list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Henry V on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Henry_V/44400/default.aspx Title: Henry V
Year: 1989
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Plot: Kenneth Branagh makes his feature film directorial debut with this adaptation of William Shakespeare's Henry V. After the Chorus (Derek Jacobi) introduces the play, young king of England Henry V (Kenneth Branagh) begins an angry dialogue with King Charles of France (Paul Scofield). The king's son, Dauphin (Michael Maloney), insults Henry and the argument escalates into war. In flashback, Henry is seen as a young man drinking in a tavern with Falstaff (Robbie Coltrane), Bardolph (Richard Briers), Nym (Geoffery Hutchings), Pistol (Robert Stephens), and Mistress Quickly (Judi Dench). Meanwhile, Henry and his captain, Fluellen (Ian Holm), assemble an army and invade France. The French greatly outnumber the British troops, yet Henry leads them to victory in the Battle of Agincourt after delivering his famous St. Crispin's Day Speech. Throughout this struggle, Henry also courts Katherine (Emma Thompson) and eventually wins her over. ~ Andrea LeVasseur, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 2
Number of Lists: 7
Number of blog posts: 3
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 21:37:35 GMTHenry V1989Kenneth Branagh<a href="/players/P____82784/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kenneth Branagh</a> makes his feature film directorial debut with this adaptation of William Shakespeare's Henry V. After the Chorus (<a href="/players/P____34894/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Derek Jacobi</a>) introduces the play, young king of England Henry V (<a href="/players/P____82784/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kenneth Branagh</a>) begins an angry dialogue with King Charles of France (<a href="/players/P____64000/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Paul Scofield</a>). The king's son, Dauphin (Michael Maloney), insults Henry and the argument escalates into war. In flashback, Henry is seen as a young man drinking in a tavern with Falstaff (<a href="/players/P____14336/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Robbie Coltrane</a>), Bardolph (<a href="/players/P_____8437/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Richard Briers</a>), Nym (Geoffery Hutchings), Pistol (<a href="/players/P____68001/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Robert Stephens</a>), and Mistress Quickly (<a href="/players/P____18570/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Judi Dench</a>). Meanwhile, Henry and his captain, Fluellen (<a href="/players/P____32962/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ian Holm</a>), assemble an army and invade France. The French greatly outnumber the British troops, yet Henry leads them to victory in the Battle of Agincourt after delivering his famous St. Crispin's Day Speech. Throughout this struggle, Henry also courts Katherine (<a href="/players/P____70692/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Emma Thompson</a>) and eventually wins her over. ~ Andrea LeVasseur, All Movie Guide2Slightly Tagged (1-5)7313http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u41096mi8oq.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Henry_V/44400/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/5/12/42252.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 5/12/2009 5:37:35 PM
Body: This blog entry is part of my "movie year countdown round #2". Read more about that here. Henry V I'm not sure if I ever found Shakespeare easy to follow, but for some reason before I stuck this DVD in to start watching this film, I think I had created the illusion that I did. Maybe because I had read a lot of it before in school. I've seen many Shakespeare plays performed. I've even seen some performed by the worlds most renowned Shakespeare performers in Shakespeare's own local of London and Stratford-upon-Avon. I've seen several Shakespeare films. And I've even performed in Twelfth Night. I guess that was a while ago, because it seems that I forgot that unless the performers or the staging goes to extra length to make a modern audience like myself get the gist, the words take a lot of reading over and over and usually excessive research to really understand what the heck is going on or really being said. Lawrence Olivier's Henry V did not really help me out here. I was actually pretty intrigued at the beginning when the film begins in a sincere recreation of London's Globe theatre. We see the audience members enter. We see real actors as they would have looked like at that time. We see them both on stage, and behind the stage. We recognize them more as actors than as their characters. We see the reactions of the crowd and the rowdy behavior. We see how the weather can affect an outdoor performance of the time when it starts to rain. I couldn't understand what was happening in the story for a while, but I was becoming interested in the story as a kind of recreation of what it was like to be in the Globe theatre at that time. But then we actually enter conventional Shakespeare movie mode. And since I still have little clue about what is going on, and the interest in seeing what might happen in a recreation of a live theatre performance in a rowdy crowd has been crushed when this context is removed, I start to get bored. And I get more and more bored. I understand from the audio commentary (yes, I'm obsessed with watching audio commentaries even on [or especially on] movies which at first I did not enjoy) that this was a product of it's time and was supposed to be a jingoistic kind of propaganda piece for Britain to boost morale in WWII. But I'm having enough trouble getting into the story to concentrate on that context. In fact, listening to the commentary, I realized that I was being buried with layers upon layers of references to previous times. So I'm sitting here in 2009, listening to an audio commentary that was probably recorded some time around 1999, about a movie that was released in 1944, about a play that was probably performed some time in the early 1600s, that was cultivated from sources written several years earlier, about events that actually occurred around 1415. Yikes! And not only that, the whole history of the English monarchy is somewhat assume knowledge for the original audience. Maybe other Shakespeare plays just have more universal appeal, and that's why I didn't like this one as much as I thought I would. But as the biggest icon of modern Shakespeare performance, I would have hoped the Olivier could have impressed me more. Maybe his heir to the title Kenneth Branagh's version would be more appealing to me, but at this point I'm not in any hurry to find out. Rating: 4/10
]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 21:37:35 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog5/12/2009 5:37:35 PMThis blog entry is part of my "movie year countdown round #2". Read more about that here. Henry V I'm not sure if I ever found Shakespeare easy to follow, but for some reason before I stuck this DVD in to start watching this film, I think I had created the illusion that I did. Maybe because I had read a lot of it before in school. I've seen many Shakespeare plays performed. I've even seen some performed by the worlds most renowned Shakespeare performers in Shakespeare's own local of London and Stratford-upon-Avon. I've seen several Shakespeare films. And I've even performed in Twelfth Night. I guess that was a while ago, because it seems that I forgot that unless the performers or the staging goes to extra length to make a modern audience like myself get the gist, the words take a lot of reading over and over and usually excessive research to really understand what the heck is going on or really being said. Lawrence Olivier's Henry V did not really help me out here. I was actually pretty intrigued at the beginning when the film begins in a sincere recreation of London's Globe theatre. We see the audience members enter. We see real actors as they would have looked like at that time. We see them both on stage, and behind the stage. We recognize them more as actors than as their characters. We see the reactions of the crowd and the rowdy behavior. We see how the weather can affect an outdoor performance of the time when it starts to rain. I couldn't understand what was happening in the story for a while, but I was becoming interested in the story as a kind of recreation of what it was like to be in the Globe theatre at that time. But then we actually enter conventional Shakespeare movie mode. And since I still have little clue about what is going on, and the interest in seeing what might happen in a recreation of a live theatre performance in a rowdy crowd has been crushed when this context is removed, I start to get bored. And I get more and more bored. I understand from the audio commentary (yes, I'm obsessed with watching audio commentaries even on [or especially on] movies which at first I did not enjoy) that this was a product of it's time and was supposed to be a jingoistic kind of propaganda piece for Britain to boost morale in WWII. But I'm having enough trouble getting into the story to concentrate on that context. In fact, listening to the commentary, I realized that I was being buried with layers upon layers of references to previous times. So I'm sitting here in 2009, listening to an audio commentary that was probably recorded some time around 1999, about a movie that was released in 1944, about a play that was probably performed some time in the early 1600s, that was cultivated from sources written several years earlier, about events that actually occurred around 1415. Yikes! And not only that, the whole history of the English monarchy is somewhat assume knowledge for the original audience. Maybe other Shakespeare plays just have more universal appeal, and that's why I didn't like this one as much as I thought I would. But as the biggest icon of modern Shakespeare performance, I would have hoped the Olivier could have impressed me more. Maybe his heir to the title Kenneth Branagh's version would be more appealing to me, but at this point I'm not in any hurry to find out. Rating: 4/10 http://www.spout.com/groups/Community_Recommendations/A_good_film_is_in_the_eye_of_the_beholder/643/35868/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: tadiv
Post To: Community Recommendations
Post Date: 10/3/2008 1:02:36 PM
Body: I'm Tom (I go by "tadiv" online – my initials and I'm "the 4th") and am available for recommendations of "good films". I'll try to steer you away from "bad films" as well. Of course, as noted in the title, "good" and "bad" are personal opinions.I really like Spout's rating system with the third star meaning "neutral about it". For me, that's like "it was just okay" and while it likely will not get a recommendation from me, I will also likely not try to steer you clear of it.Here are the things I like:1)Strong character development;2)Good acting (strong and believable performances); 3)Good cinematography (the images look good);4)Good editing (I hate to see a door opened twice);5)and all the other things that combined make "A story well told".As I find these qualities, I often find myself following particular Actors/Actresses and Directors. I like dramas, "thrillers", westerns, and documentaries more than action/adventure or comedy and I like those more than I do horror or "concert" films – this covers the generas that come to mind at the moment. For the last 9 years I have attended the Telluride Film Festival and I have been a member of the Denver Film Society for about the last 5 years. I have enjoyed movies all my life (the first movie I remember seeing in a theater is the Disney animation Jungle Book). I began to transition from "movies" to "films" in college when I saw Kenneth Branagh's Henry V. Of course, all movies are films in the general sense – even today when some are recorded with digital HD cameras as opposed to film stock. More central to the difference between a "movie" and "film" in my mind is the Director's intent. Is the Director simply presenting a product designed to entertain and make money, or is the Director presenting a product designed to make some impact - not just entertain, but stimulate thought and conversation, evoke a strong emotional response, or make a commentary on the world as he or she sees it? In my view, the first is a “movie” and the second is a “film”. Don't get me wrong – both are works of art, but one is a more serious work then the other.So, now you have some idea of what I think about movies / film. Drop me a note if you're looking for a recommendation. This link will take you to the list of movies to which I have given a high rating. It's not all cut and dry, but generally, I expect that you'll find some trends and get a better idea of the things I like.Enjoy!Tom
]]>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:02:36 GMTtadivCommunity Recommendations10/3/2008 1:02:36 PMI'm Tom (I go by "tadiv" online &ndash; my initials and I'm "the 4th") and am available for recommendations of "good films". I'll try to steer you away from "bad films" as well. Of course, as noted in the title, "good" and "bad" are personal opinions.I really like Spout's rating system with the third star meaning "neutral about it". For me, that's like "it was just okay" and while it likely will not get a recommendation from me, I will also likely not try to steer you clear of it.Here are the things I like:1)Strong character development;2)Good acting (strong and believable performances); 3)Good cinematography (the images look good);4)Good editing (I hate to see a door opened twice);5)and all the other things that combined make "A story well told".As I find these qualities, I often find myself following particular Actors/Actresses and Directors. I like dramas, "thrillers", westerns, and documentaries more than action/adventure or comedy and I like those more than I do horror or "concert" films &ndash; this covers the generas that come to mind at the moment. For the last 9 years I have attended the Telluride Film Festival and I have been a member of the Denver Film Society for about the last 5 years. I have enjoyed movies all my life (the first movie I remember seeing in a theater is the Disney animation Jungle Book). I began to transition from "movies" to "films" in college when I saw Kenneth Branagh's Henry V. Of course, all movies are films in the general sense &ndash; even today when some are recorded with digital HD cameras as opposed to film stock. More central to the difference between a "movie" and "film" in my mind is the Director's intent. Is the Director simply presenting a product designed to entertain and make money, or is the Director presenting a product designed to make some impact - not just entertain, but stimulate thought and conversation, evoke a strong emotional response, or make a commentary on the world as he or she sees it? In my view, the first is a &ldquo;movie&rdquo; and the second is a &ldquo;film&rdquo;. Don't get me wrong &ndash; both are works of art, but one is a more serious work then the other.So, now you have some idea of what I think about movies / film. Drop me a note if you're looking for a recommendation. This link will take you to the list of movies to which I have given a high rating. It's not all cut and dry, but generally, I expect that you'll find some trends and get a better idea of the things I like.Enjoy!Tom http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/29/35698.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/29/2008 6:01:10 PM
Body: It’s not definite yet, but it looks like Oscar-nominated actor/director Kenneth Branagh will be taking the helm of Marvel Studios’ comic book adaptation Thor. Most young moviegoers know Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart (from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets), but he’s otherwise better known for primarily directing films of Shakespeare’s works. He also tends to cast mostly trained Shakespearean actors, although he has been known to include an Alicia Silverstone or a Matthew Lillard in his ensembles. Additionally, he’s been known for odd casting choices, such as Robert De Niro for the Monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Who will he cast this time in the Asgardian ensemble that will make up the film? It might not actually be totally up to him, but if it is, it might look a little like this: Kenneth Branagh as Thor/Donald Blake I know what you’re thinking. He’s old. But he’s only five years older than Iron Man’s Robert Downey Jr. and only 3 years older than Brad Pitt, who recently was rumored to be at the top of Marvel’s wish list. Anyway, he’s cast himself as Hamlet, Dr. Frankenstein and Henry V. So, it would be fitting if he cast himself in the lead here, too. The only issue, of course, is that the script now apparently features Thor’s alter ego, Donald Blake, and he’s reportedly written as a med student, not a full-on doctor. Oh, and for Thor, Branagh will have to beef up tremendously. Or not. If he actually got away with playing the character, he could probably also get away with not giving in to the whole height and muscle problem. Keanu Reeves as Loki Branagh previously cast Reeves in the Shakespeare adaptation Much Ado About Nothing, and after more than 15 years, it’s time for them to work together again. Plus, Reeves is fully capable of being a nasty trickster and he should certainly be taking on more villain roles. Ian Holm as Odin Now that Branagh is linked to the film, past rumors that Brian Blessed already was cast as Odin make more sense. And Blessed is actually who will likely get the part, especially if Marvel is paying attention to the movie blogs and message boards today. But maybe he could cast Holm, who also acted in Branagh’s Frankenstein and Henry V. Sure, he’s way too short, and he doesn’t have that monstrous voice that Blessed has. But doesn’t he just have a more fatherly look to him? Brian Blessed as Volstagg With Holm as Odin, Blessed will then have to take on the part of this member of the Warriors Three. He may not be fat enough, but he’s loud enough. Another great choice would be Branagh’s co-star from Harry Potter, Robbie Coltrane. Why? Because he also played Falstaff in Branagh’s Henry V, and according to Wikipedia, Stan Lee likely based Volstagg on that Shakespeare character. Jude Law as Fandral This other member of the Warriors Three should be played by someone along the lines of Errol Flynn, who clearly was Stan Kirby’s model for the character. And Law, who recently starred in Branagh’s Sleuth, portrayed Flynn in Scorsese’s The Aviator. He may be too big a movie star for the supporting part, but Law should probably be demoted a bit, anyway. Kevin Kline as Hogun Rounding out the Warriors Three is this long-mustached fellow, and Kline, who appears in Branagh’s As You Like It, is always great with mustached characters (think The Pirates of Penzance and A Fish Called Wanda). Kline needs to be in a superhero movie, anyway, badly. 20 years ago, he would have been a perfect choice for a character like Tony Stark, but now he is due for at least a supporting role. Gemma Arterton as Sif She’s about to break out big time with the latest 007 film, Quantum of Solace, and Guy Ritchie’s RocknRolla, which will put her in a perfect position to show off her Shakespearean talents and her other assets as Thor’s Asgardian lover. Emily Mortimer as Jane Foster If indeed the Earthly side of Thor is shown in Branagh’s film, his nurse and temporary girlfriend should also make an appearance. The best pick is Mortimer, who previously worked with the director on Love’s Labour’s Lost. Unfortunately, she’s more likely to be played by a younger actress, some flavor of the month a la Arterton. Robert De Niro as Absorbing Man The reported villains in Thor are Loki, Karnilla, Malekith and Thrym, but I’ll keep wishing for an appearance from former boxer Carl “Crusher” Creel. Not only is he a cool villain with cool powers, but he’d make for some cool special effects. Give him a cameo at least? And in the part cast De Niro, who could make up for his role as the Monster in Branagh’s Frankenstein. Surely I’m not the only person who’d like to see Bobby D shave his head and swing a wrecking ball around. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:01:10 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/29/2008 6:01:10 PMIt’s not definite yet, but it looks like Oscar-nominated actor/director Kenneth Branagh will be taking the helm of Marvel Studios’ comic book adaptation Thor. Most young moviegoers know Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart (from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets), but he’s otherwise better known for primarily directing films of Shakespeare’s works. He also tends to cast mostly trained Shakespearean actors, although he has been known to include an Alicia Silverstone or a Matthew Lillard in his ensembles. Additionally, he’s been known for odd casting choices, such as Robert De Niro for the Monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Who will he cast this time in the Asgardian ensemble that will make up the film? It might not actually be totally up to him, but if it is, it might look a little like this: Kenneth Branagh as Thor/Donald Blake I know what you’re thinking. He’s old. But he’s only five years older than Iron Man’s Robert Downey Jr. and only 3 years older than Brad Pitt, who recently was rumored to be at the top of Marvel’s wish list. Anyway, he’s cast himself as Hamlet, Dr. Frankenstein and Henry V. So, it would be fitting if he cast himself in the lead here, too. The only issue, of course, is that the script now apparently features Thor’s alter ego, Donald Blake, and he’s reportedly written as a med student, not a full-on doctor. Oh, and for Thor, Branagh will have to beef up tremendously. Or not. If he actually got away with playing the character, he could probably also get away with not giving in to the whole height and muscle problem. Keanu Reeves as Loki Branagh previously cast Reeves in the Shakespeare adaptation Much Ado About Nothing, and after more than 15 years, it’s time for them to work together again. Plus, Reeves is fully capable of being a nasty trickster and he should certainly be taking on more villain roles. Ian Holm as Odin Now that Branagh is linked to the film, past rumors that Brian Blessed already was cast as Odin make more sense. And Blessed is actually who will likely get the part, especially if Marvel is paying attention to the movie blogs and message boards today. But maybe he could cast Holm, who also acted in Branagh’s Frankenstein and Henry V. Sure, he’s way too short, and he doesn’t have that monstrous voice that Blessed has. But doesn’t he just have a more fatherly look to him? Brian Blessed as Volstagg With Holm as Odin, Blessed will then have to take on the part of this member of the Warriors Three. He may not be fat enough, but he’s loud enough. Another great choice would be Branagh’s co-star from Harry Potter, Robbie Coltrane. Why? Because he also played Falstaff in Branagh’s Henry V, and according to Wikipedia, Stan Lee likely based Volstagg on that Shakespeare character. Jude Law as Fandral This other member of the Warriors Three should be played by someone along the lines of Errol Flynn, who clearly was Stan Kirby’s model for the character. And Law, who recently starred in Branagh’s Sleuth, portrayed Flynn in Scorsese’s The Aviator. He may be too big a movie star for the supporting part, but Law should probably be demoted a bit, anyway. Kevin Kline as Hogun Rounding out the Warriors Three is this long-mustached fellow, and Kline, who appears in Branagh’s As You Like It, is always great with mustached characters (think The Pirates of Penzance and A Fish Called Wanda). Kline needs to be in a superhero movie, anyway, badly. 20 years ago, he would have been a perfect choice for a character like Tony Stark, but now he is due for at least a supporting role. Gemma Arterton as Sif She’s about to break out big time with the latest 007 film, Quantum of Solace, and Guy Ritchie’s RocknRolla, which will put her in a perfect position to show off her Shakespearean talents and her other assets as Thor’s Asgardian lover. Emily Mortimer as Jane Foster If indeed the Earthly side of Thor is shown in Branagh’s film, his nurse and temporary girlfriend should also make an appearance. The best pick is Mortimer, who previously worked with the director on Love’s Labour’s Lost. Unfortunately, she’s more likely to be played by a younger actress, some flavor of the month a la Arterton. Robert De Niro as Absorbing Man The reported villains in Thor are Loki, Karnilla, Malekith and Thrym, but I’ll keep wishing for an appearance from former boxer Carl “Crusher” Creel. Not only is he a cool villain with cool powers, but he’d make for some cool special effects. Give him a cameo at least? And in the part cast De Niro, who could make up for his role as the Monster in Branagh’s Frankenstein. Surely I’m not the only person who’d like to see Bobby D shave his head and swing a wrecking ball around. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/13/28984.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/13/2008 7:59:49 PM
Body: My handy referance manual Shakespeare A to Z informs me that there are two main interpretations of Henry V. The first is as a patriotic (borderline nationalistic) ode to England, the second is as a study of power and corruption. One of the most appealing aspects of Kenneth Branagh's brillant adaption of the play is that he has it both ways- this movie begins like The Godfather and ends like The Two Towers. Although they were written out of sequence, Henry V directly follows the events and includes some characters from Henry IV, Part II (Branagh even includes a flashback scene from that play). The movie begins in 1415, two years after Henry V's (Branagh) acention to the throne and with trouble in the land. The King must decide whether to go war with France, which he belevies he is rightly king of. Many of his aides do not trust him, he is widley seen as an inexperinced party animal, and the King of France (Paul Schofield) insults him in dispatches. Henry decides that war is neccessary and leads the British army into France. The rest of the film chronicles a few skimishes that lead up to the famed Battle of Agincourt. Shakespeare and Branagh follow both nobleman and commoner as they prepare for war, and question what they are fighting for. In the beginning of the film- I couldn't help but compare Henry V to George W. Bush. Henry owes the throne to his father, who himself deposed Richard II. Like G.W.B., Henry's youth did not seem to predospose him to greatness, and Henry also relies heavily on his advisors. I could help but draw comparisons between the Iraq War and the English campaign in France, Henry has deeply personal reasons for wanting to attack there. Furthermore, we see that many of the peasants and common soldiers have zero interrest in an attack on France, and would much rather be at home. The differences come in the second half of the film. There is a great scene where Henry disuges himself and gets into a conversation with Michael Williams, a commoner (played by an actor who has the same name) and discovers that some of his men do not trust him. They might die in battle, but he give the French some money and he's free. Henry (in this interpreation) shares the danger of battle with his men and grows to care about them. At the end of the film, he is a mature statesmen ready to make peace, knowing the cost of his actions. Branagh manages to give us both cold political calculation and stirring battle scenes, although I couldn't quite get past the fact that however much Henry may care about his men, he still asking them to fight no real reason. This all helped by some georges art direction and photography. As with any Shakespeare film, you need great actors, and there is not a single weak performance in the film. The standout, however, is Branagh himself, who is just plain brillant as Henry. He does one of the hardest things and actor can do- we see what he is thinkning. I have always thought that the reason why Shakespeare remains so popular is that he was insightful enough into the human condition to provide interest, but vauge enough that individual directors and actors could mold his framework into their own work. Taking this with his next film, Much Ado About Nothing, I am going to say that Branagh is the cinema's greatest director of the Bard's works. Yes, even better than Orson Welles. Just think about the implications of that. Henry V (1989)
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 23:59:49 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/13/2008 7:59:49 PMMy handy referance manual Shakespeare A to Z informs me that there are two main interpretations of Henry V. The first is as a patriotic (borderline nationalistic) ode to England, the second is as a study of power and corruption. One of the most appealing aspects of Kenneth Branagh's brillant adaption of the play is that he has it both ways- this movie begins like The Godfather and ends like The Two Towers. Although they were written out of sequence, Henry V directly follows the events and includes some characters from Henry IV, Part II (Branagh even includes a flashback scene from that play). The movie begins in 1415, two years after Henry V's (Branagh) acention to the throne and with trouble in the land. The King must decide whether to go war with France, which he belevies he is rightly king of. Many of his aides do not trust him, he is widley seen as an inexperinced party animal, and the King of France (Paul Schofield) insults him in dispatches. Henry decides that war is neccessary and leads the British army into France. The rest of the film chronicles a few skimishes that lead up to the famed Battle of Agincourt. Shakespeare and Branagh follow both nobleman and commoner as they prepare for war, and question what they are fighting for. In the beginning of the film- I couldn't help but compare Henry V to George W. Bush. Henry owes the throne to his father, who himself deposed Richard II. Like G.W.B., Henry's youth did not seem to predospose him to greatness, and Henry also relies heavily on his advisors. I could help but draw comparisons between the Iraq War and the English campaign in France, Henry has deeply personal reasons for wanting to attack there. Furthermore, we see that many of the peasants and common soldiers have zero interrest in an attack on France, and would much rather be at home. The differences come in the second half of the film. There is a great scene where Henry disuges himself and gets into a conversation with Michael Williams, a commoner (played by an actor who has the same name) and discovers that some of his men do not trust him. They might die in battle, but he give the French some money and he's free. Henry (in this interpreation) shares the danger of battle with his men and grows to care about them. At the end of the film, he is a mature statesmen ready to make peace, knowing the cost of his actions. Branagh manages to give us both cold political calculation and stirring battle scenes, although I couldn't quite get past the fact that however much Henry may care about his men, he still asking them to fight no real reason. This all helped by some georges art direction and photography. As with any Shakespeare film, you need great actors, and there is not a single weak performance in the film. The standout, however, is Branagh himself, who is just plain brillant as Henry. He does one of the hardest things and actor can do- we see what he is thinkning. I have always thought that the reason why Shakespeare remains so popular is that he was insightful enough into the human condition to provide interest, but vauge enough that individual directors and actors could mold his framework into their own work. Taking this with his next film, Much Ado About Nothing, I am going to say that Branagh is the cinema's greatest director of the Bard's works. Yes, even better than Orson Welles. Just think about the implications of that. Henry V (1989) http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6176

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 607

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:50:24 GMT6176179607Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7162

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1004

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:30 GMT71621691004Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/powerful/MemberTagFilms.aspxpowerful
Number of films tagged: 48

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 70

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:29:29 GMT484370Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/princess/MemberTagFilms.aspxprincess
Number of films tagged: 612

Number of people who tagged: 33

Number of times used: 72

]]>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:53:48 GMT6123372Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/king/MemberTagFilms.aspxking
Number of films tagged: 619

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 54

]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:07:18 GMT6192954Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/medieval/MemberTagFilms.aspxmedieval
Number of films tagged: 140

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 16

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:01:32 GMT1401316Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/battle-war/MemberTagFilms.aspxbattle-war
Number of films tagged: 1931

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 10

]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:03:15 GMT1931710Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/archery/MemberTagFilms.aspxarchery
Number of films tagged: 34

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 10

]]>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:12:01 GMT34610Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/aristocracy/MemberTagFilms.aspxaristocracy
Number of films tagged: 1216

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 9

]]>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:02:15 GMT121669Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/branagh-at-his-best/MemberTagFilms.aspxbranagh-at-his-best
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Sat, 23 Sep 2006 00:44:50 GMT111Tag