Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Instant Favorite.

Did you people see the same film I saw?

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

If my father was alive I think he would be giddy to see this because he enjoyed Shakespeare and WW2 movies almost equally. Few household include Shakespeare plays as everyday topics, Marc Anthony's speech when drying dishes and we were fortunate. When Shakespeare questions are asked on 'University Challenge' I find myself screaming at the confused teenagers who were not so lucky.Granted, 'Coriolanus' was a favorite, but almost all of Shakespeare plays have blood pumping through them and deserve the full treatment of location, mud, costume and conflict so we can absorb the poetry of the script.This production is likely to open the door to Shakespeare for people who were not given a friendly introduction. As with Opera, some experiences open a door to appreciation and understanding. (mine was the £5 ticket to Covent Garden in 1996 because you only understand what the fuss is about when experiencing a quality, live performance)To the original audiences, the death of a king was a shocking as the JFK assassination is to us. They enjoyed the glamor, the insight and the drama inherent in power struggles, ambition, just as we do today.Season 1 - looks at how Henry IV took power, his difficulties with his son and how his son (Henry V) adjusted. Is there anything more timeless than one generation attempting to guide and train the younger? Youthful rejection of everything offered? Recognition too late that the parent was heroic and worthy of admiration?For some reason, the character of Sir John, penetrated my understanding more when watching this, than ever before. This is likely as a result of my deeper understand as a result of the passage of time.Season 2 - The third generation (Henry VI) raised without paternal guidance, struggles to keep the crown. The War of the Roses leading to bloody battle. Richard III, was to say the least, ambitious.The Hollow Crown has an excellent cast.

I have been fascinated with Shakespeare since I first read Midsummer Night's Dream nearly fifty years ago. The direction in this trilogy varies wildly. Richard II seems to have taken a cue from Marlowe's Edward II, with Whitshaw playing it as a barely closeted Michael Jackson figure (including a pet monkey). The supporting players carry the day up to the final installment, where for whatever reasons, the groundling characters were deeply excised.The huge disappointment here, for me as a lover of the Bard, is Henry V. Perhaps Branaugh's bravura and his supporting cast make it akin to comparing apples and oranges, but this version of Henry is more like a 21st century motivational speaker than a king walking the razor's edge on the road to Agincourt. The conspiracy is deleted, the wonderful groundling characters that appear at Harfleur are nearly all gone. Fluellen is parsed down to almost nothing. All the exposition of the French chevaliers idly bragging about their armor, horses and the ease with which they will destroy Henry and his army--gone. It reflects poorly on the lead and director, because in Henry IV of the series, Hiddleston does well enough as Hal. Henry IV, part one comes off as the strongest of the four, perhaps because the director knows his subject matter.What also sticks out is the amount of screen time a relatively minor character is given in Henry V. Watch it and see if you can pick him out. On the plus side, seeing Alun Armstrong and his son playing Northrumberland and Hotspur was a highlight of the series. Also, watch for James Purefoy, Geraldine Chaplin and several actors who don't usually appear in mainstream cinema. Skip Henry V of the series and watch Branagh's or Olivier's Henry. If you love Shakespeare, watching this version is a bit disappointing.

What distinguishes these hollow crown productions from their predecessors is the crystal clarity of the text as delivered by the cast – well done everyone! It is so easy to fall into the trap of believing that the text is to be delivered as verse. Twaddle! Ideas like that permeate school English classrooms where failed actors teach gullible pupils that iambic pentameters rule. No, they do not! Furthermore, good presentation of Shakespeare is so often ruined by over enthusiasm on the part of the performers. Without wishing to name names, I saw one version of "Much Ado About Nothing" where the comedy in the text was entirely lost because the director and his cast insisted on inventing and adding their own comedy instead. It is a brave man who would want to out-do Shakespeare! The ability of these Hollow Crown productions to tell the story which leads ultimately to the "Wars of the Roses" was admirable. There was so much to say – even before the "Wars" had begun. I should probably watch them all over again….! And I think I will!

When I was at school, Shakespeare was as dry as the pages it was written on. To watch it, performed by actors who really know and understand Shakespeare, and can convey that in their work, is to enter a world of majesty, of subtle innuendo, of humour and of total understanding of the work of the Shakespeare who used his gift to allow 'the common man' to discuss and understand the goings-on and political machinations of his age. There are no 'spoilers' when it comes to Shakespeare - the work is out there in a myriad of forms and interpretations, waiting to be read. This production is one of the best available. Watch it, then read the plays. Savour the words. Go back and watch the scene performed. Truly appreciate the nuance and the masterful language of the master at work. I cannot recommend this production highly enough. From the haughty, almost effete King Richard (Ben Wishaw) through Jeremy Iron's haunted Henry IV to the masterpiece of development that is Tom Hiddleston's Prince Hal, this production brings the humanity and the grandeur of the role of King and all that conveys. Get it. Watch it. Love it.