User Reviews (73)

Add a Review

  • When I saw this movie at age 13 or so, I was terribly disappointed because it was clear that this is the third part in the story. Henry IV Part 1 and Part 2 come before this play, and they tell the story of Sir John Falstaff and his friendship with Prince Hal ( who is Henry V in this play.) The first two plays also introduce Nym, Bardolph, Pistol, and Mistress Quickly. Unfortunately, this play starts after Falstaff has been banished and Prince Hal has become King.

    This play is a lot of fun, but it's very frustrating if you haven't read the earlier plays. There are so many poignant (or funny) moments that point backwards. Even the pretend audience at the beginning seems to feel that they want Falstaff back! The best acting moments in this movie are all scenes where the lower characters remember Falstaff and mourn his death.

    Of course, there are some heroic battles and speeches in this movie, but looking back after forty years they don't seem as impressive as when I was 13. The great battle is actually over fairly quickly. And a lot of the later scenes drag, like when Captain Fluellen makes Pistol eat his leek. This is played as very bad slapstick when it's actually very violent and brutal in the play.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Laurence Olivier made this movie during World War II. He wanted it to be a propaganda movie, and unfortunately this is still visible. His Henry is a king and war hero shining in perfect light. All the rough edges and darker points of Shakespeare's original play are left out: We don't see how Bardolph is hanged, Henry doesn't kill his French prisoners in retribution for the attack on his camp, and Pistol is actually looking forward to becoming a pimp and cut-purse in England again. All this makes the movie a bit too simple-minded and one-dimensional.

    But apart from that, both Olivier's acting and directing are good. Especially the opening is very innovative: It takes place in a theater, the story is presented as a real play. This gives room for comments on Elisabethean theater and interaction with the audience - look for instance how they react whenever Falstaff is mentioned. Unfortunately this angle is lost later on and the movie continues in a more conventional fashion.

    All in all a classic certainly worth watching, but it won't hurt to check out Kenneth Branagh's version as well for a more balanced view on the original play.
  • It's a splendid rendering based on Shakespeare play with a nice staging , dealing with the warrior king Henry V and his grand victory at the battle of Agincourt on St. Crispin's Day, October 15, 1415 . The movie begins with an ingenious initiation , the camera from a first general shot on the background lead us until a foreground where some actors are playing at the Glove theater in 1600 , then several dramatic scenes take place and eventually going back to the Globe for the final scenes . The film is alrightly based on historic events well made by filmmaker and star Sir Laurence Olivier. They are the following ones : Henry V vanquishes Charles VI in Agincourt (1415) and took over Normandy . Charles VI of France signs Troyes treatise in what Henry V is wedded to Charles's daughter . His descendant Heny VI of England will proclaim himself King of France but Charles VII (anterior Delphin) will be crowned king of France in Reims and the ¨100 years war¨ going on until 1453 (date of downfall Byzance).Grand staging of the Shakespearean play of King Henry V .

    This is the first of three principal movies directed by Laurence Olivier along with ¨Hamlet¨ and ¨Richard III¨ based on Shakespeare plays . It's an astounding , stirring , stunning and thoughtful film with glimmer , glittering , colorful cinematography and splendid costume . Partly intended as a wartime morale-booster for the British . Certain parts of the play were consequently omitted , such as Henry's hanging of a friend as an example of firm justice . Laurence Olivier won a honorary and special Oscar for his producing , directing and acting in bringing English history part to vivid life of the screen made with pageantry and perfection . The excellent secondary cast is completed with usual players of the English stage theater and films with important careers : Leo Genn (Quo Vadis) , Leslie Banks (Jamaica inn) , Robert Newton (Treasure's island) , Ralph Truman (El Cid) , Felix Aylmer (Ivanhoe) , Ernest Thesiger (Bride of Frankestein) , Neal McGinnis (Jason and the Argonauts) , Freda Jackson (Brides of Dracula). The especial departments are outstanding , thus : Robert Furse in wardrobe and costumes , the classical musician William Walton and the photographer of superproductions Robert Krasker . Rating : Good and notable . Well worth seeing.
  • Laurence Olivier's production of Shakespeare's Henry V adds some creative and colorful touches to Olivier's usual fine performance in the lead role. Like the play itself, it's not as deep as the best of Olivier's Shakespeare films, but it works quite well and is an entertaining movie.

    In the early scenes, the movie combines the play itself with a very detailed look at how the play would have been staged in Shakespeare's own day. It's very interesting, and is nicely done. It takes advantage of the slower parts in the early scenes to draw attention to the stage, the players, and the crowd, giving you a very good feel for what the theater was like then. Olivier also uses this device to liven up considerably the long historical discourse of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the play's second scene.

    After the early scenes, when the real action begins, the movie wisely pulls away from the theater setting and concentrates on the story itself. Olivier is always good in this kind of role, and the photography and settings do a good job of setting off the action. It is noticeable, though, that Olivier chose to omit several scenes or portions of scenes that have some of the commands showing Henry's harsher characteristics, so that the movie concentrates much more on the king's heroic side. What's left still works fine, but it does lose a little depth without this balance. The rest of the cast is certainly adequate, though most of them are overshadowed by Henry. A couple of the exceptions are Robert Newton, very well cast as Pistol, and Esmond Knight, who works well as Fluellen.

    Some minor aspects may keep it from being one of the best Shakespeare adaptations, but it's creative, distinctive, and good entertainment. You can rarely go wrong with anything that combines Olivier and Shakespeare.
  • This is a brilliantly conceived movie-within-a-play-within-a-movie that showcases the genius of Laurence Olivier. Today's audiences are exposed mainly to Olivier the movie actor. But if you want to see a purer form of acting, see Olivier the stage actor. This is possible by watching his Shakespeare plays on film. And these films are by Olivier the "auteur," long before the term was coined. Olivier's is the legacy to which Branaugh and others, who essay Shakespeare on film, must live up to.

    And lest you're expecting a camera pointed at a stage, don't worry. Olivier, who produced and directed most of his Shakespeare films, has actually used the film medium to enlarge his plays' visual scope, while maintaining the intimacy that is the essence of live theatre. Also, Olivier is mindful of how daunting the language of Shakespeare is for modern audiences and has modified much of the original script to be more comprehensible, while preserving the feel of Elizabethan English.

    Olivier's "Henry V" was to England what Eisentein's "Ivan the Terrible" was to Russia — a familiar history rendered as a national epic, for morale purposes, while audiences were fighting off the Germans during World War II. There are other parallels. For example, both use static, formalized composition, in Henry V's case meant to resemble the images in medieval illuminated manuscripts and books of Hours. (In Ivan's case, according to Pauline Kael, like Japanese Kabuki.) Thus, a sound stage "exterior" backdrop becomes a tableau that serves to enhance, with its flat perspective and subjective scale, the view we have of that fabulous Age of Chivalry for which the play's Battle of Agincourt was the closing act.

    I've always scoffed at the extravagant accolades which show business gives its own. But after seeing this film, or his equally brilliant "Hamlet," I can understand why Laurence Olivier was so good, that a knighthood wasn't enough, and so he was raised to the peerage.
  • RARubin7 April 2005
    I saw a modern remake of this film, 1989, recently with Kenneth Branagh. The battle showed sweat and blood, a non-theatrical production in comparison to this 1944, very theatrical, Olivier production. Some reviewers denounce the heavy-handed acting of 1944, but I find it charming.

    Olivier has an economical charisma. His acting has few flourishes, but his voice says everything. Olivier in period costume is mesmerizing. As Shakespeare's bad-boy prince turned earnest King, Olivier takes charge and demands the return of English lands from the rather effeminate French nobility. Outnumbered 10 to one, his merry band of Englishmen dispatches the Dolphin at Agincourt. Then he courts the French speaking princess Katherine with broken French and economy.

    The recreation of old London and the Globe Theatre was delightful. The audience and players went on in heavy rains without complaint. The mention of Falstaff's name is enough to get applause, though the buffoon has only a short death scene.

    I do believe the play has been abridged. Many of the longer speeches seem shortened. Still, this is accessible Shakespeare. How can you go wrong? Never!
  • The film precisely met the requirement to raise moral of Englishmen during the Second World War: it is cheering and inspiring. But in fact it is more than just a patriotic propaganda. Henry V, though made during the war, is an excellent beginning of the series of Olivier's Shakespearean films. I really like it as much as later Hamlet and Richard III. May be the play doesn't seem very distinguished when you read it, but the screen-version becomes exciting, complex and brilliant. It has the amusing beginning (clever allusion to medieval Shakespearean theatre), heroic main part (without unnecessary battle details) and touching happy ending (the scene of Henry wooing Princess Katharine moves me every time I watch it). Lord Laurence is so noble as the King Henry! You can really feel his inspiration and share his emotions. Whenever Olivier's a producer, it's his habit to focus the audience's attention mostly on the main character. Sometimes I think his selection of plays for filming was determined by the amount of time his hero must be on the stage. Well, to say the truth, it's perfectly justified! There never was and never will be any Shakespearean actor comparable to Laurence Olivier! His performance is superb. In the part of Henry the Fifth he is absolutely fascinating, far above any real monarch in dignity, nobility and attractiveness. In fact the whole film is fascinating and picturesque. Princess Katharine is very charming and adequate, and other actors are well chosen too. The way English actors pronounce Shakespearean text is always more natural and expressive than the way of any other nation's actors, distinguished as they may be. I dare say that Englishmen understand something about Shakespeare that we can't get. Anyone who truly estimates Shakespeare must love this film.
  • Olivier's conceit of beginning the performance as if performed in the Globe Theater in Shakespeare's time (even depicting the actors backstage), and gradually expanding out to the "real world" works both for and against the film. While it is interesting and educational to see what the experience might have been like for an Elizabethen audience and the performers, it is ultimately slow-paced and distracting from the real story.

    The film becomes more engaging once we move out of the theater. However, even then, the general style of acting is too broad, and is more suited for the stage. That is why I'm surprised to see this version rated only a few tenths of a point lower than Kenneth Branagh's vastly superior 1989 production of Henry V.
  • Previous to this film, Laurence Olivier had only one experience with Shakespeare on the screen, 1936's As You Like It. It was not a work that Olivier was terribly proud of. He did determine right there that if he were to do Shakespeare again, he would have complete creative control. Olivier did just that, on this film and every other filmed adaption of the Bard that he was involved in.

    Olivier's desire happily coincided with Winston Churchill's desire to make some good British propaganda for the war effort. Churchill was fond of what he called Shakespeare's "war plays" and Henry V definitely qualifies in that category. He gave Olivier whatever logistical help he needed and remember a war was on. Even to the extent of arranging with Eamon DeValera permission for Olivier to bring the entire Henry V crew to the Irish Republic so that the outdoor scenes could be filmed away from Nazi bombardment.

    Olivier chooses an interesting method of introducing the play. It opens with a scene of 16th century London at the Globe Theatre at the opening night. The play begins with Leslie Banks as the Chorus reading the introduction and the first scenes are filmed as simply a photographed stage play. After that first scene at Henry V at his court, spitting defiance at the French herald and having his retainers go through an elaborate justification for his claim to the French throne. We then as the Chorus bids us have our imagination take flight until the end of the play when it returns to the stage this time with Henry V marrying the French princess and sealing his claim to their throne.

    I believe what Olivier wanted to do was show the play through two sets of eyes. He wants the audience to imagine they are in Elizabethan England watching the events of a century before and know that things looked pretty grim then for England and they pulled out of it.

    The battle scenes at Harfleur and at Agincourt are nicely staged and photographed. Olivier's Henry V is a strong and virile leader, convinced of the rightness of his cause and he has the confidence in himself as military leader to see it through. Kind of like the Prime Minister who was in office then.

    Certainly in the Middle Ages the high point of English arms was at Agincourt. It was truly one lopsided victory, English long-bowmen against French knights. The French cavalry was truly decimated on that day and a lot of their nobility was killed. And the French were the betting favorites.

    Seen today though it's a bit different. The Hundred Years War, and this was the second phase of it, was quite frankly a naked war of aggression by the English to obtain the French throne. In 1944 audiences thrilled to remember this impressive feet of arms by the English, but the reasons were kind of glossed over.

    Still Henry V is an impressive motion picture and I'm sure it did what it set out to do, be a morale booster for the English public. Among other performers I liked in this were Robert Newton as the ancient Pistol and Leslie Banks as the chorus and Valentine Dyall as the Duke of Burgundy.

    But I would wager that Charles DeGaulle was not invited to the premier showing of Henry V.
  • SnoopyStyle27 August 2020
    Starting at the Globe Playhouse in London, the audience watches the play being performed. As the play leaves London, the setting expands into the wider world. It has the iconic Saint Crispin's Day speech. The battle has lots of men, lots of horses, and lots of archers. It is brightly colored. Laurence Olivier plays King Henry V. The disappointing part is the battle action. There is no doubt that some expense was given. There are lots of extras in war costumes. The horses are impressive. It's just not shot that well. Worst of all, I really hate the archers charging into the fray. Individual archers would never do that. It doesn't have the grit to be intense. It needs a bit of Hollywood magic. Hollywood westerns do much better action. There are no stunts and no thrills. Now, it does have Sir Laurence Olivier doing Shakespeare. That is worth a ton and he's breathing new life into what was probably stodgy source material. I just wish that he has some action expert to spice up the final battle.
  • Even glowing reviews of Olivier's "Henry V" acknowledge that this movie is a simplified, stripped-down version of the classic play; the morally ambiguous elements of Henry's character have been hacked out, and the story has been made more aggressively patriotic to appeal to a World War II audience.

    Well...OK...but ain't that rather a big problem? I mean to ask, what's so great about seeing Shakespeare doctored up into war propaganda? Certainly, the original play was somewhat patriotic and gung-ho, but it also contained moral gray area, which is eliminated here. Hence, this is an inferior adaptation that waters down its source material.

    OK, so there's no denying that this movie is cleverly staged. The opening scenes set in the Globe are pretty imaginative, and there's an energy to the pacing that works. But still, so many elements strike a false note. Olivier, for instance, seems to shout out his lines without subtlety, as though trying too hard to generate excitement.

    I also don't really like the look of the film. The Globe scenes work fine, but once Olivier leaves the theater, the action is staged on large but incredibly fake-looking sets. The whole production looks too phony, too clean, too sanitized. Henry doesn't get a splatter of mud or a drop of blood on himself in the battle. It's all ridiculously pristine, and safe, and not at all daring. In short, it's "feel-good" Shakespeare.

    Kenneth Branagh's 1989 film version is, to be perfectly blunt, almost infinitely better than this movie. It's grittier, darker, and closer to the original play (including the moral gray area). By comparison, the Olivier version looks like "March of the Wooden Soldiers." Don't get me wrong, I usually love 1940s movies because I think they have better scripts than contemporary films - but, I make an exception for literary adaptations, which tend to be more faithful and more powerful today than ever before. Thus, the 1980s Henry V can indeed be better than its '40s counterpart.

    To me, this film is best understood in the context of World War II. As a wartime production, it's impressive - but it remains tied to that period, and therefore it is fundamentally dated. The original play, on the other hand, is timeless.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    So great is Laurence Olivier's reputation as an actor, that it is easy to forget that he was also a director, albeit of only five films, the last of which is rather obscure. His main achievements as a director lie in his three Shakespeare adaptations, beginning with 1944's Henry V, or, The Chronicle History of King Henry the Fifth with His Battell Fought at Agincourt in France to give the film its full on-screen title.

    Olivier started his career on the stage and reportedly had a lukewarm attitude to cinema early on in his film career. So it is doubly remarkable that given the opportunity to bring Henry V to the screen he did so in such a striking fashion. It starts off as filmed theatre, and then sees Olivier shift to making a film within a play within a film. Ingeniously, the film opens with what is essentially a framing sequence in which Shakespeare's new play Henry V is performed at the Globe theatre in 1600, interspersed with sequences of the play's story in the build up to the Battle of Agincourt. It thus manages to literally be filmed theatre (to the extent that we see behind the scenes costume changes and actors prompting each other when they miss their cues), whilst transcending that to exploit the cinematic medium. The play is initially badly performed, with Felix Aylmer's "Archbishop of Canterbury" dropping his script all over the stage, forgetting his lies and causing the audience to roar with laughter.

    Winston Churchill ordered Olivier to make the film a morale boost for the British public near the end of World War II, and so Oliver omits some of Shakespeare's nastier actions attributed to the king when he adapted Shakespeare's script with Dallas Bower and Alan Dent and the result is resolutely patriotic portrayal, in keeping with Churchill's desires. In contrast to Oliver's subsequent dark, introspective, expressionist Hamlet, this is bright, bold and brash and filmed in glorious Technicolor. The British Government partly funded the production, and it shows in the lavish sets and brightly coloured costumes. The opening model shot has aged surprisingly well; it's obviously a model, but it's impressively detailed.

    This strange hybrid of theatre and film uses many of the tools of the latter, with cinematography from Jack Hildyard and Robert Krasker that makes use of tracking shots, aerial shots and wide-angles that would be impossible on the stage. We also get use of voiceovers when Henry is reflecting, instead of him speaking his lines aloud, a conceit that Olivier would reuse in Hamlet. There is even occasional use of special effects. In contrast to the largely stage-bound scenes of the play within the film, the actual recreation of the Battle of Agincourt is shot on location in Ireland and features hundreds of locals as extras, some providing their own horses. It's impressively staged and shot, with a lengthy scene of cavalry galloping into battle, the camera keeping pace with them as they do so. The camera at times gets into the thick of battle; by this point, the film has entirely burst the boundaries of what could be achieved in a theatre, all accompanied by a rousing classical score by composer Sir William Walton.

    The film's visual flair shouldn't detract from the performances. In the midst of demonstrating for the first time that he was a better film director than anyone might have expected, Olivier also demonstrates how to perform Shakespeare like a master, with the aid of a cast of British stage and screen luminaries of the time that includes Felix Aylmer, Max Adrian and Robert Newton. The film reportedly ran for nearly a year in London and broke numerous records and it is easy to see why: this is not just an example of how to successfully bring Shakespeare to a cinema audience; it is a masterpiece of cinema.
  • jboothmillard9 September 2009
    Warning: Spoilers
    I had seen the Kenneth Branagh remake prior to this original, but I can see why this is considered a film to put in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, from producer and debuting director Lord Sir Laurence Olivier. Based on the play by William Shakespeare, the film starts in London's Globe Theatre with the story of the film being seen as a play, with King Henry V of England (Oscar nominated Olivier) hearing that his country face war against France. Then after thirty minutes it goes into the epic cinematic mode where the youthful monarch proves his ability as a skillful leader and soldier for his army going to Agincourt. Henry and the French court try to bring peace, and he woos Princess Katharine (Renée Asherson) as he was betrothed to her anyway as part of the peace agreement, and all is settled in the end, going back to the play set-up. Also starring Robert Newton as Ancient Pistol, Leslie Banks as Chorus, Esmond Knight as Fluellen, Leo Genn as The Constable of France, Ralph Truman as Mountjoy - The French Herald, Harcourt Williams as King Charles VI of France, Ivy St. Helier as Alice, Ernest Thesiger as Duke of Berri - French Ambassador, Max Adrian as The Dauphin, Francis Lister as Duke of Orleans, Valentine Dyall as Duke of Burgundy, Russell Thorndike as Duke of Bourbon, Michael Shepley as Gower, John Laurie as Jamy, Niall MacGinnis as Macmorris, Felix Aylmer as Archbishop of Canterbury, Nicholas Hannen as Duke of Exeter, Robert Helpmann as Bishop of Ely, Freda Jackson as Mistress Quickly, Jimmy Hanley as Williams and George Robey as Sir John Falstaff. Both the direction and the leading performance by Olivier are very good, the idea of opening in the play format is quite clever, and the battle sequence is a good bit of spectacle for the slightly confusing dialogue, a colourful classic historical drama. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Art Direction-Interior Decoration, Best Music for William Walton, the Honorary Award for outstanding achievement as actor, producer and director for Olivier, and Best Picture. Very good!
  • aar4-951-4202323 July 2011
    1/10
    Awful
    This is an awful movie, really just awful. No one who has seen Kenneth Branagh's masterful Henry V (1988) can watch this turkey without cringing. For starters, the characters of Canterbury and Ely are such bumbling fools that they completely eviscerate Henry's reliance on churchly assurances that the war is just. At Harfleur, the film omits Henry's frightening "shrill-shrieking maidens, naked infants spitted upon pikes" speech. It also omits Henry's confrontation with Masham, Scroop and Gray (which Branagh does brilliantly), and turns Henry's court into a parade of fops. The French king is a weak-minded fool, and the soldiers appear to have been taken directly from a Laurel and Hardy movie. Really, it's awful. Yes, it was a propaganda film for the Brits in 1944, but still -- if you want the real Henry, bypass this and go for Branagh's masterpiece.
  • What an intelligent film!!! I loved its stage-y quality--The good-humored recreation of a performance in Shakespeare's time with the audience so fully engaged, laughing at jokes we don't understand (e.g., the machinations of churchmen). I loved the details and sense of history--the sets inspired by medieval illuminations and the score by William Walton. The tight script and directing bring out the complexity of the play. Unlike other reviewers, I'd rate it higher than Branagh's more visceral, contemporary version though I can see why some might find this one pallid. It doesn't have a modern feel, and this style of acting Shakespeare feels dated to me--I've grown accustomed to naturalism. Overall, I appreciate that it is many-layered and distinctively English. I hope it accomplished its worthy goal of raising morale during the WWII.
  • It's perhaps surprising that when people from a theatrical background turn to film directing, they tend to produce pictures that are purely cinematic and freed from staginess. This is the case with Laurence Olivier, as it was with Rouben Mamoulian and Orson Welles. Here, with his debut feature as director, Olivier not only created a landmark propaganda film, but also redefined the screen Shakespeare adaptation and established a new precedent of renowned actor turning competent director.

    Shakespeare's play of Henry V was of course ideal for a wartime morale booster, featuring as it does heroic action, rousing speeches, historical parallels with the landings at France, a protagonist who is valiant yet warm and humane, as well as plenty of little extra touches such as exploring the psychology of the troops on the eve of battle and stressing the need for unity between English, Irish, Scotch and Welsh. It was also the perfect play for Olivier to test his ideas on how a Shakespeare play should be turned into a film. The chorus of Shakespeare's original text tells the audience that the great battles and courts can scarcely be contained on a stage and that you must "on your imaginative forces work". Using this idea as his starting point, Olivier begins the film with a recreation of a contemporary production of the original play at the Globe theatre, complete with backstage glimpses, bumbling actors and a rowdy Elizabethan audience. Then, as Leslie Banks' chorus commands the audience to "work your thoughts", the theatre disappears, and the action subtly opens out into larger sets. Eventually, we are transported to location with thousands of extras for the climactic battle scene.

    This was not only a complete reworking of screen Shakespeare, it was part of a whole approach to cinema. Olivier's Henry V, although totally different in content, is stylistically in the same tradition as Michael Powell's The Red Shoes or the elaborate ballet sequences of MGM musicals, which also expand would-be stage performances into pure cinematic fantasy. The originator of this approach was probably Busby Berkeley, who also made the switch from stage to screen, albeit from the music hall to the role of choreographer for screen musicals. The musical sequences that Berkeley constructed for Warner Brothers musicals in the mid-1930s always begin with a stage production, but then turn into tour-de-forces of choreography, camera positioning and massive sets, all of which could never be contained or properly appreciated on a stage. Olivier is effectively doing the same thing with a Shakespeare play as Berkeley did with a dancing chorus line.

    Of course, all this alone isn't what makes Henry V a great work. For a first-time director Olivier's eye is remarkably sharp. He keeps the action smooth in dialogue scenes by making use of long takes, and preferring to move the camera to change the framing rather than breaking the shot with a cut, often dollying in on a single actor to achieve a close-up. He's not quite experienced enough yet though to give these shots a really natural flow, and he doesn't really get the chance to show off his talents as a dramatic director as he would later in Hamlet and Richard III. Having said that, he does manage to give remarkable tenderness to Henry's soliloquy on the eve of battle and his courtship of Kate towards the end of the film.

    The highpoint however is the impressive Agincourt battle sequence, which was influenced by the battle in Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky, but is actually an improvement on the Russian master's equivalent work. He similarly builds up tension as the opposing army begins its charge, using a rhythmic editing pattern and dynamic close-ups. However, whereas Alexander Nevsky's battle occasionally looked obviously staged and unrealistic, in Henry V you could as well be witnessing a genuine medieval battle.

    Olivier selected a top notch cast composed of actors with theatre experience like himself, with exuberant performances from Robert Newton as the cowardly Pistol and Esmond Knight as Welsh captain Fluellen, and too many other great names to mention. Olivier himself, after a decade of learning how to act for screen, perhaps relished the chance to give huge, concert-hall-filling Shakespearean delivery again, although he does manage to rein his performance in again for the quieter scenes.

    Henry V is remarkable for a director's debut feature. Olivier would direct two more prestigious Shakespeare adaptations, as well as a few dramas, but Henry V is his freshest and most engaging work as a director, and still remains the best.
  • Laurence Olivier's wartime flag-waver graduates from tiny stage to stylised sets to sprawling battlefield as he breathes life into Shakespeare's tale of how the titular monarch led a band of hopelessly outnumbered footsoldiers to victory against the French at Agincourt. A difficult watch for anyone not versed in deciphering Shakespeare's ancient prose, but the battle itself is something to behold. Sadly, the film limps along for a further half-hour to show Henry's wooing of Katherine once the fighting is over.
  • Now that we have a fairly long history of quality Shakespeare in the movies, I believe it's fair to compare this film to others, as many have already done. But I'll skip comparisons to the young Kenneth Branagh. What I would like to emphasize is the social importance here, both originally and with this 1944 production.

    This play was written to celebrate a great English hero, and to stir up patriotism for a profit. (Shakespeare was a successful businessman.) The movie was made for the same reasons, and its value is in how well it accomplishes them.

    It's very valuable.

    The film was conceived and made in some dark times for England, and the production occasionally had to stop because of enemy bombers overhead. It could have been thrown off a lot more cheaply and had the same commercial return, but instead Lord Olivier presented a stylish, inspiring, entertaining epic of heroism. I really, really enjoyed the play-within-a-play motif: it was wonderfully fun to see the Globe and the playgoers of the day. I found the acting to be fully satisfying, all the way from a hilarious Robert Newton (he was never this funny anywhere else) as Pistol to Leslie Banks nearly stealing the show as (only) the Chorus. Bravura performances all around--at least from the males, since I have to fast-forward the love scene with Kate.

    I also appreciated the action scenes, the color and spectacle--and let's face it, the way Lord Olivier could rip off the St Crispian's speech! So, what we have is a wonderful slice of history, expertly presented. Really good Shakespeare.
  • This picture really makes an effort to make this play interesting for you.

    Its gimmicky presentation does not eclipse the substance of the movie and provides a wonderfully immersive experience, first invoking the atmosphere of the Globe Theatre back in the day with vivid detail before gradually phasing into a a powerful picture of war with the rose tinted glasses of patriotism.

    I don't know if that's what the play was meant to be about but as someone cynical about war and patriotism, even I found something engaging in this portrait of a King who went above and beyond for his land and his people, with wit and charisma.

    Production is lavish too.
  • I watched both of Olivier's and Branagh's versions of Henry V and can't believe there would be any debate that Olivier's is the BEST!!! To newer generations, Branagh might be more alluring in more sophisticated technical cinematic special-effects but Olivier's version is much more in line with what "The Bard" had in mind. I have read reviews by peers of my own generation (I am in my early 30's) and constantly hear a critique of Olivier as appearing too "stagey". COME ON PEOPLE, Shakespeare IS ALLLLLLL ABOUT "THE STAGE"--and the interaction of that Stage with a theatrical audience--after-all, Shakespeare was not meant to be viewed in MEGA-CINEPLEX 10-- I think that Branagh's version falls short exactly because it takes it off the stage and tries to make it into a movie..it truly loses something in the process. Olivier's brilliance is that no one/BAR NONE had a more comprehensive command over Shakespeare's language, intonation, and intention in acting, which is perhaps exactly why-to this day-his vision was so "right-on" as a director. With Branagh, I was always aware I was watching a film whereas with Olivier, I became so absorbed in the play that I forgot what medium I was watching it through. This is extraordinarily helped by the fact that Olivier really puts this in historical context for us-i.e, opens his film up ON THE STAGE OF THE 16th century GLOBE THEATRE...he takes us down from an aerial view (with the surrounding architecture of a 16th century English hamlet) into the intimacies of the stage, behind the stage, and ultimately the "players" interaction with the almost bawdy 16th century audience -whose permission to imagine/visualize the story they were about to weave before our eyes was humbly asked of its participants common audience.) Olivier also reminds us (through this) that though today we tend to relegate Shakespeare to "high-fallutin' types, thus preempting the fact that the audience of the day and age was anything but-which really humanizes the experience for us-makes it more tangible-Shakespeare was (at the time) truly written FOR and given permission to exist BY "the more common masses". Even Branagh's revisionist version of Henry V had to acknowledge Olivier's brilliance in this transition between theatrical illusion and audience acknowledgment except Branagh uses the much darker interior of a Hollywood-like studio, which though it might make it more accessible for a younger audience more accustomed to movies than theater (in my opinion) falls short of giving us the true ambiance of how Shakespeare was intended to be seen. BUT THE TRUE SUCCESS OF OLIVIER'S SUBSEQUENT EXECUTION of the play is that he VERY SEAMLESSLY transitions off the stage and into the countryside of England, crossing the English Channel to France, and finally the culminating battle of Agincourt without the viewer even being aware this has happened. But every brilliant writer knows that he must bring his subject back full circle to where it opened-and subsequently Olivier brings us back onto the stage of our 16th century Globe theater before humbly addressing the audience upon whose success or failure of the plays ability to have conjured their imaginations solely relies. Of course Olivier's "prop-technicolor- 1940's and 50's backdrops might seem too unsophisticated for a younger audience but how he executes the play (and most important) where he takes our own imaginations in the process is why this version will always provide the penultimate experience.
  • billsoccer25 September 2020
    Warning: Spoilers
    I'm not overly familiar with the play, but enjoyed the transformation from the play to the 'real' world. Love the St. Crispan day Speech (band of brothers) but the sets were amateurish. The battle scenes were little more than brief scenes which would have benefitted from better treatment. Not sure why so much time was spent on his negotiating a French bride at the end. All-in-all, a newer production could do better, perhaps dropping some of the old English which most of us can't understand.
  • The beginning of Henry V is actually pretty cool. 1500s England is shown in an aerial view-using an extensive, carefully created model set-and the audience is brought back to Shakespeare's time. The production of Henry V is being shown in the Globe Theatre, and audience members saunter inside, make small talk, buy snacks, and spit on those in the lower levels. Then, the play starts, and the audience is treated to a view of the actors getting ready for their entrances backstage. Young boys are getting prepared to play women, actors rush through costume changes, and Laurence Olivier stands in the wings, coughing, until he steps onstage. After that sequence finishes and all that's left is the dry, boring play, the movie goes downhill.

    Laurence Olivier tries to punch up the story by taking the audience away from the Globe and out onto the battlefield or inside a castle, but I just can't pay attention to Shakespeare, so it didn't really help me. My favorite actor among the cast was Leslie Banks, who seemed so authentic it was as if he'd really lived in the 1500s, even though I'd already seen him in several other films.

    Miraculously, I made it all the way through this Laurence Olivier Shakespearean drama. His Hamlet put me into a deep sleep. Unless you love the main actor and the original playwright, I wouldn't watch this one. The famous "Saint Crispin's Day" speech wasn't even very exciting. It seemed like it was the tenth take and Laurence Olivier was a little tired.
  • I don't know which out of this film from Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh's film I prefer because I do put them on an equal level. Though I am not sure whether I'd go as far to say that either film is their best overall work as director, for me Olivier's was Richard III and Branagh's was Much Ado About Nothing. If I were to make any preferences, Branagh's conveys the brutality of war more evocatively than Olivier's, which was glossed over in comparison and has the better reading of the St Crispin's Day speech, while Olivier's has the better music score and the better costumes and sets. I consider the directing and lead performances equal too. Anyway enough with the comparisons. Under review here is Olivier's film, and I have to say that it is a truly impressive one, great even, especially considering that it was Olivier's debut as director. If there is anything that I wasn't so crazy about it was Fluellen's welsh accent which didn't seem all that convincing to me. Everything else though I loved. The costumes and sets are gorgeous, really sumptuous in detail and colourful. The standout was the opening sequence. Then there is William Walton's score, which is magnificently rousing stuff, second to Walton's score for Richard III as far as I'm concerned. Shakespeare's dialogue I have always been compelled by, and it is faithful and brilliantly delivered here. In fact what I love about both Olivier and Branagh's Shakespeare films is how much they respect his writing, same with Orson Welles actually. The story here drew me right in and never bored me even with its length, the opening sequence is wonderful and while not as brutally real as in Branagh's version the battle sequence is still colourfully staged. Olivier's direction is every bit as impressive as the film, even for a first-time director, and he also gives a wonderful performance in the title role. The supporting cast, while not quite on the same level as him, are very good as well, the standouts being Robert Newton(pitch-perfect as Pistol), Esmond Knight(even with the accent, it was still a commanding performance) and Leslie Banks(often coming close to stealing the show). In conclusion, very, very good. 9/10 Bethany Cox
  • Laurence Olivier was a talented actor, producer, and director. He was the Sylvester Stallone of Shakespeare (although much better looking and capable of speaking full sentences). This is one of his finest performances, along with Hamlet four years later, which won him the Academy Award for Best Actor.

    In this film, the color print is magnificent. There must be more colors in several frames of this films than a giant box of crayola crayons. The cinematography is outstanding, and the clever editing from the Globe theater to the open fields of Agincourt are almost seamless. I choose not to compare this version with the Kenneth Branagh version of Henry V half a century later. It would be unfair to compare the two. Both are quite excellent. One exception, though. In the Branagh version, the battle is fought in a foggy rain, but in the Olivier version, it is bright and sunny. Which was the more historically correct one? I really don't know. Will have to ask Quora. Also enjoyed Robert Newton hamming it up in a few scenes that were appropriately filmed at the Boar's Head Inn. Great acting.
  • Shakespeare just doesn't work on screen, at least not in his original, undiluted form.

    Laurence Olivier tries very hard to change my mind about that with "Henry V," using an admittedly creative device to highlight what cinema can do for Shakespeare that the stage can't. But despite that, we're still mostly left with a bunch of static speeches delivered reverently. There are just so many words used to express an idea, which worked fine on the stage in 1600 when no one had anywhere better to be, but makes for a dull movie.

    I will say that Olivier creates one of the most meta versions of a Shakespeare adaptation I've seen. The film begins with a production of "Henry V" being performed at the Old Globe Theatre in 1600. This shows us what it would have been like for audiences at the time to experience Shakespeare's plays. But it's not just a filmed version of the play. It's more like a documentary of a production of "Henry V," as the camera goes backstage to follow the actors in between scenes, showing them changing costumes, swigging drinks, etc. A narrator comes on stage and asks the audience to use their imaginations in bringing this epic story to life, apologizing for the limitations of the theatre. Then about twenty minutes in, the film opens up to become an outright movie version of "Henry V," moving the action to the battlefields of France.

    Cool conceit, but it doesn't help much to bring the story to life. I'd never read this particular play or any of the plays in the series leading up to it, so the first half hour of the film was damn near incomprehensible to me. My takeaway after 30 minutes was that England was declaring war on France, but I was foggy on why, other than that the French king insulted Henry by sending him a box of tennis balls. I didn't even know they had tennis back then, but there you go. After that, it's mostly just battle scenes and soliloquies about the responsibility kings have to their followers. There's a lot about the might of England, to be expected since this movie, like every movie made between 1941 and 1945 or so, was repurposed as WWII propaganda, no matter what the intentions of the source material were.

    The film ends with Henry marrying a French princess, which left me wondering whether that meant he was also king of France, and if not, who was? More than anything, this movie made me realize how little I know about medieval history.

    I never enjoy Shakespeare adaptations, so I don't know why I keep trying. I was intrigued by this one because it is so famous as a rallying cry to the British people against Germany in 1944, and because it was nominated for four Oscars, a couple of big ones too: Best Picture, Best Actor (Olivier), Best Color Art Direction, and Best Dramatic or Comedy Score. It didn't win any competitive awards, but Olivier was given a special award by the Academy for bringing the film to the screen.

    Grade: B-
An error has occured. Please try again.