Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

film is well told , Kenneth Branagh directs and acts in the film, and he's excellent at both , he drives with competence, more emphasis is his role , he acts passionate way, the speech is chilling , and the phrases he speaks very good , Kenneth Branagh surprised me , ta great , the cast is great in this movie we have the young Christian Bale , photography is very good, and the costumes are great , the dialogues are good , and the makeup is good , the film has only a battle scene that is very good, the pace of the film is a problem , even if not so long, the dialogues are quite long , there can be tiring , and the soundtrack is a strong point of the film is very good, with a flawless performance of Kenneth Branagh , Henry V is a great movie with a great battle scene , a chilling speech and a good soundtrack. Note 9.8

Kenneth Branagh and Laurence Olivier are two men that have often been compared to one another. Both are Shakespearian actors with a love for The Bard and both made their directional debut with an adaptation of Henry V.In 1413 Henry V (Branagh) has ascended to the English throne. Worried that the King may take property from the Church The Bishop of Ely (Alec McCowen) and The Archbishop of Canterbury (Charles Kay) convince Henry V to claim the throne of France and go to war with their rival. The English storm through France, but with disease, fatigue and horrible weather Henry attempts to bring the army back to England, leading to the Battle of Agincourt.Branagh's version of Henry V has often been compared to Olivier version, for good reason. Olivier takes a more stylised approach, his art direction was routed in Medieval Art and his film started as a play and slowly become more realistic. Branagh takes a more realistic approach, setting his film in castles, halls and muddy fields and he uses darker, more natural lighting as places are lit by candles. The 1944 film was made as to be a pro-war film to help morale the British public, whilst Branagh takes a much more anti-war view, showing the horrors and hardships of Medieval war.Branagh gave a terrific performance as Henry V, someone with intensity behind him and quiet determination whilst still being able to deliver a speech. There is pain and doubt on his face as he sees the war at first hand, the death and destruction and even doubts about his mission. This is particularly the case during his monologue of self-doubt. Branagh is surrounded by talented actors, all giving excellent performances; the most surprising being Brian Blessed who is much calmer to his usual larger-than-life persona.Branagh's direction has a Kubrickian edge to it, sharing camera angles and movements and a visual look, having similar lighting and sets. There are many moments where Branagh he allows a long take when more are debating or monologuing and zones in very slowly. There is a gorgeous four minute tracking shot showing the aftermath of the battle whilst a Latin song is playing in the background.It was clear that the production was limited on the scope of the numbers of people it could, shooting very closely to mask this. But an advantage was that it show that the Battle of Agincourt was a very close, tough battle it really was as it was fought on a muddy, wet, narrow field. The 1989 version got the tactics right but the costumes wrong and the 1944 got the costumes right but the battle wrong.The 1989 Henry V is a great adaptation of one of Shakespeare's most quotable plays. It is a great realisation of the play and one of Branagh's best films.

The greatest adaptation of a Shakespearean play to the screen, Henry V, adapted by, directed by, and starring Kenneth Branagh, bridges the gap between faithful reproduction and innovative representation in an extremely exciting, most cinematic way. Branagh has certainly done his homework, and we are the benefactors of his erudition. For the most part, he has reduced Shakespeare's text to those elements which are not only screen-worthy, but the meanings of which ride easily on tone, gesture, and action, so that Shakespeare's poetic, though metaphorically dense language presents little obstacle to the understanding of the modern ear. Remaining—and out of place for such a successful transition between mediums—are unnecessary lines delivered by the Chorus (played by a fiery Derek Jacobi), which beg us to pardon the meagerness of the presentation and beseech us to use our imaginations to fill in the resulting holes. Famous lines to those familiar with the stage, but strangely redundant from within the context of a film of such high production value, grandness, and beauty—with a visual and aural realization that rises to match the quality of the bard's text. On the side of embellishment, Branagh interweaves lines, characters, and scenes from parts of Henry IV, through clever flashbacks. The purpose of this device is to summon Hal's past relationships with old friends who are now his subjects, and to elucidate the duality of Hal/Henry; for Hal was not always king, and in his younger days, he caroused with commoners, drunkards, liars, and even thieves. The effectiveness of this device varies: the hanging of Bardolph draws additional emotional impact from it, but, in spite of it and several fine, heartfelt performances, the reminiscing after Falstaff's death falls flat, since we, unlike the audience of Shakespeare's time, have not come to know and love this Sir John Falstaff through Parts 1 and 2 of Henry IV and other works. Now the betrayal of Falstaff by Hal, though moderately effective in the use of this same device, is one of the most interesting scenes in the film, as it employs a flash forward within a flashback, in which we hear Hal think what he will eventually say to Falstaff, and Falstaff responds to his disavowal. Hal's transformation into Henry V is really the heart of Shakespeare's story, as it requires him to sever connections to his "wilder days" in order to lead his countrymen in worldly pursuits. Branagh's handling of it is quite remarkable. Branagh's own acting performance as the title character is smart and passionate, commanding and stirring. It does suffer slightly from that same ailment that afflicts other zealous students of Shakespeare: he knows his lines so well that they, at times, lose their spontaneity and/or authenticity. That penetrating knowledge, which detracts slightly from his performance, overcompensates as an asset to his bold, definitive adaptation and assured direction. Additional assets are an unforgettably powerful score by Patrick Doyle and a solid surrounding cast, which includes Paul Scofield (as King Charles VI of France), Brian Blessed, Ian Holm, Judi Dench, Emma Thompson, and a young Christian Bale. Most notable among the supporting players are Robert Stephens as Auncient Pistol and Christopher Ravenscroft, who, as Montjoy, turns a messenger part into a key role through his earnest, telling reactions to both Henry and the French Dauphin.

A Good "Televised" Play (i.e. a British film) For a master class on adapting Shakespeare to cinema you need to watch Akira Kurosawa's seminal "Throne of blood".This film is entertaining, but it's not cinema it's a very long TV drama (if you liked the BBC's Robin Hood series you'll love this).For anyone who's coming to Shakespeare for the first time I'd recommend Olivier's version. It's not a 'complete' version of the play, but it has the wit, subtlety and invention missing in Branagh. Olivier is much truer to the spirit of Shakespeare - it's playful and funny in parts (for example the lovely scene where Catherine is learning English). Most importantly Olivier brings out the beauty of Shakespears words (the spine tingling soliloquy in Henry's nighttime tour of the camp?).Branagh's version is neither a film or a play. It unfortunately the throttling of language for dramatic effect. Drowned in muzak and delivered with holly-pine-wood whispers or "You slag!" shouting. And kicks the crap out of the language with odd action film stresses and punctuations. Making the whole play difficult to listen to and understand.There's nothing playful or subtle about it - it's wall to wall drama - which inevitably gets a bit tedious after a while. The lines seem to be there more for pulling faces than for pleasure. A bit like being server a steak you really wanted to tuck into, but cant as someone's covered it in tomato sauce and half a pound of salt.Although there are some funny bits e.g.Derek Jacobi doing Marty DiBergi "introduction to Spinal Tap" at the start.It's also very 80's (e.g. Branagh's hair cut) - When he's asked if he's Cornishman I half expected him to answer, "No I am from Hampstead"Derek Jacobi (with thespian scarf) on the White Cliff of Dover doing Michael Palin's Ripping Yarns "You know, I think it was G.K. Chesterton, who once said..." (Tomkinson's schooldays)Required watching I imagine for all those poor high school students who are forced to learn Shakespeare...(I award it 1 only to try and introduce some sanity to the overall rating. As an adaptation of Shakespeare - 6.5/10. As a general film - 6/10. as a serious cinematic film - 1/10)