I have to admit that I would be more inspired by Kenny even though I thought that last night's speech was very good.

Yes, Tom Hiddleston did what he could with that speech and I thought he was great overall; presumably it was the director Thea Sharrock who wanted it done in that way.

When I was in the sixth form we were taken to see Pasolini's Canterbury Tales. If the teacher had seen it before us, then he was being very naughty.

http://m.broadcastnow.co.uk/5044522.article

A great series, but I still think Richard II was breathtaking where the others were merely excellent. I still go back to iPlayer to watch it again and again. Ben Whishaw added something unearthly that sparked it into life, and Patrick Stewart's soliloquy was deeply moving. Tom Hiddleston impressed me more in Henry V than the IVs, but I wish he sounded less RADA.

I thought the whole performance was too understated. i don't know whether that was the choice of the actor or the director or both, but instead of being stirred by the speeches I was very underwhelmed.

Henry V is not a play I know so I was unaware of bits being cut, as mentioned in earlier posts, but now I know it makes sense of the feeling of disjointedness I had at times while watching.

I'm sorry the 3 Henrys weren't as good as the Richard, by a country mile, but they were still a nice change from the dross that's usually on. Good to see we may get more.

The only bit where my emotions were really stirred was during the speech by Julie Walters about Falstaff's death. I felt really sorry, and I didn't even like Falstaff in this production!

Now I'm going to have to get Ken's version on DVD, to compare.

I must just say that the Richard II will stay with me for ever. Absolute magic. I can't see it being bettered.

A great series..Richard was my fave..just splendid

If you want to be stirred, this is the one I love Montjoy in it too...

I really like Pistol and Nym in the Branagh one

And Eton! Bless him.

Loved the previous plays - especially Henry 1V part 1 but I was very disappointed with Henry V. Not a patch on the Branagh version in my opinion. Far too much cut out. I agree about the cutting of the murder of the boys making the killing of prisoners incomprehensible. The speeches before Harfleur and Agincourt lacked any fire. They were supposed to be rabble rousing speeches surely, and they certainly didn't come over as such. The scene with Katherine learning English lacked the humour and the fun of Emma Thompson's version. I wish they had actually sung the Te Deum too as they did in the Brannagh one.
I feel quite let down by it all. I know every actor has to do his or her own version of Shakespeare and not try to copy someone else but I think this version was a failure. Kenneth Branagh still remains my favourite Henry V.

Yes I was hoping for that too.

I have enjoyed The Hollow Crown and pleased that the BBC are considering a follow up. The most obvious one to do the Henry VI trilogy and Richard III, think Sam Mendes want to see the History plays completed.

A piece about one of the co-founders of Neal Street Productions, the production company behind the Hollow Crown: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...t-hollow-crown

I totally agree.

Another bit I was sorry to lose was the scene in the French camp the night before the battle, with them eagerly anticipating the morning. We only got a couple of lines from that, and I was sorry to lose some of the Constable's humour at the Dauphin's expense.

He was out for the French crown. His claim was that it was his by right of descent; his ancestor Edward II had married the daughter of the then King of France. When all that King's sons died childless, Edward III claimed he should inherit; however, the French operated Salic Law, which meant the throne couldn't pass down through a female, so it went to a cousin.

Yes , I missed that too - with the Dauphin going on about his horse.
It was Katherine's scene with her nurse, learning English nouns, which disappointed most though!

It wasn't as simple as that; no-one really mentioned the Salic law back in the 14th century and it certainly wasn't part of long-standing inheritance practice then - as an argument it was made much more of in the campaign against Henry VI's rights in the 15th century.

He didn't go to Eton. If find him pretty unwatchable on TV, though he was good as Konstantin in the Seagull - but that is an overly dramatic role which suits his style. Richard would probably suit him on stage.

..... yes of course sky show stuff from globe theatre. the point is they dont develop any uk televison to speak of. just throw money around then point a camera at existing stuff.

as i said in theatre thread theres very little new original stuff. sky is unlikely ever to show anything that criticises its own business model.

the arts channel was originally independent of course. but sky forcibly took it over. then dropped the fta pbs performance channel. sky is about money not tv. and will only do what increases its own profits.

I also think this Henry V lost the sense that nobody believed Hal was up to the job. The bishops had their own interests at heart and advised Hal to go to war because they wanted money for the church.

This article says different:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...ing-toffs.html As does his Wikipedia entry.

He was at Eton at the same time as Prince William. Why didn't you think he went there?

He apparently then got a double first from Cambridge and went to RADA. I don't generally say things like that unless I've made sure of them first.

I would have said underdramatic was his style!

However, I've not seen him in anything else except The Hollow Crown, so maybe I'm wrong.

That article is about Tom Hiddleston. I was talking about Ben Wishaw. I was responding to a post that started off talking about Richard II but I see I misread it and the end was talking about Henry V. To be honest I've never even heard of the actor who played Henry and had no clue about his background!