Best movie of this year hands down!

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

It's kind of weird how what many people consider to be one of the best Shakespeare movies ever made was actually based on one of his lesser known plays. Scratch that. It was based on a true story based on one of the lesser known kings. To be fair, I'm pretty sure Henry V was probably the second most famous kind to bear that title, after of course Henry VIII. This is a story about the Hundred Year's War. Most people are probably unfamiliar with this apart from the fact that it made Joan of Arc famous. It was known for how the English won most of the battles, but the French won the war.Historically, that actually does happen sometimes. This movie/play focuses on pretty much every historical aspect you could imagine. I thought that the only thing it was truly missing was some sort of romance and at the end, guess what I got? What makes this film a classic is how beautiful everything looks. It makes you appreciate everything about Shakespeare and classic literature in general. Well, classic theater. I guess that can count as literature, right? I've noticed that Shakespeare used the word "thrice" a lot. People should use that more! It's quite long, but it's worth every minute. For all the drama, we also get some great authentic action scenes. The slow motion is used very well and it's great to see it being used in a battle before guns were invented. That was quite unique. We get a lot of discussions about royalty, religion, and many other relevant topics. It's great that there's so much going on. This is a great representation of history and all its violence. I'm still going to say the 1948 Hamlet version was my favorite Shakespeare film but this is the second. ****

'Henry V' is not my favorite of Shakespeare's plays, but it is my favorite film adaptation of a Shakespeare play. Henry's may not have been the noblest of causes, but you'd be hard pressed to feel it anything but righteous thanks to his stirring battlefield speeches and the clear-eyed moral certitude of Branagh's tour de force performance. The supporting cast is first rate, led by an Oscar-worth performance by Ian Holm, and Patrick Doyle delivers the first of his many wonderful scores.If you have a teen who you'd like to introduce to The Bard, this is a perfect gateway.

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.

Some years ago I read a history of the 100 Years War and it was by a British author named Desmond Siward who advanced the notion that Henry V was one of the great tyrants in making of English history. Had it not been for his early death that's how he would have gone down in history. Thinking on it, imagine if you will how history might have regarded him had he lived another decade and had been in power for the British occupation of over half of France and had been the man in charge when Joan Of Arc was burned at the stake?When Winston Churchill gave all aid and assistance he could to Laurence Olivier;s Henry V during World War II it was to show the glory of English arms at a high point in their history. Even if it was at the expense of France whom the British were now allies with. Olivier played Henry V in true heroic mold, but in this production of Henry V, Kenneth Branagh gives Henry V a touch of the tyrant as in current historiography.This Henry V was not guided by wartime necessity, but could be closer to the truth. I did like the inclusions of those flashback scenes from Henry IV where we see merry Prince Hal cavorting with his low companions like Sir John Falstaff. Those might have been some invention of Shakespeare, but certainly the man who was Henry V was all business when he was on the throne.This newer Henry V received several Oscar nominations including one for Kenneth Branagh to match the one that Laurence Olivier got over 40 years earlier for Best Actor. It's certainly a different Henry that Branagh gives us. You can hardly see a Prince Hal in this king.