AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Jon Corelis Shakespeare's rather rarely performed history plays about late medieval English history.The first series is about three kings, the first of which is a looney-tune who can't do anything right, which is a bad thing in a king, so he very quickly ends up very dead. The second king is more OK, but he can't get anything important done because people keep trying to take him out, while his son wastes all his time boozing it up in this dive saloon with this bunch of Animal House type guys, one of whom, Fat Jack, is a real riot. The third king is this same son who decides that now that he is king he should get serious so he decides to conquer France, apparently not understanding that even if he conquers it, it will just get conquered back again.The second series is basically about this long gang war between two families, the North White Flowers and the West Blood Roses. Things get complicated because, on the one hand, the Flowers' capo is a heavy dude, while the Roses' boss is mental, but on the other hand, the Roses' boss's moll, French Maggie, is heavier than any dude around. In the end the last man standing is a Flower, Crooked Dick, but he don't stand for long.Great cast, great settings, great poetry. Extremely violent and bloody: think Game of Thrones without the skin. Check it out.

shoolaroon Maybe it is unfair of me to write a review as I've only seen the first entry, Richard II, but from the previews it seems to set the standard. While I appreciate the effort to mount such a Shakespearean production, and there are fine actors here such as Jeremy Irons, and Patrick Stewart, etc., the overall effect is very flat and disappointing. In the attempt to seem "natural" the creators have forgotten that this is...THEATER in solid caps, and was never meant to seem "natural". Perhaps I am not critiquing the actors as much as the production - the only productions of these plays I have seen that really work as theatrical and philosophical pieces are Orson Welle's Falstaff and Olivier's Richard III. The styles are very different but they both, artistically, transport one to a completely different era, in all ways. Welles especially knew how to handle Shakespeare in a way that he, Welles, is in charge of the plays - not they in charge of him. By all means, watch this BBC production, but if you want to see how it really should be done - see the two films I recommend. The BBC versions will seem like stale beer besides them.

kaaber-2 "The Hollow Crown" is BBC's magnificent filming of the Shakespeare's second Henriad (Richard II with Henry IV's rise to power, Henry IV, parts I and II, and Henry V). I believe the first three of these have only been filmed in the old 1970s BBC series of Shakespeare's complete works, and although the old series was at its best with its version of Henry IV, "The Hollow Crown" is far above it. Simon Russell Beale is the ideal choice for Falstaff, even with Orson Welles hard on his heels in the Falstaff compilation "Chimes at Midnight", Tom Hiddleston is a great Prince Hal, and Jeremy Irons, never known to err, shines as the guilt-ridden King Henry IV.There are some interesting comments on the bonus material for Henry IV, part II that explains why the plays come across so successfully in 2012. Thea Sharrock, director of Henry V, muses that people may be shocked at hearing the actors speak in real surroundings (on location), but of course, that's old hat. Even Olivier anticipated that in 1944 with his Henry V. Moviegoers are not that easily shocked anymore. And although Hiddelston is also mistaken in his claim that it has never been done before, he is right in stating that "Shakespeare is at its best when you speak it like you're making it up." Julie Walters adds, "You've got to speak the lines, not in a stilted isn't-the-verse-beautiful kind of way; it's got to be the way you talk"This natural way of speaking the lines, more foreign to British Shakespeare productions than to American ones, accounts for the greatness of "The Hollow Crown".

sarastro7 As I watched these Hollow Crown episodes, there was something about the delivery of the dialogue that seemed off to me. It was strangely flat and naturalistic, spoken like ordinary dialogue in historical fiction. Then it hit me: the verse is spoken in prose. This is a huge problem. We have amazing production values; sumptuous settings; virtuoso directing; good actors and visual splendor enough to knock anyone's socks off - and we also have Shakespeare's story and words. Tragically, however, without the verse delivery of the lines, we have none of the grandeur of the language; no poetry in the performance. The artfulness of Shakespeare's work has been excised.There is little to criticize about these versions besides this, but this point of criticism is an all-important one. Reducing Shakespeare's poetry to straight-forward prose is a terrible idea which takes away the audience's joy of the beauty of the words, and also deprives the actors of doing the kind of Shakespeare they want to be doing. I assume it was done to make Shakespeare's language more modern and understandable to an audience that is not weaned on Shakespeare, but to drag Shakespeare down to this level is artistic sabotage. I am deeply against it, and I hope they won't do it in the other upcoming BBC Shakespeare installments by producer Sam Mendes. Sadly, they probably will. Sigh. :-(