Don't listen to the negative reviews

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 an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Sir Laurence Olivier's Henry V (1944) is very much a movie of its time. Filmed during WW II, the film is an overt example of pro-British propaganda. I don't see that as a problem, because Shakespeare wrote the play in a way that would glorify Britain and its king.So, director Olivier had no problem directing himself as a strong, warlike king, who rules a strong warlike country. More important is what Olivier didn't portray--the king's flaws and the horrific nature of war. Mud played a major role in the British victory at Agincourt. However, in this film, all we see is a brief shot of a horse prancing through a puddle. The combat scenes aren't very graphic. (If your husband or son is serving in combat, you don't want to be reminded of the horrors he is undergoing.)Olivier begins the film as if we were seeing it at the Globe theatre in London. Then he opens the film up, and we get "realistic" outdoor scenes. (For safety, the location scenes were filmed in neutral Ireland.). At the end, we return to the Globe to remind us that we are seeing a play. This is an interesting device; I thought it worked.The movie was shot in color, which looks garish today. However, even garish color is better than b/w in my opinion, because the heraldic colors meant so much within the chivalric code of the times.We saw this film on a classroom-sized large screen. Some of the pageantry will be lost on a small screen, but it will work well enough. This is an enjoyable and important movie. It's worth seeking out and viewing.

This was commissioned by Churchill to help rally the Allied troops for the invasion or liberation of Nazi-occupied France in 1944. After all, Shakespeare's play deals with the Plantagenet king's success in sailing for France and defeating their forces at Azincourt against all the odds.It's odd to watch this, as it's a history lesson in triplicate. First there's the fact it's a sort of propaganda piece. Then it's of the Shakespearian era, as the stunning opening shot in technicolour is a sweeping view up the Thames of Elizabethan London, from the Tower of London to the Globe Theatre. The conceit is that the play is being staged during the time it was written, and Olivier et al are Shaky's contemporaries. But of course, the events of the play took place some 180 years earlier, in 1415.I admit I could only follow this with my No Fear Shakespeare guide providing a translation! But I had to turn several pages at a time to keep up, as large chunks are omitted from this version. Usually anything that hints of discord in the British camp, this being a propaganda piece of sorts. So the barons' plot to topple the king on the eve of his departure for France is omitted - though the barons do appear, just without Henry V's Blofeldesque pay off. Also, Henry's talk of ensuring Scotland is subdued as they always used war with France to invade through the backdoor. Not wise talk in 1944 when you want the whole of the UK to rally behind you! Also, some historical references: that the King is descended from the French himself, or his remorse expressed over his father Henry IV's actions. (Henry IV aka Richard Bollingbrook was a baron who overthrew Richard II, arguably the last medieval king, and had him starved to death in the tower, casting doubt on Henry V's legitimacy, which he helped assuage by having Richard disinterred and reburried in Westminster Abbey, the proper place for kings.) They also omit Henry's 'let us in peaceably or I can't be help responsible for my soldiers raping your women' speech to Harfleur, their first port of call on arriving in France.Anyway, just shy of the half hour mark the play opens up away from the Globe and becomes a real film, albeit with cardboard backdrops etc, and Olivier looks more like the real king.The best bit is the eve of battle. In the night, the two camps face opposite each other, readying for the next day. The atmosphere as the king walks among his people by night, eavesdropping on their fears and prayers, is wonderful (look out for a very young George Cole - St Trinian's, Minder - as a young lad of the Skins age group!) and quite affecting.That said, the battle itself is a letdown in a way. Oh, it's a sunny English summer's day but the real Agincourt took place in October in northern France and was a nasty, bloody, claustrophobic affair. It had rained and the French cavalry charged, getting massacred by the English longbows (nasty, effective weapons, not the Robin Hood bows and arrows depicted here). They fell in the mud and were unable to rouse thanks to the heavy armour, they were sitting ducks. The reason only around 8,000 English, worn out by their travels and dysentry, could defeat 30,000 French (see Wiki for details) was because the French were rubbish and lambs to the slaughter.This is glossed over a bit in the film, which seems to be a jolly canter about in the English Kent countryside! Almost like a boy scout's war game activity! There's also a fabricated section (not in the play I believe) when Henry personally intervenes to avenge a death, in modern Hollywood 'I'm mad as hell' style. Excised, understandably, is the 'war crime' in which he executes the French prisoners when the enemy begins to rally.All in all a highly enjoyable movie in glorious technicolour, but I will see Branagh's version, to balance it out. And also Luc Brssson's Joan of Arc, as let us not forget that Henry V's achievements were wiped out within only 20 years, so it wasn't an enduring victory, unlike those of, say, Alfred the Great. Or Churchill, of course.

In the beginning of the film we are in the Globe Theatre in 1600 where the Chorus (Leslie Banks) enters and implores the audience to use their imagination to visualize the setting of the play.The play tells about King Henry V of England and it focuses on events immediately before and after The Battle of Agincourt (1415) during the Hundred Year's War.William Shakespeare is believed to have written the original play in 1599.I read it the same week, which was last week, as they showed the movie.Laurence Olivier, who's known for many Shakespeare adaptations has done an excellent job making the tale of Henry the Fift into a movie.The Chronicle History of King Henry the Fift with His Battell Fought at Agincourt in France (1944) is one of the most famous Shakespeare films Olivier came up with.I don't find it quite as good as Hamlet, but pretty close.Olivier makes also a very good leading man.All the actors are very well picked.Felix Aylmer is Archbishop of Canterbury while Robert Helpmann plays the part of Archbishop of Ely.Griffith Jones plays Earl of Salisbury.George Cole is the Boy.Harcourt Williams plays King Charles VI of France.Max Audrian plays the Dauphin.Renee Asherson is beautiful and also brilliant in her part as Princess Katherine.Henry V is a very showy movie.The war part looks good, not to forget the romance.A worthy Shakespeare adaptation.

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.