Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

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

killerquean I have been fascinated with Shakespeare since I first read Midsummer Night's Dream nearly fifty years ago. The direction in this trilogy varies wildly. Richard II seems to have taken a cue from Marlowe's Edward II, with Whitshaw playing it as a barely closeted Michael Jackson figure (including a pet monkey). The supporting players carry the day up to the final installment, where for whatever reasons, the groundling characters were deeply excised.The huge disappointment here, for me as a lover of the Bard, is Henry V. Perhaps Branaugh's bravura and his supporting cast make it akin to comparing apples and oranges, but this version of Henry is more like a 21st century motivational speaker than a king walking the razor's edge on the road to Agincourt. The conspiracy is deleted, the wonderful groundling characters that appear at Harfleur are nearly all gone. Fluellen is parsed down to almost nothing. All the exposition of the French chevaliers idly bragging about their armor, horses and the ease with which they will destroy Henry and his army--gone. It reflects poorly on the lead and director, because in Henry IV of the series, Hiddleston does well enough as Hal. Henry IV, part one comes off as the strongest of the four, perhaps because the director knows his subject matter.What also sticks out is the amount of screen time a relatively minor character is given in Henry V. Watch it and see if you can pick him out. On the plus side, seeing Alun Armstrong and his son playing Northrumberland and Hotspur was a highlight of the series. Also, watch for James Purefoy, Geraldine Chaplin and several actors who don't usually appear in mainstream cinema. Skip Henry V of the series and watch Branagh's or Olivier's Henry. If you love Shakespeare, watching this version is a bit disappointing.

cdsaldivar May contain spoilers. This undertaking of Shakespeare's the Henriad is so well done and so well acted. I have studied these plays and seen many productions in film and on stage and the Hollow Crown among the best that I have seen. Richard is played so well and has a wonderful fragility to his characterization and that is key portraying Richard. Jeremy Irons portrayal of Henry IV is a visceral depiction of a man being destroyed by the kingship that he so craved. Tom Hiddleston's Prince Hal/ Henry V is one of the best if not the best that I have ever seen. I have seen Laurence Oliver, Alan Howard, Kenneth Branagh and Iain Glen and Michael Sheen portray Henry and Hiddleston bring such humanity to the role. He is not a rousing cipher as Henry is often played but a real man trying to find his way through the cut and thrust of the story being told while trying to shield his humanity and not be destroyed by the crown as his father was. He sheds new light on Hal and Henry with his interpretation of the role. Simon Russell Beale's Falstaff is a joy to behold. For once he is not just a lovable rogue there is both human fragility and human venality is his characterization. He is flawed and that is plain to see but at his core there is genuine love for Hal even as he also tries to steals Hal's victory over Hotspur and misrepresent that he himself killed Hotspur though it is patently untrue. And yet you feel for this Falstaff flawed though he is. These are just a few thoughts on the highlights of the Hollow Crown and I cannot recommend this series of productions more highly.Even though this interpretation of Henry V leaves out some portions of the play that are my favorite and of which I generally think crucial in defining Henry's character it does so many things well that I can easily forgive these few omissions.

Guy Hugely acclaimed on their release, I have only just got around to watching this tetralogy of films based on the plays by William Shakespeare - and they're rubbish. The biggest problem is the casting: Ben Whishaw plays Richard II as a laughably fey figure, whilst Tom Hiddleston as (the future) Henry V is too introverted and skinny to convince as either a daredevil wastrel (Henry IV Parts 1 & 2) or a mighty warrior king (Henry V). These central failures destroy much of the fine work done by the other actors (Patrick Stewart, Simon Russell-Beale etcetera). This is compounded by the lousy direction, which is flat and lifeless. The locations are wasted and used largely as mere backgrounds (barring the near-blasphemous linking of the dead Richard II and Jesus Christ through a slow shot of a life-size wooden crucifix). Whilst I don't mind the prose delivery of Shakespeare's verse, the way in which it is done is terrible; the actors are left to speechify to an unmoving camera, without any of the movement or visual flow necessary to successfully adapt from the stage to screen. The choice of setting is also odd, with the production trying for a pseudo-historical look but getting the costumes all wrong (rubber fantasy armour, Darth Vader helmets, and turbans!) and persisting with the official policy of colour-blind casting (which is sure to mislead some people) despite its ludicrous incongruity in this context. Much of the budget appears to have been wasted on sub-"Saving Private Ryan" battles, leaving Tom Hiddleston to give (his rather weedy version of) the Crispin's Day Speech to about five people, all of whom are aristocrats (thereby undermining the whole point of the speech). Symptomatic of the whole farrago is that Larry Olivier's 70-year old version of "Henry V" is better acted, more historically accurate, more inventively staged and better directed - so you're better off watching that instead!

Malcolm Graley What distinguishes these hollow crown productions from their predecessors is the crystal clarity of the text as delivered by the cast – well done everyone! It is so easy to fall into the trap of believing that the text is to be delivered as verse. Twaddle! Ideas like that permeate school English classrooms where failed actors teach gullible pupils that iambic pentameters rule. No, they do not! Furthermore, good presentation of Shakespeare is so often ruined by over enthusiasm on the part of the performers. Without wishing to name names, I saw one version of "Much Ado About Nothing" where the comedy in the text was entirely lost because the director and his cast insisted on inventing and adding their own comedy instead. It is a brave man who would want to out-do Shakespeare! The ability of these Hollow Crown productions to tell the story which leads ultimately to the "Wars of the Roses" was admirable. There was so much to say – even before the "Wars" had begun. I should probably watch them all over again….! And I think I will!