Same, it feels like it SHOULDN'T work, but somehow it's kinda hot.

People are boring..focused in on insignificance.

indeed, well said glad someone else feels the same way. i did not know Falstaff was a write until today, i had to dig deep to get by the interviews with the characters who spent 3 min on screen. ive watched this movie 15 times, thats the true measure of a great film

im hard to please, very picky. this is an excellent, excellent movie. ive watched it at least 15 times! not counting the times i just jumps around to my favorite scenes.

Yeah it’s bloody painful, I nearly gave up.😅

In my opinion it takes all that is historically inaccurate about Shakespeare, and then adds further inaccuracies to create something that is complete fantasy. There is very little that is accurate in any scene, from details to big picture.

@@dragons123ism It is certainly more accurate than Shakespeare. Henry's brother and sister are present, for a start. The siege of Harfleur does not end with a full-frontal assault, for another. Most importantly, the Battle of Agincourt isn't presented as having no losses and no consequences. (The casus belli bit was made up, but they acknowledge *within* the film that that was made up.)

I will concede that Hal's sis is an interesting detail, but Tom o' Clarence *does* appear in the plays, along with the two other bros: Bedford & Gloucester (but I think we agree this is quibbling and not worth getting into). I will also remind you that Thomas is woefully misportrayed and did not die till many years *after* Agincourt. The idea that Henry IV once attempted to disinherit his eldest son is laughable. Also, Harfleur is never taken in the play, but surrenders like in this film. The English go 'once more unto the breach' but fail once again to take the town. I am afraid I am at a complete loss as to what you mean by Agincourt having no losses or consequences in play. The consequences are what hinges the play, and the losses are in fact *listed* ('Here is the no. of the slaughtered French'). You must be only familiar with the film adaptations since they omit Henry's massacre of the prisoners: 'We'll cut the throats of those we have!' As for the casus belli, that ruined the film for me. It made Henry appear spineless and was an excuse to make him more appealling to modern sensibilities, whether the conspiracy was kept ambiguous or not. I think, fundamentally, the portrayal England's most famous warrior king as something of a pacifist who opposes his father's wars is what was most offensive to me. No one wanted the film to succeed as I did and I am afraid it failed miserably for me.

@@dragons123ism Henry IV's alienation from his son, and vice versa, is an idea from Shakespeare which the filmmakers kept. The 'once more unto the breach' did not happen in history, since after the long siege, the town surrendered before any assault. I am familiar with all the adaptations, and the worst was Olivier's WWII propaganda version, which left out all of Henry's "bad bits". The casus belli can't possibly ruin anything, since it was admitted in the film itself that it was fictional. It was merely an easier-to-digest way of saying his courtiers manipulated him, which Shakespeare also said, with the unsatisfactory, gobbledegook Salic Law segment. He was only shown to be a pacifist before his coronation, and Shakespeare's Prince Hal from the Henry IV plays was also only interested in partying (although he fought when necessary, both in play and film). Ultimately, your main problem is that you referred to him as "England's most famous warrior king", which means you admire the character and unthinkingly accepted Shakespeare's Tudor propaganda. He was actually one of England's most irresponsible kings, a 15th-century equivalent of George W Bush. Shakespeare presented Agincourt as a glorious victory with no losses and no consequences, ignoring the fact that Henry V wasted English troops and treasure in capturing a vast territory they would never be able to hold. The later grinding English defeats in France, from 1429-1453, weren't the fault of the men who came after him, as Shakespeare put it. It was Henry V's own fault for making this disastrous foreign policy decision in the first place. If he had focused on ruling England wisely instead, perhaps the bitter Wars of the Roses civil war wouldn't have started under Henry VI. I would compare Shakespeare's Henry V play in the 1590s to a genius filmmaker in the 2190s who makes a dazzling film about the shock-and-awe capture of Baghdad in 2003, but ignores the decade-plus Iraq quagmire that came after it. We would be outraged by that, but perhaps crowds in the 2190s would lap it up.

@@AbcDef-ww2gy This is an interesting discussion, but I am afraid we are not on the same page. OK, I take your word about Henry IV threatening to disinherit his son. I have only a vague recollection of Henry IV p.1&2. I also accept that there was no general assault on Harfleur historically, but I was really only saying that the town surrenders in the play without it having been captured by Henry, which is basically true to history. To the real matter at hand: you are mistaken to think when I say 'most famous warrior king' that I approve of him. I don't take nearly as revisionist a stance towards him as you do, but I do think he was a bloodthirsty and rather nasty piece of work. It is precisely *because* of my opinion of him that I did not like to see him portrayed as going to France under the lies and manipulation of the councillors, when really it was probably a quest for personal glory and vanity, which is kept in Shakespeare. ('No King of England if not King of France!')('His jest will savour but of shallow wit when thousands more did weep than did laugh at it!') I am greatly surprised at your opinion of this film, what with your strong opinions of Henry V. In my opinion, the film displays Henry V as 100 times more heroic, well-meaning, pandering to modern sensibilities than the play does. He is a man of the people, of common sense and modern notions of decency. Shakespeare's audiences *obviously* viewed Henry as heroic but that only shows how far sensibilities have changed over time. We no longer approve of slaughtering of prisoners, making evil threats to the people of Harfleur or being so unsatisfied with ownership of only one kingdom. I do recall *Chorus* making the unintentionally funny remark about the French King offering some "petty and unprofitable dukedoms. The offer likes him not." In what world is an entire dukedom "unprofitable"?! I cannot disagree more about your comparison to the Iraq War. Well, I agree entirely about the similarities to the Hundred Years War (lancastrian phase); but Shakespeare *did* show the aftermath of Henry's campaign. He showed it as a complete disaster that it was. That was what Henry VI p1&2&3 were for! At the end of the day, the film made the silly decision of not including Shakespearean language (which you may argue is all the plays had going for them).

For most interviewers it’s more about them than the people they’re interviewing. Knobs

Bow tie, skinny jeans and sucking up to anyone close enough to get up close and personal with. Fckuing lousy interview.