A true masterpiece. The cinematography and staging is as impressive as Shakespeare's play itself.

This film was woeful 👎

I first watched when I was a teen. The first Shakespearian movie I could understand. Now as an older man I can see the desire to raise British patriotism among a weary populace while acknowledging their weariness of the horror of war. The artistry that initially starts as if we are among the audience of the Globe Theatre for the premiere of Henry V. Gradually the scenes advance to move from the confines of the Globe Theatre to almost fairytale imagery until the very grim, cold, bloody reality of battle is shown. The spirit and theatrical scenery becomes more fairytale as Henry woos & wins Catherine and France. Unfortunately, this beautiful movie reveals an England and Britain that no longer exists, but replaced by children who have forgotten their strength in God.

The combination of Shakespeare's magnificent compositional talents, Olivier's powerful delivery, and exceptionally high production value for the time results in a fantastic end product, still one of the greatest efforts to put the Bard's work to film (and with studios exhibiting a clear reluctance to allocate top-tier budgets to the adaptation of material that doesn't maintain the popular edge it did in centuries prior, it will likely retain its position for some time). It certainly requires a particular mood to immerse oneself in, but there are so many lines that have underpinned English-speaking culture, and they are so well-delivered (St. Crispin's Day still stirs the spirit), that it really is must-watch film at some point. Still, some of the vernacular in the less timeless is a bit difficult to get through, and the "French" accents can be rather distressing, so it's not like the film is without fault. (4/5)

1001 movies to see before you die. A fine performance from Olivier.

One of my favorite shows but this is the worst version put to film.

I admit, even with my 3 college degrees, understanding Shakespeare is a chore and I lose interest within 10 minutes every time I try. Original and fascinating visually and great directing and writing. But lets be real...no one understands this unless they have had classes in it. For average well educated boobs like me... snore.

All the set pieces, costumes, and locations make it seem very genuine as if you were really there. I kind of felt like I was really in that theater. The way the play is filmed is brilliant. They did it so that it didn't feel at all like your watching a play. You're quickly reminded though, once you see the audience. Some of the dialogue is so Shakespearean, that I can't grasp it that well. The joke kind of go right through me but at least the acting and the movements are on point. Great battle sequences. Even though it's a good movie, I can't help but feel that it's pretentious as well. I understand they're trying to keep true to the whole Shakespearean thing but jeez.

While I can't understand Shakespearean as much as the next person, I was still enamoured by this play in a movie. It was confusing, but also amusing and I felt all kinds of excitement by various scenes. The sets, actors, music, editing and look. These are all things that made Shakespeare ahead of his time, but it's thanks to modern technology that these things and his vision can be brought to life and now I can see why English Scholars and teachers consider him the master of storytelling.

Beautifully directed and spectacularly realized, this represents early Shakespeare film adaptations at a high point in creativity, though the intentional difference between stage effect and real effect isn't has big as it could be here.

What an ingenious move Laurence Olivier made when bringing William Shakespeare's historical play "Henry V" to the big screen in 1944. The film begins with a panoramic view of a plot of land along the Thames River in London, England, as the camera moves slowly towards the Globe Theater. The year is 1600 and the patrons of the Globe Theater are being seated for the day's performance of "Henry V," the latest play written by Shakespeare. The Chorus proceeds to address the audience to use their imagination to imagine the settings within the play. The play begins and the way the actors interact with the audience is enjoyable to watch. During a scene the rains begin and the audience watches the play as it pours. We are given three scenes from the play before the movie transforms to Southampton as boats are to leave for France. That's when the siege of Harlfuer begins leading up to the Battle of Agincourt. After the play transforms to the stagesets with backdrops inspired by medieval paintings is when it starts to lull. It's a beautiful film by first time director Laurence Olivier made in color and the battle scene is realistic for its time. It just didn't have enought to hold my attention through the whole film.

Remarkable production of Shakespeare's 1598 play. 70 years since film's American release. Perfect blend of theatre and realism. Vignettes of soldiers and other non-royal people show sweep of humanity in time of war. Politics of war also revealed, with Church manipulating circumstances to its advantage. (Shakespeare though followed his sources no doubt in having the French princess Katherine willingly marrying Henry - maybe she really did find the English King romantic?) Battle of Agincourt staged excitingly even without large amounts of blood and gore. Most pitiful scene is the death of the young boys. The "little touch of Harry in the night" scene which presents the boyish King as a human being is incredibly modern in its sympathies. As in his later Hamlet (1948), director Olivier's pacing of the whole movie is superb. Battle fields are glorious. Music by Walton is perfect. Except for the palace interiors and the actual battles, there is an intimacy to the scenes that is extraordinary. At times, there is a feeling of real cosiness. The acting is faultless. The comedy moments are truly funny - especially the banter between the Irish, Scots, Welsh and English soldiers (they even have their national symbols sown onto their tunics!) Finally, I don't know what technique was used but I've never seen colour in a film as glorious as this. I'm subtracting half a star only because it could have had ten minutes taken out. The script is not exactly on a par with "Hamlet". Don't ask me what to cut out though! Maybe the French dialogue scene with princess Katherine and her lady-in-waiting? But it's so funny! Look for young George Cole (star of T.V.'s Minder) and John Laurie (Dad's Army). And, for any fellow Australians, Robert Helpmann. In real life, Henry only lived another 7 years after Agincourt, dying aged 35.

Review In A Nutshell: I have never been educated on the works of William Shakespeare, and the things that I do know about him and his works have been achieved through self-learning. Laurence Olivier was my gateway to Shakespeare, showing me marvellous and luscious adaptations of his literature/plays in such a way that feels both faithful and cinematic. Henry V would not be the film that introduced me to both artists; it was actually the Best-Picture winning film, Hamlet that opened my eyes. Before just seeing it, Henry V would be the final film that I have yet seen in Olivier's Shakespeare trilogy. In my opinion, this would be the director's most accessible work, due to the film focusing on the much larger aspects of the story and featuring less complexities and ambiguity. Henry V revolves around the story of the titular character who desires to conquer France; the plot itself is quite simple in comparison to Hamlet or Richard III and this is because the film feels less like a character study and more of a large visual experience. Olivier gives the film's characters enough details that they don't come off dull but it never reaches to the depths and darkness that would define the next two films. It never at all felt like I was watching a film about Henry V, and I don't think Olivier was trying to impress his audience through that avenue. Olivier's directorial debut aims to prove to his peers that he can adapt stories that are commonly translated visually on stage and elevated it further by displaying it on the big screen. Henry V starts itself off with an opening that is self-aware by having the story be told through stage re-enactments, and it feels this way due to the onscreen audience being clearly seen and heard and the actors have very little stage area to work with. Once the story is established, the film surrealistically pulls the viewing audience in, opening up the stage with style and scope, and the acting shifts from stage theatre to a cinematic approach; there is no awareness of an audience watching them and restriction of its environment is far less likely. The film still feels like a set, and by contemporary standards and perspectives it is much more apparent, but I still found myself drawn in by this and taking the story much more seriousness than I did during the film's first 30 minutes. The film eventually opens up further, by showcasing the battlefield of where France and England would duel. At the time, it must have been a marvel to watch it come to life and painted so with the luscious green backdrop of grass and trees. Even I, a product of the late 20th century, am able to appreciate the ambition and effort that Olivier had placed to achieve his vision. The film is by no means perfect, as there a certain elements in this film that I felt could have been executed with more impact; the scenes I am referring to are primarily at the end with King Henry's attempt to sway Princess Katherine into marrying him - the pacing started to drop and far less interesting aspects were being shown on screen for me to admire. I also had a bit of trouble during the first couple of scenes in the film, as it was hard for me to engage with the characters, and it was not until the plot started to open up that I started to find appreciation in them. The acting in this film was obviously wonderful, even if its intentions were to feel stagey and melodramatic. It worked for me because Olivier seems to push his cast in making their roles feel more than what they simply are, but also remaining authentic to the styles that were used in the stage that preceded it. Though the performances were strong, it was nowhere near as complex and as thoughtful as the ones that Olivier and his troupe would bring in his next directorial film. Henry V achieves so much in regards to visual scope and beauty and it does more than enough to make up for some of the film's shortcomings. If one is looking for something much darker and melodramatic, then Henry V would possibly the last from his trilogy that I would watch.

I wasn't expecting this to be very good but I was wrong, wrong, wrong. It took a while to get into the full Shakespeare approach but it was worth holding on. Once more unto the breach...

This is Laurence Olivier's pinnacle in his film adaptations of Shakespeare's work. It is bright and colourful in a way that films were not during this time period. Potentially served as an inspiration for the British forces during the Second World War.

Undoubtedly a great dramatic production with performances that have rarely been bettered. However, personally I did not like the use of the theater in the early scenes.

Although I understand this is considered a masterpiece it was certainly not for me. Not a Shakespeare fan no matter how hard I try.

Was there ever a better actor of shakespeare on screen than Lawrence Olivier?

one of the best stage to screen translation of shakespeare's work

It has outstanding battle sequences and Olivier is at the top of his game as an actor while getting his feet whet as a director. The supporting cast unfortunately doesn't help much, and the stylistic choices are more interesting and curious than good. Still a good adaptation.