Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Blake Rivera If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

jfarms1956 This is a good film for the over 25 crowd. It is always good to see Shakespeare come to life as it did in this movie. The old English has life and feeling and spirit in this film. The actors did a good job in making the old English work. The sets and costumes looked great. It is amazing that the armor is aluminum painted wool. The movie must have lifted the spirits of the English as they were full into WWII. The movie was made in England during the war and one would never know it. All hail to the spirit of Laurence Olivier as he inspired those to follow him into battle. It must have been a good film for British morale. Thumbs up.

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

Igenlode Wordsmith The term that comes to me most easily when describing Laurence Olivier is 'beautiful'; he is unquestionably beautifully-made both in feature and in body, and his voice is an instrument of controlled and flexible beauty, coupled to a face capable of eloquent and delicate precision -- to the degree that I could easily award him my favourite accolade and say in this respect that he could have been a silent actor. In fact, the technique in his Shakespearian films that I have most actively admired is that of the soliloquy in voice-over: sounds and thoughts alike at their most expressive, without the distracting mechanics of their production.And yet... and yet there is, so often, this "and yet". Even in the screen performances that are remarkable -- for by no means every one of them is great, or even good -- I keep finding myself watching, not the narrative, but the famous Olivier; not the character, but the proficiency of the technique. And somehow he seems to miss out on the charisma, the spark of human connection that a screen stalwart like Leo Genn can bring to a role without headline billing, only for a dawning realisation when the credits roll -- 'so that's why such a minor character stood out'... All too often in these films Olivier seems to be enacting the story opposite the other players rather than entering with them into the actual tale. It's unexpected, from one who was renowned on stage precisely for his ability to lose himself in his role."Henry V" was one of the films in this Olivier season that I found more than merely a curiosity, precisely because there are a number of sections where for me the story does take over; where King Harry becomes a character I care about rather than a piece of acting in the abstract. All the same I was unable to lose myself in it entirely: Olivier in declamatory mode ("Once more unto the breach", "St Crispin's day") is the Great Shakespearian, but not part of the film in the way of Harry moving quietly among his men at night, or charming his princess into their dynastic match in false French and broken English. Some of these more intimate scenes, however, are very good indeed. The shot that particularly stays in my mind is the wordless moment on the King's face as his soldiers speak unknowingly of the deaths that will lie at the door of their commander.Perhaps the most distinctive element of this production is the use of the Globe Theatre as a framing device, in conjunction and coupled with a quite deliberate deployment of obviously artificial scenery and perspective. From the opening diorama fading in to the 'live' theatre, the film blends three-dimensional stage sets with location shooting and flat manuscript-type illustrations, such that horsemen can leave a forced-perspective castle gate and ride up into a picture, or the camera roam seamlessly out from a painted set to a cottage yard by way of rows of vines across the page. The rationale was no doubt wartime economics, but the decision to make virtue of necessity and create a deliberately stylised look (that echoes -- yet is not the same as -- the staging at the Globe: witness the street-scene at the inn and then the 'real' version of it) is one that is more or less unique in my experience, and is an inspired choice. Instead of unconvincingly realistic scenery done on the cheap, we have an openly imaginary world conjured up as a stage performance starts to come to life. And what a performance...I first saw this film years before I ever attended London's new Globe Theatre: re-watching it now, the resonance is almost uncanny. When Olivier was filming, the Globe project wasn't so much as a gleam in Sam Wanamaker's eye -- and yet here it is, almost timber for timber as it looked and looks again today, with the same rowdy buzz, the same instrumental accompaniment, the same sellers of seats and snacks and rainwear (although nowadays it's cushions and plastic!) And when the actors step out onto the thrusting stage or the balcony at the Globe, and the groundlings stop munching their nuts and start to groan or applaud, the atmosphere is the one we see here. From thatch to tiring-chamber it works, as it did in Shakespeare's day -- speaking most literally of this cockpit, this wooden O -- and Olivier, fifty years in the past, evokes that same scene and spirit with an accuracy that delivers a shock of recognition. He couldn't possibly have known, other than theoretically: but he was right.

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.