MovieChat Forums > Henry V (1989) Discussion > is this a good movie?

is this a good movie?


any comments?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Quick question.........

I'm having trouble finding Henry I,II,III and IV how come none of the prequels are availible?

reply

Whilst I can appreciate this is a significant adaptation of the Bard and was deservedly praised on its initial release for its masterful realisation of battle scenes and handling of olde english dialogue, I can't help but feel it really isn't the masterpiece people would have you believe. I ground my assessment on a recent rewatching of the film from which I was struck by an almost unsurpassable sense of Branagh's self conciet. Yes, I know he is out to impress and that he is playing a vain king but my god the film felt twice as long this time round and the courting of Emma Thompson at the end felt so tacked on and utterly out of keeping with the tone of the rest of the film. I fully understand with a Shakespeare adaptation one is working from a revered blueprint but my god is the original as unconvincingly concluded as this. As a film it simply doesn't work as a denouemont.

Anyway I don't believe it is the best shakespeare adaptation as i don't think it has aged particularly well but then film and cinema has always been about opinion. Roman Polanski's Macbeth as well as the Welles adaptations are well worth a look for anyone interested in seeing other fine Bard films.

reply

I can definitely see where you're coming from, although I do disagree. Branagh definitely has a certain degree of "self-conceit," but that is in all of his films (see "Dead Again"--you'll know what I mean). However, that is exactly what makes him such a powerful actor--sometimes you hate his guts (as in some of the earlier, plodding scenes), and other times you want to cheer for him all the way (the "Crispin's Day" speech--best Shakespeare monologue ever filmed). The point is, it was Shakespeare's exact intention to create such a complex character and that is the genius of Branagh's portrayal. He is one of a shrinking number of actors who can bring out such intense levels and contrasts of characters in his performances.

As for the ending, it is a bit "tacked on", as you so nobly put it, but that's exactly how it feels in the play. This sudden change in tone is purposely a non sequitor to emotionally "shake" the audience from the horrors of war to the sweet words of wooing. Derek Jacobi's last chorus hurrah is a bit cheesy, but I feel it concludes the story quite nicely; it's a wonderful "bookend" for this epic story.

On a slightly different note, many of you have been making comments about the "way they say the words." Branagh (as director) has done everything in his power to make the lines as interesting as possible by casting wonderful character actors who truly bring the story to life. In my opinion, it has the most "bearable" readings of Shakespeare's words of any modern adaptation (except maybe "Titus"). If you can't handle the dialogue in this movie, then you're just not cut out for Shakespeare.

And one final note, regarding the recommendation of Polanski's "Macbeth." While Polanski is an incredibly talented and deep-probing director, his "Macbeth" is often pretentious, dated, and morbid (and, yes--I realize the source text is quite morbid, but naked witches, naked little kids and some of the most disgusting make-up ever shown on screen is a bit too much). Plus, it gets the prize for Longest-Pointless-Shot-Ever-Filmed (when the witches are walking away after their first meeting with Macbeth and Banquo). At times an acceptably "out-there" Art House film, at other times a blatantly misread piece of shock cinema, it does not do justice to its source. Please don't defend this film simply because Polanski directed it, although I would like to see him take another try at "Macbeth" not that he's out of the dark times of his life.

reply

Though this was a good film, it did not fully live up to the orginal story. Branagh completely bypasses all the humor in the orginal story. The humorous scenes with Pistol,Nym and Bardolf are transformed into characters that seem to appear just to mourn for Falstaff. The result of the glove scene is also breif. Williams never even challenges Henry to the duel, yet still tosses him his glove, which Branagh mearly throughs at him after Agincourt. He takes alot out of the story which made it great, and seemes to foucus solely on the end battle, which I belive was overdone. His one worthy addition was the song after the battle, a scene which nearly brought tears to my eyes.

reply

I disagree that Branagh's Henry is vain. This is a King who is struggling with the concept of Divine rule. A total believer in God to be sure, but Pomp and Ceremony aside, he still sees himself as just a bloke and 'one of the boys'. Henry IV Pt 1 makes it much clearer. As an actor, Branagh does come off a little pompous at times, but he is still one of my favourite actors.

As for the 'tacked on' ending, I partly agree. It does feel an afterthought, but thats how it is written. The King has united a Kingdom after years of internal strife, defeated the French and grabbed a large portion of their land with one hand on the Crown. The man is invincible, until it comes to French language and women. And he is pretty hopeless with both. It is tacked on, but it is a nice counterpoint to his character.

I personally think the production is sublime. Definitely the best version of Henry V, just about defeating Olivier's. And for a budget of something like £700,000, even better.

reply

[deleted]

yes, that is a good macbeth.



You stay classy, San Diego.

reply

I'm having trouble finding Henry I,II,III and IV how come none of the prequels are availible?


Well, there was a series of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare made in the late 70's, so you could find the three prequels there. Anthony Quayle played Falstaff in Henry IV, Parts I and II, and Derek Jacobi had the title role in Richard II.

There was a theatrical version of Richard II a few years ago, too.
And then of course, I am sure you want to see the "sequels" which, Lucas-like, were actually written and performed before Henry V. The Henry VI plays are hard to fins also, but there are many good versions of Richard III out there. I particularly like Ian McKellan's version which recasts Richard as a '30's era fascist dictator.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The invention of color photography is a mistake from which the movies have never wholly recovered.

reply

One of the greatest of all time!

http://DanteDreams.com/ <-My webcomic
"Jesus saves, everyone else takes damage" -Tshirt

reply

It is a completely SUPERB movie!

The needs of the Many outweigh the needs of the One?... S*d that, we're doing it MY way!

reply

Yes. Go watch it.

reply

[deleted]

It's a great movie.

reply