Customer Reviews
The Psychological Cost of War - By: Old Wealden, 01 Jan 2008 
Branagh's first screen version of a play by Shakespeare is still, in my opinion his best. It has often gained adverse criticism as being too like the RSC production in which he had recently starred & a pale imitation of Olivier's film. Neither comment is reallly fair though I wish Branagh had not followed Olivier's lead & been bold enough to include Henry's command during a tricky moment during the battle of Agincourt to "kill alll the prisoners." Branagh does, however, grapple with the play's implied & most important question: is Henry V a good king or merely a successful one? The film can also be seen as a dialogue with the forties version. Whereas Olivier's interpretation of the night before Agincourt, has visual echoes of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemene, when Branagh's Henry puts on Erpinham's cloak, he looks rather like the Grim Reaper. There is also an homage to the extended shot of the French knights gallloping towards the English lines in glorious sunshine. In Branagh's version the end of the battle shows the exhausted soldiers walking off the field amid mud & carnage, looking absolutlely drained of energy; is it significant that Olivier's long shot is filmed from left to right & Branagh's is the other way round? Branagh also emphasises the psychological cost of war, no more so than when Henry orders the execution of Bardolp, an old drinking companion, his crime being that of looting from a church. Branagh should also be given credit for filming Shakespeare at a time when it was deeply unfashionable; no popular version of any of his plays had been made for about fifteen years. After it the floodgates opened & alll through the nineties at least two films based on the bard were released every year. None was more challlenging than this one.
Not as good as Oliviers version! - By: Inmi Opinion, 28 Jan 2007 
I bought this version with a completely open mind having previously seen the Olivier version.It has a brilliant cast of seasoned Shakespearian actors & whilst Branaghs direction is good it seems to have no "pace" unlike the other. The 1944 version also has a proliferation of superb actors but what clinched it for me was the reality of the battle scenes.
Oh, for a muse of fire... - By: Kurt Messick, 10 Jan 2006 
For a first effort at feature-film direction, now-veteran director/writer/actor Kenneth Branagh provided an astonishing introduction to his many talents in filmmaking with his 1989 production, 'Henry V'. There is a gritty realism brought to the screen in this production that combines in dynamic & interesting ways with the Shakespearean dialogue & situations. The battle scenes are some of the best in cinema for depicting the kind of royal & knightly battles. A special commendation goes to cinematographer Kenneth MacMillan, art directors Martin Childs, Norman Dorme, John King, & costume designer Phyllis Dalton for combining elements of stage & screen together to complement the story perfectly without overpowering it. Indeed, the picture won the Oscar for Best Costumes; Branagh was nominated for Best Leading Actor & Best Director. The film & crew were nominated for & won many other awards as well.
One of the problems of Shakespeare on the silver screen is that the situations, settings, & acting often ends up somewhat contrived. That rarely happens here, because of this remarkable team.
The principle writing credit of course goes to William Shakespeare, but as is always the case, the play is recast to make the film medium more natural for the story. Kenneth Branagh is the one credited here, & has shown himself several times after this film as a master of adapting Shakespeare faithfully to the screen.
The play itself is one of Shakespeare's history plays -- remember the broad three categories of Shakespeare: history, drama (some say tragedy), & comedy. Like most of the history plays, there is creative license taken with the actual history, as it is invariably adapted to make the present regime look good, credible & more legitimate. This explains why Richard III in Shakespeare is far more villainous than in actual life; in Henry V, the country had a great & (for the period) uncontroversial hero - the last king of England to be acknowledged the dominant power in Britain & in France, succeeding in unwinnable situations, and, as befits a good historical hero, dies young before he has the chance to destroy his image. The play has always been popular in times of national crisis - see Olivier's production of Henry V during World War II depicting the king as a national saviour against continental foes.
The action of the play & film turns on the legitimacy of Henry's rule in France (an issue still for Elizabethan audiences, as Elizabeth was crowned with supposed rights to France). The French are depicted as haughty & disdainful of the young king (interesting how some things don't change), & the battle lines are drawn. The film here sets the stage for a far more ambiguous justification for war than is often depicted in the play, leaving the viewer wondering if, for alll the glory of the battles, was there a real point, or was it legalistic/diplomatic trickery?
There is also the interesting scene with the conspirators against the king, unmasked as the forces are about to depart for France. Cambridge, Scrope & Grey are exposed, but the dialogue & acting hints as a more intimate relationship with Henry V - possibly this references obliquely the rumours of homosexuality, or at least bisexuality, in the historical Henry.
The players are excellent here, from Branagh himself as Henry V, & Brian Blessed his strong right arm Exeter. Paul Scofield (Thomas More in 'A Man for All Seasons') plays the ancient French king, Charles VI, & his son the Dauphin is played by Michael Maloney. This is, on the whole, a rather 'young' film, as Branagh himself was not yet 30 at the time of production, & most of his aides & friends in the play are similarly young, save for a few senior advisors. Emma Thompson, a staple in Branagh's films, plays the only significant female role, the princess Katherine, to whom Henry will be wed. Her part is almost entirely in French. Her maid, Alice, is played by Geraldine McEwan (perhaps best known from 'Mapp & Lucia').
The famous speeches here are preserved; Branagh does a fantastic job with his spirit-raising monologue for the troops prior to the battle of Agincourt, on Crispin Crispian day. The speech on horseback in the early seige of Harfleur, 'once more into the breech!' is also remarkable. The lines delivered by alll the actors are done with care & precision - Exeter's report to Henry at the opening ('tennis ballls', said with great sneer) & to the French party ('scorn', said with so much scorn the word need not be spoken) are but a few examples of this.
The film expands upon the play's use of Falstaff's companions as a comic relief, by incorporating what would be flash-back scenes from events in the Henry IV play cycle, premonitions of events currently in the play. Robbie Coltrane turns in a good performance as Falstaff; look for Judi Dench in a minor role as the Mistress, & a very young Christian Bale as the boy.
The music for the film is triumphant, foreboding & dark. This is a wonderful score produced by Patrick Doyle, known for work on other Branagh films such as 'Dead Again' & 'Much Ado about Nothing', as well as other films such as 'Indochine' & literature-based films like 'Gosford Park' & 'Great Expectations'.
Derek Jacobi, veteran Shakespearean, portrays 'Chorus', the narrator of the action, one who casts the right spirit from beginning to end, & appears throughout. There are few Shakespearean asides done by the actors here (a few under-the-breath comments that might qualify), but Jacobi's role is always directly to camera, directly to us as the spectators. The ending portrayed by Chorus is both victorious & tragic, much as the cycle of history must be.
This is a glorious film.
The anti-war war film - By: Ms. A. C. K. Starr, 17 Aug 2005 I adore this film. The acting is outstanding, particularly that of Kenneth Brannagh. The way Brannagh has adapted Shakespeare is a little bit risky, particularly when he imports a bit of another play (Henry IV) to explain how the king has "broken the heart" of Sir John Falstaff - but some explanation had to be made. He also cuts out some other stuff that a 20th century audience might not find very appealing in this King whom Shakespeare wants to practicallly canonise: like the king's order for alll French prisoners' throats to be cut at Agincourt (act IV scene 7). I think the alterations are acceptable. He leaves out one bit of gruesome dialogue I'd rather he had left in, when Henry makes a little speech to the French herald to emphasize the fact that he will not be ransomed & the only profit they'll get out of him are his "joints" (act IV scene 3). He goes on to say that any English corpses left on the field will kill twice over because "the sun shalll greet them", they'll rot & choke the air, "killing in replapse of mortality". Neat!
Shakespeare's king is an ambivalent figure, & Brannagh brings this out well, although not in quite the same way as does Shakespeare. I particularly like the scene after the battle, when Henry carries a dead boy off the field, through the scene of carnage where the muddy puddles are red with blood, passing a group of three French princes, one dead, kneeling in a way that refers to a pieta.
Shakespeare/Brannagh's Henry seeks war, but sees it as his duty. The reasons he has for seeing war as his duty relate to a particular kind of naked patriotism that does not appeal to me, but that does not detract from the attractiveness of the character: it gives a sense of "otherness", of time having moved on: & actuallly you get the feeling that Henry himself has "moved on" by the end of the film. There's a sensitive portrayal of human behaviour in the face of death. And on the eve of Agincourt, Henry has an ethical discussion with some of his soldiers: if soldiers kill on the orders of the king while doubting the justice of his cause, do they stand exempt from blame?
Oh, I do like this film!
OUTSTANDING! - By: Oxford Lewis., 11 May 2005 A brilliant achievement! You MUST see it!
It will enthralll, entertain & delight you. Make you laugh & cry.
Amazing piece of British film-making!
Well done Ken!!!
