Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Candida It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

eyesour Aroint thee, Branagh! Avaunt, McKellen! Larry bestrides your narrow worlds like a Colossus, and petty men walk under his huge legs and peep about like sparrows. A little touch of Larry and the rest are almost nowhere, though Burton was not bad and Williamson was really very good. I'm not just thinking about Henry here, you will understand. But Olivier sets the benchmark, whoever tries to match him.Consequently, later performances are merely simulacra, feeble and inferior --- I wouldn't follow Ken the chubby young lad to Clapham, let alone to France; or else grotesqueries replacing rigorous mastery with totally unmotivated weirdness. I've seen an all-female Macbeth, as well as a Lady Macbeth urinating on-stage. McKellen's Richard is ludicrous and pointless, Orson is simply too fat, and I once saw Irons throw away Hamlet's soliloquies as if they were screwed up bits of waste paper.If anyone wants to know what Will really intended his words to mean, and is not too bedridden to sense the tingle in his spine, hie him to this Henry V. Upon St Crispin's Day, fought was that noble fray; and when shall England breed again, such a King Larry?

Steffi_P It's perhaps surprising that when people from a theatrical background turn to film directing, they tend to produce pictures that are purely cinematic and freed from staginess. This is the case with Laurence Olivier, as it was with Rouben Mamoulian and Orson Welles. Here, with his debut feature as director, Olivier not only created a landmark propaganda film, but also redefined the screen Shakespeare adaptation and established a new precedent of renowned actor turning competent director.Shakespeare's play of Henry V was of course ideal for a wartime morale booster, featuring as it does heroic action, rousing speeches, historical parallels with the landings at France, a protagonist who is valiant yet warm and humane, as well as plenty of little extra touches such as exploring the psychology of the troops on the eve of battle and stressing the need for unity between English, Irish, Scotch and Welsh. It was also the perfect play for Olivier to test his ideas on how a Shakespeare play should be turned into a film. The chorus of Shakespeare's original text tells the audience that the great battles and courts can scarcely be contained on a stage and that you must "on your imaginative forces work". Using this idea as his starting point, Olivier begins the film with a recreation of a contemporary production of the original play at the Globe theatre, complete with backstage glimpses, bumbling actors and a rowdy Elizabethan audience. Then, as Leslie Banks' chorus commands the audience to "work your thoughts", the theatre disappears, and the action subtly opens out into larger sets. Eventually, we are transported to location with thousands of extras for the climactic battle scene.This was not only a complete reworking of screen Shakespeare, it was part of a whole approach to cinema. Olivier's Henry V, although totally different in content, is stylistically in the same tradition as Michael Powell's The Red Shoes or the elaborate ballet sequences of MGM musicals, which also expand would-be stage performances into pure cinematic fantasy. The originator of this approach was probably Busby Berkeley, who also made the switch from stage to screen, albeit from the music hall to the role of choreographer for screen musicals. The musical sequences that Berkeley constructed for Warner Brothers musicals in the mid-1930s always begin with a stage production, but then turn into tour-de-forces of choreography, camera positioning and massive sets, all of which could never be contained or properly appreciated on a stage. Olivier is effectively doing the same thing with a Shakespeare play as Berkeley did with a dancing chorus line.Of course, all this alone isn't what makes Henry V a great work. For a first-time director Olivier's eye is remarkably sharp. He keeps the action smooth in dialogue scenes by making use of long takes, and preferring to move the camera to change the framing rather than breaking the shot with a cut, often dollying in on a single actor to achieve a close-up. He's not quite experienced enough yet though to give these shots a really natural flow, and he doesn't really get the chance to show off his talents as a dramatic director as he would later in Hamlet and Richard III. Having said that, he does manage to give remarkable tenderness to Henry's soliloquy on the eve of battle and his courtship of Kate towards the end of the film.The highpoint however is the impressive Agincourt battle sequence, which was influenced by the battle in Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky, but is actually an improvement on the Russian master's equivalent work. He similarly builds up tension as the opposing army begins its charge, using a rhythmic editing pattern and dynamic close-ups. However, whereas Alexander Nevsky's battle occasionally looked obviously staged and unrealistic, in Henry V you could as well be witnessing a genuine medieval battle.Olivier selected a top notch cast composed of actors with theatre experience like himself, with exuberant performances from Robert Newton as the cowardly Pistol and Esmond Knight as Welsh captain Fluellen, and too many other great names to mention. Olivier himself, after a decade of learning how to act for screen, perhaps relished the chance to give huge, concert-hall-filling Shakespearean delivery again, although he does manage to rein his performance in again for the quieter scenes.Henry V is remarkable for a director's debut feature. Olivier would direct two more prestigious Shakespeare adaptations, as well as a few dramas, but Henry V is his freshest and most engaging work as a director, and still remains the best.

James Hitchcock I have never really considered "Henry V" to be one of Shakespeare's greatest plays. It lacks the philosophical depth and emotional power of the great tragedies or even of some of the other history plays, such as "Richard III". It is a play which mythologises an English king whose main achievement was to start an unnecessary war with France. As Shakespeare knew well, Agincourt was a great victory in the short term but a futile one in the long term. Henry's early death meant that his great ambition of uniting the French and English crowns was never realised; the United Kingdom of England and France remains one of the great might-have-beens of world history. Moreover, modern audiences might have another problem with this play. By modern standards (which were not necessarily the standards of either Shakespeare's day or of Henry's) the English were the aggressors in the Hundred Years War; even by mediaeval standards, Henry's claim to the French throne was by no means as clear-cut as Shakespeare imagined.Despite these difficulties, "Henry V" has been the subject of two of the greatest cinematic Shakespeare adaptations, this one and Kenneth Branagh's version from 1989. One reason is that it contains some of Shakespeare's most magnificent poetry and some of his greatest set-piece speeches, mostly put into the mouth of Henry himself. It is therefore a very tempting role for Shakespearean actors, especially those who can speak blank verse as naturally as Olivier or Branagh.The two films are very different in style. Branagh's naturalistic film emphasises the bloodshed and squalor of war; contrary to what is sometimes thought, mediaeval warfare was not necessarily more chivalrous, or even less bloody, than the modern version. (The bloodiest day in British military history, when some 26,000 were killed, was 29th March 1461, the date of the Battle of Towton during the Wars of the Roses). Olivier's film is highly stylised rather than naturalistic. The scenes set in England are presented as a re-enactment of how the play might have been performed at the Globe theatre during Shakespeare's own lifetime. The French scenes were shot against sets based upon paintings from the early fifteenth century, especially the work of the Limbourg brothers. The battle scenes are more realistic, but even these play down the elements of blood and cruelty.Olivier's film- the first which he directed- was commissioned by the British Government as a patriotic morale-booster during the Second World War. The decision to portray war as something glorious rather than bloody was therefore a quite deliberate one. A sharp contrast is drawn between the heroic Henry and his French counterparts. Those parts of Shakespeare's play which show Henry in a less favourable light, such as his order to kill the French prisoners, are omitted, apparently on the instructions of Churchill, who did not want the film's patriotic message to be clouded by moral ambiguities. The French King, Charles VI, is portrayed as a senile old fool, and his son the Dauphin Louis as not only an arrogant popinjay but also a sadistic brute who slaughters non-combatants such as the young boys in the English baggage train. Stress is placed on those scenes which show the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish captains fighting together against a common enemy. (Shakespeare was probably looking ahead to the unification of the English and Scottish crowns under James I and VI, which was to take place a few years after his play was written; it is perhaps no accident that the Scottish captain is called Jamie).Of the two films I would- marginally- prefer Branagh's, which seems more relevant to a modern audience. Yet there is much about the earlier film which is of value even today. Some of the supporting performances are very good, especially from Harcourt Williams as the mad old Charles, Max Adrian as the Dauphin and Leslie Banks as the Chorus (who speaks some of the most poetic speeches not given to Henry). This is one of the few British films of the early forties shot in colour, and the colours are particularly vivid and jewel-like, making the film far more visually spectacular than Branagh's. Above all, this film gives the chance to later generations to see one of Britain's finest classical actors, at the peak of his powers, taking the leading role in a Shakespearean drama. 8/10

dhable This is the best of any of Shakespeare's works rendered on film. Olivier deftly weaves the play, which begins as a stage production, played at the Globe Theatre with nervous actors, miscues, an audience, food vendors, a rain storm, and all that probably accompanied any Shakespeare play when it was contemporary, into a dramatic film.The play literally turns to "real life", as the actors and locales change before our eyes into the photo-play. All that is technique, but good as it is, the "play's the thing" as Shakepear's work comes to life before our eyes. Great production values. Great story line (thanks to W.S.). Great presentation all-around.This 1944 version is far superior to the mud and gore version produced later in the late 1980's.