Load of rubbish!!

Expected more

Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

This film is an adaptation of a play written by William Shakespeare, and was the cinematographic debut of Kenneth Branagh. Although the purists continue to think that cinema is no place for Shakespeare, Branagh has shown that they're wrong. This film does full justice to Shakespeare's text, keeping dialogues with a fairly small margin of modification. Of course this is a risk, in cinema adaptations are truly imperative, but the fact is that there were very few moments when I felt the spoken text getting heavy, boring or left over. So it was worked well.The focus here is the military incursion that Henry V of England makes on French soil, determined to end the Hundred Years War by joining the French and English crowns over his head. By exploiting the weakness of the French king, Charles VI, who suffered from dementia, and the little military experience of the Dauphin (future Charles VII), the English succeeded in defeating a numerically superior force in the Battle of Agincourt and forcing a highly favorable peace in 1415, by the marriage of the English king with the daughter of the French king and an agreement, in which both crowns would be inherited by the first son to be born of this marriage. Of course, as we know, this union would never happen... Henry V dies too early, his heir is crowned in diapers and a girl, Joan of Arc, would provoke a decisive turnaround that guaranteed the breaking of these agreements and protected French independence.The film is visually great and historically accurate, both in the choice of sets and in the making of costumes, which are excellent. For me, the battle and the final scenes were the best part of the film. I liked the way the battle was recreated by the great historical care shown, and to avoid falling into the error of appealing to English patriotism. War is never good for anyone. The only people who can find war a good thing are those who have never seen one, or who expect to profit at their expense. Thus, some nostalgia is felt here, especially in the scenes in which the dead are buried. The rest of the film is also good, but dark scenarios and somewhat hazy cinematography didn't help. Branagh reserved the main role for himself and shone with a very good performance. Judy Dench was wonderful too, but this veteran is almost always flawless. Derek Jacobi masterfully secured the role of narrator.

Pathetic attempt to match Olivier's 1944 masterpiece. Not quite as dreadful as Kenneth's later abysmal Hamlet, but sufficiently dire to be given a deliberate miss. From the moment you see a retarded teenager, just out of his egg, with lipstick and a comic modern haircut, shifting uneasily on his throne, you know you're in for a disaster. The enthusiasm for this appalling mess totally mystifies me. One truly good part was performed by the French herald, Montjoy, who actually dignified his role. The only other respectable part was played by Scofield, a genuine actor, as the French King. This could not be said of Branagh, who misdelivered and massacred every one of his speeches. Didn't he understand what he was shouting ? The flashbacks with Falstaff were simply grotesque. The pub regulars, Bardolph, Pistol, Nym, etc, resembled fugitives from a leper's colony. Brian Blessed came on as some sort of metal monster robot escaped out of Gotham City. Was he having Branagh on ? The remaining members of the tatterdemalion English contingent looked like a makeshift street-gang of undernourished jailbirds. Jacobi was adequate as the chorus, no more.The battle scenes were meaningless, ludicrous and interminable. Incredibly difficult to understand what was going on, but the English foot soldiers apparently charged headlong into the massed French cavalry. After that, the archers sent showers of arrows into the carnage. Fortunately, the arrows managed to pick out all the French, and spare the English. Remarkable; perhaps the shafts were fitted with special sensors. Although the comparative statistics of the slaughter were read out in the aftermath, there was no indication whatsoever of how these staggering figures had been achieved. The Olivier version indicated very clearly that it was the archers who had decisively won the day, long before there was any hand-to-hand fighting. And what about the ridiculous purse-stealing in the middle of the melée ? This wasn't Shakespeare. There's some sort of generation gap in connection with the praise heaped on Sir Kenneth Branagh. I just don't get it.

Yes, the acting is powerful; the costumes are very well done; the scenery is stunning; but can anyone understand what they are saying? The dialog is directly from Shakespeare and so it makes listening tortuous. No, I am not saying it is not artistic or not beautiful to listen to. If you know Shakespeare, you know that each sentence he wrote was replete with archaic and unending symbolic meanings. For example: "'Couple a gorge!' That is the word. I thee defy again. O hound of Crete, think'st thou my spouse to get? No; to the spital go, and from the powdering tub of infamy fetch forth the lazar kite of Cressid's kind, Doll Tearsheet she by name, and her espouse: I have, and I will hold, the quondam Quickly; For the only she; and-- pauca, there's enough. Go to." Can you understand this before the next person speaks in similar convolutions? So, when watching the movie, you stumble constantly trying to understand the ancient speech. It also does not help that the French speak with English accents, the English whom they despised utterly.

The gritty adaption of William Shakespeare's play about the English King's bloody conquest of France.Why is Kenneth Branagh so amazing? He has single-handedly brought classic literature to the screen in its best form. He does Shakespeare (again and again) flawlessly, and even offered a strong interpretation of Frankenstein. For those in the United Kingdom, he should be seen as a national treasure."Henry V" is probably not among Shakespeare's best known works. Yes, it has been put on screen a few times and has been performed on stage countless times more. But how many know the basic plot as well as we know "Hamlet" or "MacBeth"? Branagh gives us a reason to care about this historic figure that seems all-but-forgotten. That, and he cast a young Christian Bale, so that is pretty cool.