Pathetic attempt to match Olivier's 1944 masterpiece. Not quite as dreadful as Kenneth's later abysmal Hamlet, but sufficiently dire to be given a deliberate miss. From the moment you see a retarded teenager, just out of his egg, with lipstick and a comic modern haircut, shifting uneasily on his throne, you know you're in for a disaster. The enthusiasm for this appalling mess totally mystifies me. One truly good part was performed by the French herald, Montjoy, who actually dignified his role. The only other respectable part was played by Scofield, a genuine actor, as the French King. This could not be said of Branagh, who misdelivered and massacred every one of his speeches. Didn't he understand what he was shouting ? The flashbacks with Falstaff were simply grotesque. The pub regulars, Bardolph, Pistol, Nym, etc, resembled fugitives from a leper's colony. Brian Blessed came on as some sort of metal monster robot escaped out of Gotham City. Was he having Branagh on ? The remaining members of the tatterdemalion English contingent looked like a makeshift street-gang of undernourished jailbirds. Jacobi was adequate as the chorus, no more.The battle scenes were meaningless, ludicrous and interminable. Incredibly difficult to understand what was going on, but the English foot soldiers apparently charged headlong into the massed French cavalry. After that, the archers sent showers of arrows into the carnage. Fortunately, the arrows managed to pick out all the French, and spare the English. Remarkable; perhaps the shafts were fitted with special sensors. Although the comparative statistics of the slaughter were read out in the aftermath, there was no indication whatsoever of how these staggering figures had been achieved. The Olivier version indicated very clearly that it was the archers who had decisively won the day, long before there was any hand-to-hand fighting. And what about the ridiculous purse-stealing in the middle of the melée ? This wasn't Shakespeare. There's some sort of generation gap in connection with the praise heaped on Sir Kenneth Branagh. I just don't get it.

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.

The greatest adaptation of a Shakespearean play to the screen, Henry V, adapted by, directed by, and starring Kenneth Branagh, bridges the gap between faithful reproduction and innovative representation in an extremely exciting, most cinematic way. Branagh has certainly done his homework, and we are the benefactors of his erudition. For the most part, he has reduced Shakespeare's text to those elements which are not only screen-worthy, but the meanings of which ride easily on tone, gesture, and action, so that Shakespeare's poetic, though metaphorically dense language presents little obstacle to the understanding of the modern ear. Remaining—and out of place for such a successful transition between mediums—are unnecessary lines delivered by the Chorus (played by a fiery Derek Jacobi), which beg us to pardon the meagerness of the presentation and beseech us to use our imaginations to fill in the resulting holes. Famous lines to those familiar with the stage, but strangely redundant from within the context of a film of such high production value, grandness, and beauty—with a visual and aural realization that rises to match the quality of the bard's text. On the side of embellishment, Branagh interweaves lines, characters, and scenes from parts of Henry IV, through clever flashbacks. The purpose of this device is to summon Hal's past relationships with old friends who are now his subjects, and to elucidate the duality of Hal/Henry; for Hal was not always king, and in his younger days, he caroused with commoners, drunkards, liars, and even thieves. The effectiveness of this device varies: the hanging of Bardolph draws additional emotional impact from it, but, in spite of it and several fine, heartfelt performances, the reminiscing after Falstaff's death falls flat, since we, unlike the audience of Shakespeare's time, have not come to know and love this Sir John Falstaff through Parts 1 and 2 of Henry IV and other works. Now the betrayal of Falstaff by Hal, though moderately effective in the use of this same device, is one of the most interesting scenes in the film, as it employs a flash forward within a flashback, in which we hear Hal think what he will eventually say to Falstaff, and Falstaff responds to his disavowal. Hal's transformation into Henry V is really the heart of Shakespeare's story, as it requires him to sever connections to his "wilder days" in order to lead his countrymen in worldly pursuits. Branagh's handling of it is quite remarkable. Branagh's own acting performance as the title character is smart and passionate, commanding and stirring. It does suffer slightly from that same ailment that afflicts other zealous students of Shakespeare: he knows his lines so well that they, at times, lose their spontaneity and/or authenticity. That penetrating knowledge, which detracts slightly from his performance, overcompensates as an asset to his bold, definitive adaptation and assured direction. Additional assets are an unforgettably powerful score by Patrick Doyle and a solid surrounding cast, which includes Paul Scofield (as King Charles VI of France), Brian Blessed, Ian Holm, Judi Dench, Emma Thompson, and a young Christian Bale. Most notable among the supporting players are Robert Stephens as Auncient Pistol and Christopher Ravenscroft, who, as Montjoy, turns a messenger part into a key role through his earnest, telling reactions to both Henry and the French Dauphin.

Henry V is a film based on William Shakespeare's play The Life of Henry the Fifth about the famous English king.Kenneth Branagh stars in the title role,wrote the screenplay and directed the movie.It also features Paul Scofield,Ian Holm,Emma Thompson,Alec McCowen,Judi Dench and Christian Bale. It is frequently compared with the 1944 film of the play directed by and starring Laurence Olivier. The visual style of former is grittier and more realistic than that of the latter.The movie has a narrator with the name Chrous.After the he introduces the play, young king of England Henry V begins an angry dialogue with King Charles of France. The king's son, Dauphin,insults Henry and the argument escalates into war. In flashback, Henry is seen as a young man drinking in a tavern with Falstaff, Bardolph,Nym,Pistol, and Mistress Quickly. Meanwhile, Henry and his captain, Fluellen, assemble an army and invade France. The French greatly outnumber the British troops, yet Henry leads them to victory in the Battle of Agincourt after delivering his famous St. Crispin's Day Speech. Throughout this struggle, Henry also courts Katherine and eventually wins her over.Henry V is definitely an absorbing and entertaining film for it was updated for modern viewers.It was also an energetic,passionate,and wonderfully acted as well.Apart from that,it was a triumphant adaptation of Shakespeare's play and it brought about the playwright's timeless talent and appeal.Overall,it is a wonderful film not only for the fans of Shakespeare but anyone who loves great film.