful acknowledgment of his own past actions having caused the false impression, and an attempt to control his temper all within the space of a few seconds before he replies. Branagh's scenes were rather more histrionic. Ditto, the traitors scene. Branagh attacked so you saw the anger, but the tears did not equal the pain of those "...Why so didst thou(s)" that Gwillim and Giles did. And that closeup when Gwillim's Henry is told about Bardolph still resonates without the flashbacks Branagh had to use. No one has bettered Gwillim's "Upon the King...". Through inflection and expression it was so much more honest and real. Olivier's is almost sleepy--and he cuts a lot out. Branagh's, though beautifully lit and enhanced by music, still sounds like he's reciting--until the final desperation seeps in. Later, I think the BBC production tried to capture the historical Henry's rigorous adherence to rules, but also his religiosity--though it was very subtly done. (I could see this king burning Badby, pulling him out half burned to recant, and then putting him back in the flames when he doesn't.) RE: The glove scene: Henry deflects the challenge to Fluellen because he knows if Williams does hit him as king, it is a possible death penalty--as Fluellen himself recommends. So, for Henry it is not a game, it is an attempt to protect Williams--yet still let him know what he could have faced. And in CU we see both the king's consideration of Williams's excuses and consequent concern about the situation before he capitulates and gives Williams the crowns. And finally... 5)In over 40 years of viewing, David Gwillim is THE most honestly direct actor I have ever seen. Maybe the range and subtlety of others' talent is not present, but that's what made him almost perfect as Shakespeare's Henry V who was such a forthright and direct king. Olivier comes across as overtly regal, and Branagh as younger and more approachable. You never forget Olivier is a king, and Branagh is more like a brother. Only David Gwillim caught the middle ground of both the honest directness and resultant surety of purpose in Henry's authority, and the isolation of self-awareness. So for now, and as I did 30 years ago, I thank Mr. Gwillim (and Mr. Giles) for "the little touch of 'Harry(V)' in the night."

anne-25 Another BBC take on Shakespeare's histories, this production is of somewhat dubious quality. Completely unabridged, the play can be difficult to follow for those who have not read it, also, the poor camera angles and lacklustre performances from the cast fail to emphasise on certain points. David Gwillim, whom certainly looks more like Henry V than Olivier or Branagh, has a mixed performance in the lead role. His Henry, while amusing and likeable at times, tends to whimper his speeches, most notably when he meekly whispers his way through the St. Crispins day speech before leading his men against three or four pitiful French whom, we are to believe, are actually Sixty-thousand strong. In fact I lie, Henry does not even lead his men, we only see him trudging towards us after the "battle" has taken place. The characters than have the audacity to boast that ten-thousand French have been slain, when we have yet to see one dead body (discounting the solitary dead "boy")The scenery is poor as well, instead of filming on location, the play is filmed on a horribly unrealistic set, the walls of Harfleur are evidently made from cardboard or some such substance, and the scenic field of Agincourt is in fact a wall. Cinematography does not change, almost all of the play is filmed in bright cutesy colours and Agincourt seems a remarkably pleasant "telly-tubby" place (all we need is the. We just cannot believe for a moment that what we are watching is real. The lack of music as well must be stated, since it strips the play of drama and tension.This play could have been so good, the cast is capable, but the direction is so poor. If music, on-location sets, and better cinematography (i.e mud, fire, blood at Harfleur and Agincourt) had been used, then for very little extra money, the play could have been brilliant.