Dartherer I really don't get the hype.

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Catherina 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.

JohnnyLee1 Remarkable production of Shakespeare's 1598 play. Perfect blend of theatre and realism. Vignettes of soldiers and other non-royal people show sweep of humanity in time of war. Politics of war also revealed, with Church manipulating circumstances to its advantage. (Shakespeare though followed his sources no doubt in having the French princess Katherine willingly marry Henry - or maybe she really did find the English king romantic? Battle of Agincourt staged excitingly even without large amounts of blood and gore. Most pitiful scene is the death of the young boys. The "little touch of Harry in the night " scene which presents the boyish king as a human being is incredibly modern in its sympathies. As in his later "Hamlet" (1948), director Olivier's pacing of the whole movie is superb. Battle fields are glorious. Music by Walton is perfect. Except for the palace interiors and the actual battles, there is an intimacy to the scenes that is extraordinary. At times there is a feeling of real cosiness. The acting is faultless. The comedy moments are truly funny- especially the banter between the Irish, Scots, Welsh and English soldiers (they even have their national symbols sown onto their tunics!) Finally, I don't know what technique was used, but I've never seen colour in a film as glorious as this. I'm subtracting a star because it could have had 10 minutes taken out. The script is not exactly on a par with "Hamlet" but don't ask me what to cut out though! Maybe the French dialogue scene with Katherine and her lady-in-waiting? But it's so funny! Look for young George Cole (co-star of TV's Minder) and John Laurie (Dad's Army) and Robert Helpmann. In real life, Henry lived only another 7 years after Agincourt, dying aged 35.

dr_foreman Even glowing reviews of Olivier's "Henry V" acknowledge that this movie is a simplified, stripped-down version of the classic play; the morally ambiguous elements of Henry's character have been hacked out, and the story has been made more aggressively patriotic to appeal to a World War II audience.Well...OK...but ain't that rather a big problem? I mean to ask, what's so great about seeing Shakespeare doctored up into war propaganda? Certainly, the original play was somewhat patriotic and gung-ho, but it also contained moral gray area, which is eliminated here. Hence, this is an inferior adaptation that waters down its source material.OK, so there's no denying that this movie is cleverly staged. The opening scenes set in the Globe are pretty imaginative, and there's an energy to the pacing that works. But still, so many elements strike a false note. Olivier, for instance, seems to shout out his lines without subtlety, as though trying too hard to generate excitement.I also don't really like the look of the film. The Globe scenes work fine, but once Olivier leaves the theater, the action is staged on large but incredibly fake-looking sets. The whole production looks too phony, too clean, too sanitized. Henry doesn't get a splatter of mud or a drop of blood on himself in the battle. It's all ridiculously pristine, and safe, and not at all daring. In short, it's "feel-good" Shakespeare.Kenneth Branagh's 1989 film version is, to be perfectly blunt, almost infinitely better than this movie. It's grittier, darker, and closer to the original play (including the moral gray area). By comparison, the Olivier version looks like "March of the Wooden Soldiers." Don't get me wrong, I usually love 1940s movies because I think they have better scripts than contemporary films - but, I make an exception for literary adaptations, which tend to be more faithful and more powerful today than ever before. Thus, the 1980s Henry V can indeed be better than its '40s counterpart.To me, this film is best understood in the context of World War II. As a wartime production, it's impressive - but it remains tied to that period, and therefore it is fundamentally dated. The original play, on the other hand, is timeless.

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.

bkoganbing Previous to this film, Laurence Olivier had only one experience with Shakespeare on the screen, 1936's As You Like It. It was not a work that Olivier was terribly proud of. He did determine right there that if he were to do Shakespeare again, he would have complete creative control. Olivier did just that, on this film and every other filmed adaption of the Bard that he was involved in.Olivier's desire happily coincided with Winston Churchill's desire to make some good British propaganda for the war effort. Churchill was fond of what he called Shakespeare's "war plays" and Henry V definitely qualifies in that category. He gave Olivier whatever logistical help he needed and remember a war was on. Even to the extent of arranging with Eamon DeValera permission for Olivier to bring the entire Henry V crew to the Irish Republic so that the outdoor scenes could be filmed away from Nazi bombardment. Olivier chooses an interesting method of introducing the play. It opens with a scene of 16th century London at the Globe Theatre at the opening night. The play begins with Leslie Banks as the Chorus reading the introduction and the first scenes are filmed as simply a photographed stage play. After that first scene at Henry V at his court, spitting defiance at the French herald and having his retainers go through an elaborate justification for his claim to the French throne. We then as the Chorus bids us have our imagination take flight until the end of the play when it returns to the stage this time with Henry V marrying the French princess and sealing his claim to their throne.I believe what Olivier wanted to do was show the play through two sets of eyes. He wants the audience to imagine they are in Elizabethan England watching the events of a century before and know that things looked pretty grim then for England and they pulled out of it.The battle scenes at Harfleur and at Agincourt are nicely staged and photographed. Olivier's Henry V is a strong and virile leader, convinced of the rightness of his cause and he has the confidence in himself as military leader to see it through. Kind of like the Prime Minister who was in office then.Certainly in the Middle Ages the high point of English arms was at Agincourt. It was truly one lopsided victory, English long-bowmen against French knights. The French cavalry was truly decimated on that day and a lot of their nobility was killed. And the French were the betting favorites.Seen today though it's a bit different. The Hundred Years War, and this was the second phase of it, was quite frankly a naked war of aggression by the English to obtain the French throne. In 1944 audiences thrilled to remember this impressive feet of arms by the English, but the reasons were kind of glossed over.Still Henry V is an impressive motion picture and I'm sure it did what it set out to do, be a morale booster for the English public. Among other performers I liked in this were Robert Newton as the ancient Pistol and Leslie Banks as the chorus and Valentine Dyall as the Duke of Burgundy.But I would wager that Charles DeGaulle was not invited to the premier showing of Henry V.