The individuals works of William Shakespeare are probably the most studied works of fiction in history. Then again, a lot of his stories were based on real life. Here we get a great movie based on one of his lesser known plays, "Henry V". I feel bad for not being more familiar with the time period this takes place in. I know that it's in the Hundred Year's War. Most people remember this as the war Joan of Arc fought in, but this takes place long before that. Well, it is a hundred year's war after all. I remember reading about Edward, the Black Prince.The set up of this film is great. It's actually put up exactly like a play. As the story goes on however, this aspect disappears and it does get more serious. It was hard to make a truly great movie while World War II was being fought in real life. You can see the dedication these people put into portraying their roles. We get a lot of epic scenery and battles. My only complaint is that there a few times where the backgrounds look fake. Still, it's great that we've always had practical effects. ***1/2

Before Kenneth Branagh there was...Laurence Olivier. Good adaptation of the Shakespeare play. Starts rather oddly, and dourly, by showing making the movie about the play being performed in 1600. Initially put me off, but after a while the unnecessary play-within-a-movie scenario disappears, and you have just a movie, as it should be.Once it gets rolling, it is great. Olivier, in his directorial debut, shows a deft hand at direction. The battle scenes are well- staged and very vivid. Pacing is good.Olivier is superb in the lead role. It is no wonder that he is regarded as the greatest Shakespearean actor, if not one of the greatest actors of all time. The gravitas and feeling he brings to the role are immense. You would think that he IS a king, mouthing the words for the first time, rather than reciting Shakespeare's complex dialogue.Good supporting cast.If I had to choose between the 1989 Kenneth Branagh version and this 1944 version, I would go with Branagh's version, by a smidgen. The 1989 version is edgier, moves more quickly and freely, and doesn't have the clunky start. Also, as you would imagine, the production values are better in the 1989 version (no model castles etc). For Shakespearean acting at its finest, however, you can never go past (Sir) Laurence Olivier.

Otherwise known by the snappier title "Henry V", the director Laurence Olivier did a phenomenal job in bringing the play to the big screen in what became the first truly successful Shakespearean film. I loved his decision to frame the early part of the film as a play being performed in the Globe Theatre in 1600 as it was extremely innovative and clever. There are frequent interjections and laughs from the audience and it even begins to rain! It's also the closest that I'll ever get to seeing Olivier on stage. After setting sail for Southampton, however, the film becomes more realistic and less stylised. I think that this was perhaps another good decision as it could have gotten old if the theatre setting was retained for the entire film. The film also looks fantastic in glorious Technicolor.One of the best actors of his generation and to have ever lived, Olivier's performance as Henry V was up to the same standard as his directing. The great ones make it look so easy. He assembled a fantastic supporting cast, particularly Max Adrian, Esmond Knight, Harcourt Williams, Robert Newton, Freda Jackson and Nicholas Hannen. However, the only person in the film that I thought gave a bad performance was Niall MacGinnis as Macmorris. I liked him in other films but here he was so bad and over the top that I actually felt embarrassed for him as he was so thoroughly outacted by Knight and John Laurie in the one scene in which he has dialogue. Renée Asherson, who died last October only three weeks before the film's 70th anniversary, replaced Olivier's then wife Vivien Leigh in the role of Princess Katherine, whose major scene at the end of the film with Henry is very sweet and well acted by both her and Olivier even if it owes little to history. I wish that I had some French though as a few parts of the film were lost on me, I'm afraid. With Asherson's death, George Cole is the film's last surviving cast member.The film was intended as wartime propaganda and was partially funded by the British government. As such, it's quite funny that much of the film was shot in the Powerscourt Estate in County Wicklow in the neutral Irish Free State. Unsurprisingly, several parts of the play which portrayed Henry in a negative light were omitted, most notably the scenes in which he orders the murder of the French prisoners. Speaking of the French, they were clearly intended to stand-in for the Nazis in this version. I imagine that Churchill fancied himself as Henry V! Given that the film was released in 1944, its depiction of an invasion of France could hardly have been more topical. While it may be propaganda, it's first and foremost an extremely accomplished, well directed and acted film which brought the Bard to the silver screen in the way that no other film had before.

This was commissioned by Churchill to help rally the Allied troops for the invasion or liberation of Nazi-occupied France in 1944. After all, Shakespeare's play deals with the Plantagenet king's success in sailing for France and defeating their forces at Azincourt against all the odds.It's odd to watch this, as it's a history lesson in triplicate. First there's the fact it's a sort of propaganda piece. Then it's of the Shakespearian era, as the stunning opening shot in technicolour is a sweeping view up the Thames of Elizabethan London, from the Tower of London to the Globe Theatre. The conceit is that the play is being staged during the time it was written, and Olivier et al are Shaky's contemporaries. But of course, the events of the play took place some 180 years earlier, in 1415.I admit I could only follow this with my No Fear Shakespeare guide providing a translation! But I had to turn several pages at a time to keep up, as large chunks are omitted from this version. Usually anything that hints of discord in the British camp, this being a propaganda piece of sorts. So the barons' plot to topple the king on the eve of his departure for France is omitted - though the barons do appear, just without Henry V's Blofeldesque pay off. Also, Henry's talk of ensuring Scotland is subdued as they always used war with France to invade through the backdoor. Not wise talk in 1944 when you want the whole of the UK to rally behind you! Also, some historical references: that the King is descended from the French himself, or his remorse expressed over his father Henry IV's actions. (Henry IV aka Richard Bollingbrook was a baron who overthrew Richard II, arguably the last medieval king, and had him starved to death in the tower, casting doubt on Henry V's legitimacy, which he helped assuage by having Richard disinterred and reburried in Westminster Abbey, the proper place for kings.) They also omit Henry's 'let us in peaceably or I can't be help responsible for my soldiers raping your women' speech to Harfleur, their first port of call on arriving in France.Anyway, just shy of the half hour mark the play opens up away from the Globe and becomes a real film, albeit with cardboard backdrops etc, and Olivier looks more like the real king.The best bit is the eve of battle. In the night, the two camps face opposite each other, readying for the next day. The atmosphere as the king walks among his people by night, eavesdropping on their fears and prayers, is wonderful (look out for a very young George Cole - St Trinian's, Minder - as a young lad of the Skins age group!) and quite affecting.That said, the battle itself is a letdown in a way. Oh, it's a sunny English summer's day but the real Agincourt took place in October in northern France and was a nasty, bloody, claustrophobic affair. It had rained and the French cavalry charged, getting massacred by the English longbows (nasty, effective weapons, not the Robin Hood bows and arrows depicted here). They fell in the mud and were unable to rouse thanks to the heavy armour, they were sitting ducks. The reason only around 8,000 English, worn out by their travels and dysentry, could defeat 30,000 French (see Wiki for details) was because the French were rubbish and lambs to the slaughter.This is glossed over a bit in the film, which seems to be a jolly canter about in the English Kent countryside! Almost like a boy scout's war game activity! There's also a fabricated section (not in the play I believe) when Henry personally intervenes to avenge a death, in modern Hollywood 'I'm mad as hell' style. Excised, understandably, is the 'war crime' in which he executes the French prisoners when the enemy begins to rally.All in all a highly enjoyable movie in glorious technicolour, but I will see Branagh's version, to balance it out. And also Luc Brssson's Joan of Arc, as let us not forget that Henry V's achievements were wiped out within only 20 years, so it wasn't an enduring victory, unlike those of, say, Alfred the Great. Or Churchill, of course.