GamerTab That was an excellent one.

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU He is the perfect king in Shakespeare's plays who reigns from 1413 to 1422, hence nine years. Shakespeare invested him in three previous plays, Richard II, 1 Henry IV and 2 Henry IV. But in these plays he is a kid and then a teenager playing it hooky in the taverns of London. But that time is now finished as we know from his rebuke to Falstaff on his coronation day at the end of 2 Henry IV. The man has changed and his most important achievement is the battle of Agincourt on October 25, 1415, the day that celebrates Saint Crispin that Shakespeare also calls Crispian who was put to death on October 25, 285. Note how the superstitious people of Shakespeare's time can jubilate on the fact that 285 produces 15 by adding the three digits of the date. Hence 1415 is a miracle date that brings God down on Henry's side to the point that the battle only kills twenty-five people on the English side, dixit Shakespeare, twenty-five to honor October 25, Saint Crispin's day. This English king who has the intention to unify England and France by marrying the King of France's daughter will fail in that respect since his son will only be six years old when he dies in the Château of Vincennes in France on 1422. Note though how they all are cousins or uncles. In other words these two crowns are systematically inbreeding. There is little clean blood and new blood in their descendants. Shakespeare seems to consider this as normal and even a sign of closeness, hence a justification for unifying the two crowns and of course the two nations that are seen and defined as being born under the kings of this period. The War of Roses is like a nation-forming civil war, a war between brothers and cousins, uncles and nephews. That's one of the results of this intense inbreeding. So Henry V marries his cousin. And their imposing the One Hundred Year War onto the French will enable the French to become a nation at the same time. That's the end of the play and the courtship of Henry to Katharine is both awkward and funny how Henry is behaving like a soldier and wants the courtship to be a battle and Katharine to yield to his might, and at the same time how Katharine is well-behaved and French-educated and she has to flee, fly away and flutter around, and she swiftly parry his assault, deflect his attack, block and avert his advance, counter and rebuff his intention, and finally repel and repulse his vanity to take as a conquest what should be received as a gift or a present. Luckily her father King Charles VI arrives and he can finally give his daughter to Henry and Henry can finally receive Katharine. The love words of Henry are vastly contorted by the linguistic game of both, Katharine trying to speak some English and Henry attempting the impossible task of speaking some French.The whole action of the play is one battle or nearly, the war leading to that battle, Agincourt, and it is thus entirely dominated by military questions. It contrasts the English army led by Henry V and the French army led by the Dauphin in the name of his aging father Charles VI. Imagine the French nobles drinking wine in the morning before the battle and boasting that they are going to defeat the English the way they gulp their wine. On the other side the English are austere and very serious in their concentration on God and his necessary help. The English are humble in many ways and the French are vain, as vain as peacocks who will end up plucked like chickens before roasting or broiling.In a very clear sign of defeat Montjoy, the French herald, appears three times. The second time he had said he would not come again, and the third time he comes to concede the day is Henry's, hence the defeat. Three is always a sign of a disturbance, a bad news, a catastrophe. But the catastrophe of one side is the victory of the other. And he will come a fourth time with the body counts that will settle the bad news and bring up a good news. First the French body count:"HENRY V: ten thousand, sixteen hundred mercenaries; The rest, princes, barons, lords, knights, squires, And gentlemen of blood and quality." (IV viii)And then the English body count:"HENRY V: Duke of York, Earl of Suffolk, Sir Richard Ketly, Davy Gam, esquire: all other men five and twenty." (IV viii)But the strong point is the night before the battle. On the French side they revel and are bored of waiting. On the English side they try to rest and concentrate on their divine mission. The king though tries something delicate: he hides himself under some cloak and goes around to check on his men. Security is correct every single time he comes up in the night. He finally sits with a group of soldiers and one of them, Williams, gets into an argument with the King, not knowing who he is, because Williams is not as respectful as he should be and Henry overreacts. But this leads to a deep and sad reflection of the king. He sees his place as the depositary of all the tasks and actions of the people but he also considers that the soul of these people is their own and they have to look after it themselves, as he says to the soldiers in the night.And then alone he gets onto a long reflection of the fate of a king, shifting from prose to verse to let us know he is reaching out to the sky, to God, to the truth of life he definitely considers as the truth of God.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

poly-nikes Reviewer "anne-25" from England was evidently so exercised by what she perceived as shortcomings in this excellent production of "Henry V" that she neglected to listen to the words. In the opening Chorus, we are advised that, since the entire combatants of Agincourt could not be incorporated into the production, we must "into a thousand pieces divide one man." A little further along, the Chorus enjoins us thusly: "O, pardon! since a crooked figure may attest in little place a million." Shakespeare obviously knew something that "anne-25" does not -- it's unfeasible to expect two medieval armies to be incorporated into a humble stage production; therefore, we must use our imaginations, as per, again from the Chorus, "upon your imaginary forces work." Even Olivier's and Branagh's film versions left a lot to be desired in this aspect. Olivier's Agincourt was confusing and brief (although the arrow flights, abetted by Walton's glorious music, were stunning); and Branagh's, although more realistic and bloody (fought in the rain as was the real Agincourt), made us suffer through excruciating and over-used slow motion, a device that never adds to action sequences. And by my count, there were far fewer than sixty thousand French soldiers in either production.So, "anne-25," a little advice -- listen to the Chorus next time, and perhaps you'll enjoy yourself much more.

Alain English This splendid adaptation of "Henry V" caps off the first part of Shakespeare's eight plays Histories Cycle.The recently crowned Henry V (David Gwillim) continues the legacy of his late father, and plans an invasion of France to advance his kingdom and consolidate his family's hold on the English throne.It is worth watching for Gwillim's performance alone. He handles the play's memorable lines and speeches with dexterity and exuberance; 'once more unto the breach', the St Crispian's day speech and the concluding courtship of Katherine (Jocelyne Boisseua) are all alive in his hands. Some of the speeches in Act IV (where Henry describes his inheriting his father's guilt about usurping the throne from Richard II) could have been cut for this version, as they heavily slow the pace here.Alec McCowen is the Chorus for this play and although he botches the famous opening speech "O for a muse of fire..." he delivers all his other lines well and brings the story together. Bryan Pringle's Pistol and Brenda Bruce's Hostess are very well played, the latter delivering a touching 'adieu' to the camera before departing.There is a chronological break of several years before Shakespeare picks up the story of Henry's son and successor Henry VI.

anne-25 Another BBC take on Shakespeare's histories, this production is of somewhat dubious quality. Completely unabridged, the play can be difficult to follow for those who have not read it, also, the poor camera angles and lacklustre performances from the cast fail to emphasise on certain points. David Gwillim, whom certainly looks more like Henry V than Olivier or Branagh, has a mixed performance in the lead role. His Henry, while amusing and likeable at times, tends to whimper his speeches, most notably when he meekly whispers his way through the St. Crispins day speech before leading his men against three or four pitiful French whom, we are to believe, are actually Sixty-thousand strong. In fact I lie, Henry does not even lead his men, we only see him trudging towards us after the "battle" has taken place. The characters than have the audacity to boast that ten-thousand French have been slain, when we have yet to see one dead body (discounting the solitary dead "boy")The scenery is poor as well, instead of filming on location, the play is filmed on a horribly unrealistic set, the walls of Harfleur are evidently made from cardboard or some such substance, and the scenic field of Agincourt is in fact a wall. Cinematography does not change, almost all of the play is filmed in bright cutesy colours and Agincourt seems a remarkably pleasant "telly-tubby" place (all we need is the. We just cannot believe for a moment that what we are watching is real. The lack of music as well must be stated, since it strips the play of drama and tension.This play could have been so good, the cast is capable, but the direction is so poor. If music, on-location sets, and better cinematography (i.e mud, fire, blood at Harfleur and Agincourt) had been used, then for very little extra money, the play could have been brilliant.