Emberweave With such a stellar group of British actors, it's amazing how they have managed to ruin Shakespeare. I've seen so many excellent productions, both on stage and on film, but this series stunned me with its awfulness. I watched Richard II, which was boring and grey. The heavy-handed Christ metaphor is not supported by the text and is so obviously shoe-horned in by the director that one wonders why he didn't choose a different story altogether that might have matched his narrow-focus interpretation. Richard is played as such an ethereal, dreamy idiot I'm surprised there wasn't sitar underscoring, along with lava lamps in the castle. It doesn't work with the text. Neither did the St. Sebastian silliness. I certainly enjoy seeing cute gay men, but was this a Shakespeare play or a Herb Ritts photo-shoot documentary? I hung in there for Henry IV parts one and two and they were also dreadful. Where was Henry IV? A better title would have been "The Overly-Extended Drunken Antics of Falstaff". By Part Two I was fast-forwarding through huge swathes of Falstaff nonsense hoping for some sense of interesting story. Instead, people rant and rail with no genuine purpose. I felt nothing for the characters at all and great contempt for the directors. I assume the final shots of Falstaff are supposed to be poignant, but I could not have cared less what happened to that character. This series was such a huge disappointment. I couldn't be bothered to watch the rest of the series. Really, don't waste your time.

Frank Dudley Berry, Jr. There's no question of the production values here, and Hiddleston is excellent. But my lord! What a dour, dismal concept! This play is one of the most playful Shakespeare ever wrote. The playfulness lies not only in the relationship between Prince Hal and Falstaff, but also Hotspur and his wife, and even some of his political speeches. (His fury in the initial confrontation with Henry IV is so exaggerated that it can be played comically).I have never read the dialog between Hotspur and Kate as anything other than play - and indeed, one of Hotspur's better traits is this very modern relationship he maintains with his wife. But the director has unaccountably chosen to treat this interchange as a marital quarrel, as if Kate would actually threaten to break her husband's little finger. Come on.The staging of Falstaff and Prince Hal is even worse. Shakespeare wrote some awfully good jokes for Falstaff, but you'd never know it in this version. I would not normally presume on Big Bill's intentions, but I am sure he meant Falstaff to be likable, charming, for the audience to be on his side - and Hotspur, too, for that matter. In fact, the audience is supposed to enjoy most of these characters, and be saddened by the necessity Hal feels to reject Falstaff and all the world, and the inevitability of Hotspur's defeat.The director has the drama right, but he has lost the comedy - and that is the shame. I think it put the cycle out of balance.

Guy Hugely acclaimed on their release, I have only just got around to watching this tetralogy of films based on the plays by William Shakespeare - and they're rubbish. The biggest problem is the casting: Ben Whishaw plays Richard II as a laughably fey figure, whilst Tom Hiddleston as (the future) Henry V is too introverted and skinny to convince as either a daredevil wastrel (Henry IV Parts 1 & 2) or a mighty warrior king (Henry V). These central failures destroy much of the fine work done by the other actors (Patrick Stewart, Simon Russell-Beale etcetera). This is compounded by the lousy direction, which is flat and lifeless. The locations are wasted and used largely as mere backgrounds (barring the near-blasphemous linking of the dead Richard II and Jesus Christ through a slow shot of a life-size wooden crucifix). Whilst I don't mind the prose delivery of Shakespeare's verse, the way in which it is done is terrible; the actors are left to speechify to an unmoving camera, without any of the movement or visual flow necessary to successfully adapt from the stage to screen. The choice of setting is also odd, with the production trying for a pseudo-historical look but getting the costumes all wrong (rubber fantasy armour, Darth Vader helmets, and turbans!) and persisting with the official policy of colour-blind casting (which is sure to mislead some people) despite its ludicrous incongruity in this context. Much of the budget appears to have been wasted on sub-"Saving Private Ryan" battles, leaving Tom Hiddleston to give (his rather weedy version of) the Crispin's Day Speech to about five people, all of whom are aristocrats (thereby undermining the whole point of the speech). Symptomatic of the whole farrago is that Larry Olivier's 70-year old version of "Henry V" is better acted, more historically accurate, more inventively staged and better directed - so you're better off watching that instead!

Bottlebrush Unfortunately, I didn't manage to watch all three parts of this trilogy, mainly because one was postponed due to a Wimbledon match being played in its stead! Anyway, this is a marvellous production, brilliantly acted, particularly by Tom Hiddleston as King Henry. There's tragedy and humour, both wonderfully portrayed by a string of brilliant actors who know what they are doing.Budgetary constraints prevented the showing of the epic battle scenes (for example at Agincourt) that have become standard in Hollywood, usually with a heavy use of CGI. This did not detract from the production at all, because it is about real acting, including a beautiful use of language. The costumes and locations also worked well.Well done the BBC – may you produce many more such productions, and well done the cast. This production stands out among all the horrible 'reality TV' dross that is spewed out on our screens. I cannot wait to buy The Hollow Crown once it is out on DVD.