The Hollow Crown (TV Series) Henry V (2012) User Reviews

"Once more unto the breach . . . "

[Red-125 · 9/10 · 3 October 2020]

Henry V (2012) was directed by Thea Sharrock. This movie is the final episode of Season I of The Hollow Crown TV Series. As with all the previous episodes, the BBC has brought great production values to to the screen.

The acting is excellent. Tom Hiddleston, who starred as Prince Hal in Henry IV parts 1 and 2, stayed on to portray King Henry V. Henry V will stand by itself, and another actor could have portrayed Henry V. However, it worked better to keep the same protagonist in all three plays. Hiddleston is a great actor, and it's a pleasure to watch him bring his role to life.

Edward Akrout as Louis the Dauphin and Mélanie Thiérry as Princess Katherine were also excellent.

Henry V is a brilliant war story. (Henry IV Parts 1 and 2 are dominated by Falstaff's story. Henry V is about war.) As with most war stories, the play works well in a movie.

The scenes between battles are part of theater history--the tennis balls, "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more . . .", St. Crispin's day, Princess Katherine learning English, the wooing scene, and on and on. Shakespeare was truly a genius, and the becomes even clearer when you watch a play like Henry V.

At the beginning of Shakespeare's play, an actor called Chorus tells us that we have to rely on our imaginations to see great battles, castles, and warships. If I had been director Sharrock, I would have deleted that part.

Shakespeare was writing for the theater, and his audience needed their imaginations to see what we can see on screen. We can see the scenes that Shakespeare envisioned. Absolutely true, but I still prefer the stage for Shakespeare.

This film was made for TV, so of course it works well on the small screen. Henry V has an impressive IMDb rating of 8.4. I thought it was even better than that and rated it 9.

A long way from bloodless

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 5 August 2019]

'Henry V' is not one of my favourites of Shakespeare's plays, though am not sure whether it would be counted as a lesser play in my book because it does have a lot of powerful text (the Crispin's Day speech being one of the bard's finest) and an interesting titular character. Do consider it one of his better historical plays along with 'Richard III'. Just for the record, really love Shakespeare and have done since studying 'Macbeth' and 'Twelfth Night', two of my favourites of his, in Year 6.

Season 1, aka The Henriad tetralogy, of 'The Hollow Crown' (made up of 'Richard II', both parts of 'Henry IV' and 'Henry V'), is a great way to make these historical plays better known and more accessible. Though 'Richard II' superb and loved both parts of 'Henry IV' just as much and equally (with Part 2 getting the marginal superior edge) so of course there were high hopes for this. 'The Hollow Crown's' version of 'Henry V' is very well done with many fantastic merits, but a slight disappointment compared to what became before. Of previous adaptations of the play, do personally prefer the Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh films but still consider it better than the still interesting BBC Television Shakespeare production.

Will start with the fantastic things. The production values were fine and at their best lavish, with a lot of homework and care put clearly into the costumes and settings, with lots of evocative detail. The never too flashy and sometimes intimate photography is equally striking, not quite as cinematic as the previous 'The Hollow Crown' productions but one still cannot believe that it is not a film instead of being made for an exceptionally high quality mini-series of the historical Shakespeare plays.

Although not perfect, the staging is still cohesive and absorbing with some imaginative touches, such as the prologue. It is never static, the muted tone does indeed work and is opened up enough generally, while not feeling cluttered and never does it become tasteless or include touches that are there for no reason and just distract. The humour, authority and emotion are generally there and in the right places. Shakespeare's writing shines through with wit, intelligence and emotion, and mostly it is delivered very well.

The performances are all strong. Paul Ritter enjoys himself thoroughly as Pistol and Melanie Thierry is a touching Katherine. Geraldine Chaplin couldn't have been more perfection as Alice and Anton Lesser seldom disappoints. Do prefer Tom Hiddeleston as younger Prince Hal, which had a little more vitality, but he is still charismatic and authoritative and the dignity and poignancy of Henry is brought out very well.

For all those fantastic things, there are a couple of disappointments that bring down what could have been a fantastic production. Am going to have to be another person who didn't find the St Crispin's Day speech anywhere near powerful enough. That speech should rouse seeing as it is one of Shakespeare's most powerful passages, but here it was bland and staged too intimately.

What also should have roused were the battle scenes. Found them instead anaemic and under-populated. Just to make things clear, am somebody that doesn't object to change so long as there's reason for it and don't happen suddenly (which can disconcert me) but this is just personal taste.

Summarising, very good. 8/10

I love, adore, and worship Tom Hiddleston

[kathypig1 · 8/10 · 26 September 2013]

Now that that's out of the way, I have to say that while Hiddleston delivers a strong performance as Henry V, the rest of the cast falls somewhat flat. The cinematography is great and the legendary Geraldine Chaplin is superb as the Nurse but the rest of the cast is somewhat meh. If you're expecting a retread of Kenneth Branagh's glorious (and still to my mind definitive) movie version, you'll be disappointed. Certain scenes from the Shakespeare play have been bafflingly omitted as well but that's just the former English major in me talking. Hiddleston and Whishaw are two of Britain's new crop of talented actors and they're both the primary reasons to watch this.

The Plantagenet Supremacy - superb climax to an excellent series of productions

[alfa-16 · 23 July 2012]

Well, you have to see this.

Even if you don't watch the three prequels, The Plantagenet Identity, The Plantagenet Legacy and the Plantagenet Ascendancy (RII, HiVi & HIVii).

It's classic Shakespearean filmmaking with a superb cast, mostly excellent direction, great cinematography and an absolutely outstanding central performance from Hiddlestone, which finally stepped out of the shadows of those of his famous predecessors as the play reached its climax. And there are other actors turning in their film-career best here too, Anton Lesser and Melanie Thierry for example.

All in all, the best Shakespeare the BBC has ever done. Hiddlestone may take the laurels for his three performances as Hal, the not-so-callow, not-so-innocent teenage chrysalis who turns into a malevolent Machiavellian butterfly but Whishaw's utterly brilliant Richard II is a very good reason to start the cycle from the beginning, as intended.

The quartet of plays builds on the Shakespearean tradition of adapting for cinema while retaining as much as possible of Shakespeare's imaginative manifesto as we have it in the play's Prologue, demanding imaginative effort of the part of the viewer rather than supplying every conceivable horse and nail.

The drama is built with a theatrical approach to casting and mise-en-scene, resisting (mostly) the temptation to colour the action with simulated CGI reality. Shot entirely in the UK, the outdoor locations are always beautifully chosen but never needlessly populated with thousands of digital soldiers. There are CGI glimpses of mediaeval England and French armies here and there but they never dominate the theatrical requirement to distinguish drama from scene-setting. Olivier's version started in the theatre and then cut away, wider and wider until the famous charge and the immense Agincourt scenes. Here, the camera stays focused on the main players throughout and even the famous 'band of brothers' speech, though spoken on an outdoor battlefield, manages to retain a theatrical intimacy.

Hats off to the BBC who, whatever I or anyone else says about them, can still deliver when it matters.

Once more into the breach

[Prismark10 · 6/10 · 10 May 2016]

In terms of cinema Henry V is well known of Shakespeare's play because it involves rousing battle sequences and an English victory.

There have been two grand films one with Laurence Oliver as actor and director followed four decades later by Kenneth Branagh as actor and director.

Tom Hiddleston stars as Henry V in this television adaptation which has a smaller budget compared to a feature film and therefore despite the location shooting and CGI it is done in a smaller scale as you can not by the battle scenes.

We have seen Prince Hal in the previous plays of Henry IV Parts 1 & 2 where he was seen more as a roguish and callow youth. Now as king he has grown up to lead his men and country helped by the advice given by his late father, a good victory in war such as in France will get people to flock by his side and earn their respect. In that respect Henry V is courting a war with France and leaving behind those people who messed around in his youth, we see one of them hung for looting a church.

Henry V is a play within a play. The Branagh/Olivier film versions has a chorus that appears on screen that leads to some of the events. Here John Hurt narrates although he makes a brief appearance at the end.

As for Hiddleston, Henry V he makes a good fist of role but I felt that some of the more famous text was rushed through and some of the battle action was just too small scale even though it is unfair to compare it with the movie versions.

It is still an enjoyable play and more accessible for the ordinary viewer.

A resounding success

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 24 February 2015]

HENRY V is the last of the BBC's 2012 TV miniseries THE HOLLOW CROWN, which showcased adaptations of Shakespeare's RICHARD II, HENRY IV PART 1 & 2, and now this. RICHARD II with Ben Whishaw was undoubtedly the strongest of the bunch, but HENRY V comes close at times and proves far better than the slightly interminable HENRY IV, PARTS 1 & 2.

It's a better play all round, because this is actually about something: it's about war, leadership, class, and what it takes to be a man. Tom Hiddleston comes into his own in this one and delivers an excellent performance to rival that of Branagh or Olivier. To think I hated the guy in those superhero movies he appears in, only to find out that he's a decent actor after all!

The paucity of the BBC budget is sometimes apparent in the ridiculously small-scale battle sequences (on a par with those in the SHARPE TV series) but the atmosphere and drama are nonetheless top-notch, and the casting director should also be commended for fitting out some great actors for the supporting roles (Owen Teale, for example). Certainly a rousing finish to the series, at least until THE HOLLOW CROWN returns with Benedict Cumberbatch (among others) next year.

Weaker than Branagh's adaptation

[tyrfish · 4/10 · 27 August 2012]

As I being, I should warn you that my opinions are heavily biased in favour of the Branagh adaptation, as it is my favourite adaptation of Shakespeare.

Let's see. Comparing the Duke of Exeter in this version to Brian Blessed in the previous, I can easily say that Anton Lesser looks like a weak push-over compared to Blessed's menacing executor of Henry's will. He's the one that bugged me most.

Hiddleston does not give a bad performance, but his speeches are completely robbed of passion, evident from his soldiers' reaction to them (they couldn't look less impressed). Removing the Southampton scene was also a bad idea - Only thing I liked more than Branagh was the Harfleur speech, adding civilians to it made it much more menacing (although again, there is not much passion to the speech).

The Duke of York, whose change of actor from Richard II is a little bit awkward, dies in the most anti-climatic way possible. Two English commanders and a French commander just quit the battlefield to kill each other?

And of course, the Archbishop of Canterbury. It seemed like he was more forced to delivering his lines, rather than being the manipulating priest he was in the Branagh version. It's a wonder he even managed to sway Henry into a decision.

It's been an orderless review, but I should mention the Battle of Agincourt again. After the battle in Henry IV pt. 1, I expected to see a gritty and muddy adaptation of Agincourt. What I found, instead, was a boring time-filler. Unwise camera angles show you how small the battle actually is compared to what it should be.

Overall, it was a very disappointing adaptation of Henry V, and compared to earlier plays in the Hollow Crown series, it fell short.

The muted tone actually helps balance the content and Hiddleston is strong throughout

[bob the moo · 17 September 2012]

Of the four films in this BBC mini-series, Henry V was the first of them that I had seen – several times in fact; I'd seen the two film versions and once on stage in Stratford (in a version where the French court lowered on swings from the rafters, to visually set them apart from the English). I was curious to see this version though because I had never seen the film in the context of the connected plays (with characters running across). Additionally, given how sombre and low-key the previous three films had been, I was interested to see what the makers would do with this play – one that is traditionally flag-waving in its delivery and one that is usually quoted anytime England play France in any major sporting tournament!

Although the sombre tone continues I actually found it to work pretty well because it does carry on themes from the previous films but also it helps it avoid competing directly with the much more famous film versions with Branagh and Olivier. The connection to the previous films is good because we get to contrast this fresh King Harry with those that had gone before him – those vein and doomed, those racked with guilt and illness – and see him as something much more heroic and worthy of the title. This is flipped nicely though by the context of the characters from Hal's youth who are sacrificed in his sudden rise to honour, and it did move me to understand for the first time who the hung soldier was and also the references to Falstaff early on. Henry V here is very much playing for the greater good, not personal feelings and, while he may seem harsh, there is a reason for it that we didn't see with the other kings.

I did feel the absence of the flag-waving grandeur to a certain degree though, in particular the main speech of the film is rather muted as it is given to a small group of men. It took a few lines to accept this but actually it also worked pretty well, mainly because Hiddleston benefits from how closely it is played. He is generally very good here, not dominating the character but easing out the side of the shadow to make it his own, he is good looking, commanding and delivers well. The supporting cast support him well and I enjoyed Ritter as Pistol and Thierry as Kate in particular. The supporting cast has plenty of faces in Hurt, Griffiths, Joseph and a few others, but the film belongs to Hiddleston and whether making tough stands or wooing Kate, he is really good.

The Hollow Crown series didn't always win me over but the final two films I enjoyed a great deal. Certainly seeing this film in context for the first time was helpful but I also thought the muted tone (compared to other versions of Henry V) worked pretty well. Not perfect and I understand why for some it didn't work, but for me it was a strong finish to this mini-series.

Disappointed

[Hylian123 · 4/10 · 9 August 2012]

Despite my initial excitement, this turned out to be the least interesting part of The Hollow Crown. Admittedly, my judgement is somewhat clouded by Jamie Parker's magnificent performance at the Globe Theatre, but I simply did not get the kick out of this production that the play would normally deliver.

Let's get the bad stuff out of the way first. Using Henry's funeral as the opening scene completely altered the tone, bringing one of depression and futility to the whole show. Secondly, I felt the cutting choices were very poor indeed. Cutting out the Southampton scene with the three traitors felt like a mistake, for that scene provides a lot of insight into the brutality of Henry V. This brings me onto my third point: Tom Hiddleston's performance. I understand that with regard to the performance history behind this character, which includes Laurence Olivier, Richard Burton and Kenneth Brannagh, it is very difficult to make this role ones own and by extension do something new with it. Hiddleston attempts this and fails rather miserably. It's just embarrassing when he states that his soldiers 'stand like greyhounds in the slips' and then it cuts to the soldiers looking uninspired and frightened. Similarly, the St. Crispin's Day speech had the potential to be incredible, because the army was standing nearby ready to be inspired. Jamie Parker can afford to underplay this speech due to the theatrical values, having to make the audience his army instead of having a real one. Hiddleston has the men, but instead chooses to whisper to his Lords, thereby completely killing the drama and excitement of the scene.

In contrast to this, I thought that Pistol, Bardolph and Nym were played superbly. The farewell scene outside the Boar's Head almost brought me to tears, with the cold, silent delivery of the lines being totally appropriate to the tone of the scene. Similarly, I thought that the caution of the French King and the petulance of the Dauphin were very well acted and portrayed. The scenery of the campaign was also very well selected and filmed, although frankly the final battle was a bit thin, and lacked the adrenaline and terror that was so well delivered in Henry IV Part I.

On the whole, I found the whole production just disappointing. After the stunningly compelling adaptation of Richard II, Henry V simply doesn't do enough for a finale. The whole thing just feels a bit limp, and in a play of this magnitude and fame, regardless of interpretation, you simply cannot scrimp on production values or acting ability. Intense tragedies can do this and it works, but Henry V is BIG, and as such one should really pull out all the stops when tackling it.