Henry V (1979)

I love this movie so much

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

I want to reply to one of the claims made by the 2010 reviewer (who puerilely refers to Shakespeare as "Will"). This reviewer states that the play is presented "with minimal, if any cuts." If the reviewer takes the time to read the play instead of making uninformed pronouncements about it, he or she will discover that numerous cuts have been made in the BBC's production. To be sure, most of the abridgments are pretty well judged, and there are considerably fewer abridgments than in the Olivier and Branagh versions. Nonetheless, the claim that the BBC's production presents the text uncut or nearly uncut is flatly incorrect.As for the production itself, it's quite a good rendering of an uneven play. I agree that David Gwillim is too "weepy" and "whispery", but he performs several of his scenes well (for example, the scene with the tennis balls -- until he starts to throw them -- the scene of the exposure of the traitors, and the scene in which he woos Katherine). His rendering of the magnificent St Crispin's Day speech is very disappointing, but his rendering of the riposte to Montjoy shortly after that speech is excellent. Likewise, although he starts the great "Once more unto the breach" speech quite lamely, he finishes it well. Other members of the cast are generally proficient. In particular, the actors who appear as the French nobles seem to enjoy their roles, and they perform those roles adeptly.

BBC's Henry V is good, but not great. In comparison with the much superior Branagh movie, this one seems rather tame. The dialog is not spoken with the awe that the words deserve. I like David Gwillim a lot (esp. in the two preceding Henry IV productions, which were better than this), and all of the cast are consummate professionals with clear enunciation.As Shakespeare productions go, this Henry V is a worthy and adequate one, but it is something short of extraordinary. As is the case with many of the BBC Shakespeare productions, this too is marred by a lack of real drama in the performance, and when you combine this with the enormous, almost ridiculous prevalence of always stout, always bearded, always middle-aged men in always exaggeratedly ornate costumes, back-dropped by unelaborate and uninteresting sets, the result unfortunately tends to be tainted with a certain dull blandness. No offense to the actors, who are faultless in this. But at least the words come through clearly enough, and the actors, while not allowed much range, do as immaculate a job as they can under the circumstances, which is why productions like this are justified in spite of their shortcomings.My last complaint regards the French princess, Katherine. The French actress is stunningly good-looking, and I can find no fault with her acting, but the director seems to have overlooked the fact that Kate is supposed to evolve. She starts learning English because she takes an active interest in her forthcoming match with Henry, and as he finally convinces her to yield to him (which she has already decided to do, despite coyly spending the last moments playing hard to get), she should give herself over entirely. That's part of her development. If she doesn't do that, there's no point in the scenes where she has her maid teach her basic English. But here, Henry kisses her twice, and on both occasions she does not respond at all; she does not kiss him back. I believe that is a misconception on the part of the director, who must have wanted to portray her more "historically" and/or "realistically", as a victim of circumstance rather than as an active participant in her fate. But Shakespeare is not literal history. Shakespeare is art. The historical Henry V spoke French like a native. Shakespearean interpretations and dramatic decisions should not be too tainted with historicity, at least not in so literal a sense.7 out of 10.

I'll start with a correction to another review: Like most or all of the other BBC Shakespeare productions I've watched, this has some minor abridgments, e.g., the haggling about "Heir to France" in V.2. It's nothing like as extreme as the "Good Bits" approach that Branagh took, and indeed leaves in some passages that suggest that even Shakespeare nods, such as Fluellen's nattering about Macedonian and Monmouth rivers immediately after mourning the massacre of the boys.Like most of the other BBC Shakespeare I've watched, it's mostly competent, low-key, and not very dramatic. (After Olivier and Branagh, it was kind of interesting to see a sedate Crispin's Day speech.) There are some outright mistakes in the directing, at least in the light of Branagh. I don't see how anyone, for instance, could ever have directed Nym's leave-taking from Mistress Quickly as casual. But there are bits of Shakespeare here you won't see anywhere else, so it's worth watching, once you've seen Olivier and Branagh.

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.