The Hollow Crown (TV Series) Henry IV, Part 2 (2012) User Reviews

Great actors giving true performances

[silvermoon132 · 9/10 · 8 September 2012]

A warning before I begin: You may not like this production if you don't like drama. Personally I think that the combination of grim severity and comical wit is perfect. But this is (by and large) a serious film. If you are looking to laugh, applaud, and (maybe) shed a tear or two then this is definitely for you. If you don't like Shakespeare, or are just looking for mindless entertainment, pass it over…I promise not to judge too harshly.

The directors and producers truly captured the spirit of the play. Jeremy Irons's anguished and troubled Henry IV is perfectly on par. He allows you to peak into the past and see the man Henry was. Likewise, Tom Hiddleston's portrayal of Prince Hal is simply beautiful. His Hal is charismatic, calculating, inspiring—a complex character who you simultaneously love and abhor, applaud and condemn. Hiddleston gives, by far, the most compelling rendition that I have ever seen.

But you could not have Hiddleston's Hal without Simon Russell Beale's Falstaff; they are the perfect pairing. They capture the essence of the tragic/comic relationship that exists between Hal and Falstaff. You can't help but despise Falstaff. Yet the love that he shows for Hal makes him endearing and human. Beale's complex performance leaves you questioning whether you should like or loath his character, which is exactly as it should be.

The costumes are appropriate and the attention to detail is commendable. You won't see busty women prancing about in unrealistic clothing, like you do in some horrid productions. The battle scenes are refreshing; there are no swarms of digitalized soldiers, but actors giving true performances. The music is a bit over-dramatic at times; but other than that, it is a great production.

Would recommend to anyone who likes Shakespeare. If you are familiar with his comedies, but have not seen the more serious plays, the combination of wit and tragedy makes this the perfect introduction.

Excellent continuation of the Hollow Crown

[Red-125 · 9/10 · 19 September 2020]

The Hollow Crown (TV Series) Henry IV, Part 2 (2012) was scripted and directed by Richard Eyre.

This is superb Shakespeare, because the actors are so talented. Simon Russell Beale is a memorable Falstaff. Tom Hiddleston is excellent as Prince Hal. (Although the play is called Henry IV, it's really a coming of age story of Prince Hal, who will become Henry V.J

Jeremy Irons portrays Henry IV with his usual outstanding talent. Joe Armstrong is fine as Hotspur.

The supporting cast is "BBC quality." Watch for Michelle Dockery as Kate Percy. It's a small role, but she captures your attention whenever she's on screen.

The BBC clearly wanted viewers to realize that this was a movie. Not a televised stage presentation, but a movie. Sometimes, director Eyre overdoes it. OK--here's a scene where rebel foot soldiers are being chased and killed by men on horseback. We see one slaughter. Then another. Then another. A total of five men being killed in the same way in one scene is three (maybe four) too many.

There's also a bath house scene between Poins and Hal that has obvious homoerotic overtones. Poins is Henry's friend--a counterbalance to Falstaff. Of course it's possible that that there was mutual attraction between the two men. However, if Shakespeare had wanted to set a scene in a bath house, that's what he would have done. In my opinion, this was just an opportunity to show two handsome young men nude from the waist up.

This series was made for television, so it works well on the small screen. The film has a high IMDb rating of 8.1. I thought it was even better than that, and rated it 9.

Plenty going on and most of it made pretty clear through the delivery

[bob the moo · 15 September 2012]

I recently watched Henry IV part 1 in this series and was left a little cold by it as I didn't feel that it delivered a great deal to be in terms of meaning and edge and that, while the production values were high and the story was engaging, I felt that the language wasn't as gripping as Shakespeare can be and also that subtext and meaning was not brought out as it should have been. Although not a total success part 2 really does deliver quite a lot and the themes within the material came over more clearly to me. The play sees Prince Hal maturing into the king we know from Henry V while at the same time his father struggles with the manner in which his reign came to be and the fallout from it. Meanwhile Falstaff becomes more of a tragic figure whose only hope is that his lies and supposed connections will somehow pay off.

These character-focused things continue against the backdrop of fallout from the challenge to Henry IV from Wales and it makes for a busy and interesting story which is delivered well in under two hours. Although it spends a lot of time with characters and places that I thought of as "side issues" in part 1, here they are given more meaning – developing character but also shedding light on other plots by virtue of their relation to them. I enjoyed seeing Hal change as a character through the film and mature into something much more regal and suitable for the throne – harsh in some ways but ultimately appearing to act for the greater good. Likewise Falstaff was much more to me than he had been before. From the very start he is more sombre and less of a clown – feeling his age, less confident in his wit and also suffering from ill health. He contrasts very well with the change in Hal and, although tragic, the end of the film makes his fate clear and clearly deserved in the bigger picture.

Originally struggling to forget his role in The Avengers, I liked Hiddleston a lot here, he had a confidence and understanding of his character that perhaps he was not allowed in the tone of the first film. Likewise Irons does better as there is more meat to get his teeth into; of course Beale benefits the same as Falstaff. The supporting cast features quite a few famous faces giving solid supporting performances (Glen, Palmer, Walters etc) and it feels strong in quality without feeling starry for the sake of it.

Having not been overly impressed by the previous two films in the Hollow Crown series, Henry IV part 2 really worked for me; it keeps the same serious tone throughout but it brings more out of the words and characters than I got out of the previous films. The material is more engaging in my opinion, but the version seems to do more with it as well. I am now looking forward to the final part of this series – partly because it will be the first time I have seen Henry V in the context of the previous three plays and not just as a standalone piece.

Thoughtful and well acted

[alandebam · 10/10 · 20 January 2017]

Having read other reviews I thought they must have been watching another film. This production is flawless. Simon Russell Beale is astonishing and compelling as Falstaff, bringing so much depth to the character. There are so many excellent performances here, but notably David Bamber as Justice Shallow, Geoffrey Palmer as the Lord Chief Justice, Jeremy Irons as Henry IV and Tom Hiddleston as Prince Hal.

The play is not simply the telling of a story but about the passage of time, the passing of youth,age and consequences. The production brings out so much of the underlying pathos in the characters. The scene in Act 3 Scene 2 where Falstaff and Shallow sit by the fire and Shallow recalls the past conveys the depth of this production.

One reviewer complains about Beale and others mumbling their words which is ridiculous. I can hear every word. The actors speak the language so naturally. Another complains that Part 1 and 2 could have been one film but that wholly misses the point of the themes in the two plays, besides ignoring the fact the Shakespeare wrote the plays in two separate parts.

If you enjoy Shakespeare, enjoy the subtlety of words and acting at its best, then watch and listen.

No uneasiness in any way

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 3 August 2019]

Of the two parts of 'Henry IV' (as said already the play is in two parts so that it's performed in 'The Hollow Crown' as two parts is correct), the second part is the better one of the two in my opinion. Do like both parts very much, and their mix of comedy and drama are wonderfully done. The momentum at times is perhaps stronger in Part 1 but have always found the comedy funnier and the drama more poignant in Part 2.

Both parts are performed brilliantly in 'The Hollow Crown' series, a must see to get acquainted with the historical Shakespeare plays, which are very much accessible to younger audiences/generations and to see productions/performances of them. Although the first part is a little higher rated, and this is partly because of the play itself to me the second part is even better for pretty much the same reasons as the play, on top of that the story and characters are meatier this time round as well and there is more going on. See the 1979 BBC production too, one of the best ones of that more than worthwhile if uneven series (the BBC Television Shakespeare one, which started from 1978 with a just slightly above average 'Romeo and Juliet' and finished in 1985 with an excellent 'Titus Andronicus') of all Shakespeare's plays, but consider this better.

Cannot find fault with the production values. The photography could easily pass for that for a film, this was not a made for television look here. A lot of homework was done in the settings and costumes, making them as detailed and evocative as possible and succeeding extremely well on both counts. There are no issues with the music fitting or being appropriate. Never found it intrusive while still having the right amount of beauty and intensity, better than the music for a lot of films in recent years.

Richard Eyre's direction is remarkable and very thoughtful, doing well in opening up the drama instead of being too much of a filmed play and including no excessive or distasteful touches. There is nothing overblown or static with the battle scenes, while the comedy is at its best hilarious and the drama, of which there is more of and it's more of a melancholic tone this time, genuinely moving. Especially good with the stage direction is the relationship between Hal and Falstaff (his role more crucial and plot advancing in the second part), which has a lot of depth and succeeds in not being too focused on the comedic or too focused on the tragic. Of the individual scenes, Henry's final scene really stood out and brought tears to my eyes, likewise with the wordless bit with Hal on his father's throne. Act 3 Scene 2 agreed also excels in bringing out the necessary pathos.

Again, the performances are uniformly excellent and for the same reasons as in the first part. Tom Hiddleston brings tremendous charisma and energy to Hal, one of my favourite roles of his (in both parts) and do think he is better and more consistent in 'Henry IV' personally than in 'Henry V'. His imitation of his father is pure gold, Hiddleston actually sounds like Irons at this point. Simon Russell Beale is a very larger than life Falstaff in how he is made up and in interpretation, he looks as if he was enjoying himself and found myself enjoying him enormously here too. Jeremy Irons has more screen time here and his material is meatier than in Part 1, his anguished portrayal is one of true nobility and poignant power and plays enormously to his strengths as an actor, not enough of his recent roles show his strengths but his Henry is one of the best examples of those that do. David Bamber is a major bonus too as Shallow, and Alun Armstrong can do no wrong.

Overall, absolutely outstanding. 10/10

Utterly marvellous on every level!!!!!!

[blipblip-95696 · 10/10 · 10 November 2021]

I find it amazing that some viewers found fault with the production - but such is the nature of taste and subjectivity. Personally - I found it to be utterly marvellous - From the exquisite acting from all the cast - Beautiful set designs - Beautiful cinematography - Subtle yet soulful music - The sound was clear and rich - All the dialogue sounded clear and full with just the right amount of foley. As for interpretation of the play - I thought the director did a fantastic job - creating a world and time that was believable - He created a marvellous space for the actors to weave their magic - As for what one might imagine Shakespeare would make of this production - I think - he would sit back happily in the stalls or comfy sofa and with a glass of fine wine in hand - applaud this epic interpretation of one of his master works. Personally - having bought the complete set - one sitting will not be enough by far - and fully expect over the fullness of time - to wear the DVD's out!!!!

Freakin awesome

[plls-27016 · 10/10 · 9 February 2023]

I have no clue what quite a few of these reviews are talking about, this is an incredible interpretation of King Henry IV p2. The dark tone fits the depth of the terrribleness of war and the failing health of a beloved father. Both Iron and Hiddleston plays their characters fantasticly! Yeah, it's Shakespeare, so its very dense and can be difficult to keep up sometimes when the conversation picks up speed and strength. However, it's really well done for something as dense as it is and I can't help myself from watch all of the King Henry episodes over and over again. Once you get a handle on it all, it's a fun and intriguing watch with incredible energy behind it.

A director completely out of his depth.

[dotwintershow · 3/10 · 16 July 2012]

It's hard to know where to start when things have gone this badly wrong. It is sad that a first class performance by Jeremy Irons as the king should be mired in this travesty. First, Mr Eyre doesn't understand the play and falls into the Falstaff trap, mistaking the tavern characters' affection for Falstaff for the writer's. A sorely miscast Simon Russell Beale mumbles his lines through a mass of facial hair and the ONLY way to make out what he is saying is by switching on the subtitles. That alone is a disaster for which the director and the producers must be held responsible. What were they thinking? I suspect their familiarity with the lines tricked them into not noticing that Shakespeare's words had disappeared into a black hole of over-naturalistic acting.

Other members of the cast are so wooden you could chop them down. Joe Armstrong as Hotspur just gabbles angrily. His wife, Michele Dockery, sounds like she's sight reading. Julie Walters and Maxine Peake are too busy trying to replace the words with acting to make out more than a couple of words at a time. Richard Eyre's use of sentimental music to tell us when it's SAD just made me LAUGH.

The brilliant performance of Jeremy Irons and Shakespeare hiding in the subtitles made it bearable at times but it was on the whole a massive artistic failure. All of this is down to the director and producers. The cast is packed with talent, misdirected in this instance. Sir Richard Eyre shares a writer's credit alongside Shakespeare (I'm not kidding) so this might tell us something about why this went so wrong. See Rupert Goold's brilliant film of Richard II (the first part of the mini-series) and compare. That's the way to do it, with clarity, nuance and a profound understanding of the play.

To crown a king

[Prismark10 · 5/10 · 19 May 2016]

Henry IV, Part 2 like the first part is a play named after king who really does not have the title role. Although Jeremy Irons has bigger role here than he did in Part 1.

The dramatisation deals with the aftermath from the first play with Hotspur's father Northumberland (Alun Armstrong) gathering the rebels to avenge his son's death and take on the ill Henry IV now deep in regret in the manner of his own taking of the throne and the fallout from it. However wily Westmoreland entices the rebel leaders into a truce and then promptly arrests them and have them all quickly executed.

Prince Hal is maturing into a man ready to ascend to the throne as his father struggles with his health. Both reconcile and like the older Don Corleone in The Godfather gives his son advice as to how best to deal with his power and rivals, sowing the seeds of taking France and thus tightening his grip on his own crown.

In the tavern Falstaff becomes more desperate and tragic with ill health fending off his pursuers and hoping for some kind of pay off. When Hal is crowned as Henry V, he sternly rejects Falstaff when he begs for acknowledgement from his old drinking buddy during the coronation procession. Like a child grown up Henry V puts away foolish things, he is readying for new battles.

Falstaff is left shattered and humiliated. A lovelorn figure, a man with little to be boastful about.

Again director Richard Eyre has used location to open up the play, the tavern sequences certainly bring out the low life atmosphere of London. Despite the text being cut down it just felt less busy. You actually did feel if this could had been combined with Part 1 and the story told in one play.

It again emphasises that these plays were of Shakespeare's times. Entertainment for the evening four hours or more and Part 2 to follow the next day. To the modern viewer it halts the flow of the story. Too much fat on the side.

Slightly superior follow-up to the BBC's Henry IV, Part 1

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 24 February 2015]

This follow up to HENRY IV PART 1 is a little better, purely because there's more incident here. Falstaff plays a more important role in the political turmoil surrounding his royal leaders, and as a whole there's more gravitas and import than we found in the first part.

The production values remain strong, and Tom Hiddleston remains the best thing in it in a transitionary role, part transformed into his later leading man in HENRY V. Thankfully, Jeremy Irons gets more screen time, and shares at least one bravura moment with Hiddleston. Still, it's fair to say that the production is fumbled in places, with Falstaff remaining impenetrable and the two-part production as a whole a far cry from the excellence that was RICHARD II.