BallWubba Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

grantss Before Kenneth Branagh there was...Laurence Olivier. Good adaptation of the Shakespeare play. Starts rather oddly, and dourly, by showing making the movie about the play being performed in 1600. Initially put me off, but after a while the unnecessary play-within-a-movie scenario disappears, and you have just a movie, as it should be.Once it gets rolling, it is great. Olivier, in his directorial debut, shows a deft hand at direction. The battle scenes are well- staged and very vivid. Pacing is good.Olivier is superb in the lead role. It is no wonder that he is regarded as the greatest Shakespearean actor, if not one of the greatest actors of all time. The gravitas and feeling he brings to the role are immense. You would think that he IS a king, mouthing the words for the first time, rather than reciting Shakespeare's complex dialogue.Good supporting cast.If I had to choose between the 1989 Kenneth Branagh version and this 1944 version, I would go with Branagh's version, by a smidgen. The 1989 version is edgier, moves more quickly and freely, and doesn't have the clunky start. Also, as you would imagine, the production values are better in the 1989 version (no model castles etc). For Shakespearean acting at its finest, however, you can never go past (Sir) Laurence Olivier.

Red-125 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.

aar4-951-420232 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.

dhable This is the best of any of Shakespeare's works rendered on film. Olivier deftly weaves the play, which begins as a stage production, played at the Globe Theatre with nervous actors, miscues, an audience, food vendors, a rain storm, and all that probably accompanied any Shakespeare play when it was contemporary, into a dramatic film.The play literally turns to "real life", as the actors and locales change before our eyes into the photo-play. All that is technique, but good as it is, the "play's the thing" as Shakepear's work comes to life before our eyes. Great production values. Great story line (thanks to W.S.). Great presentation all-around.This 1944 version is far superior to the mud and gore version produced later in the late 1980's.