I have also been following Branagh's career with interest (I recently posted something here via Usenet but I don't think it made it through). I feel I do have to respond to various comments about HENRY V, for starters. First of all, if you want to talk about Branagh's film of HENRY V you have to understand that it, like Olivier's film, was adapted from a previous stage production(s). In my opinion most successful film adaptations of Shakespeare follow this route anyhow. Olivier's HENRY drew a lot not only from his 1937 appearance in the role at the Old Vic but in turn that production was a stylistic heir to the 19th century tradition of staging HENRY V as a pageant. However, the film also got in on what was a new trend in staging HENRY V in the late 30s, early 40s, a sort of "theater in the round" approach (which you can see reflected in Olivier's Prologue at the Old Globe). Another "lost fact" about Olivier's film is that it was in many ways the brainchild of screenwriter Dallas Bower, who had originally intended to direct the film. (Bower even had to press to get Olivier to accept certain details, such as getting Sir William Walton for the music.) Similarly, with Branagh's film there was already much framework for it set down before he even decided to make the film. This is not simply a case of some hotshot young actor who thinks he can direct (whether rightly or wrongly) creating a film production of HENRY V out of his own pure brain. It wasn't the case with Olivier and wasn't with Branagh either. I thought the previous comment here about Branagh somehow betraying Shakespeare,because he interpolated something from HENRY IV in a different context, to be rather naive. We have armies of Shakespeareans arguing about what the proper TEXTS are of these plays, much less the "proper adaptations" in stage performance, much less the "proper" film adaptations. Every Shakespearean performance, on stage or film, is a unique reconstruction/deconstruction of someone's personal approach. "Being true to Shakespeare" has not much to do with it, no matter what anyone says. Branagh's film is best understood not in the context of comparison with Olivier's, but in the context of where it stands in a long and slow process of the thinking and re-thinking of HENRY V through the centuries, its "meaning" especially when relating to issues of nationalism, power, leadership, history, war; and also the dialogue between theater and film, a dialogue in which directors like Olivier, Branagh, Welles, Peter Brook and (hopefully soon) Richard Eyre/Ian McKellen (with their new RICHARD III film) have all taken part. Branagh's film traces its lineage most directly NOT to Olivier's film, as is so often assumed, but instead to two specific stage productions of HENRY V, both put on by the Royal Shakespeare Company, in 1975 and 1984. Branagh starred in the 1984 production, directed by Adrian Noble, whom Branagh plainly credits in the foreword to his published screenplay for HENRY V. When considering many Shakespeare films (such as both HENRIES for example), it's impossible to look at them in any meaningful way, IMO, unless you know where they came from -- the theater. Happily, a lot of serious critical study has been devoted to Branagh's film in just this context in the five years since its release, away from the usual boring "Olivier vs. Branagh" framing of the discussion which is how movie critics almost universally approached the film in '89 (which does Olivier's work as much a disservice as it does Branagh's). Some other serious considering of Branagh recently was published in CINEMA JOURNAL about DEAD AGAIN. I thought it was a clever piece with good insight, though overall the essay rang a bit hollow. There is something about Branagh which inspires a lot of clever "a-ha-ing" but nothing resembling a compassionate overview. I think it has to do with his status as a) someone young and successful, b) someone who is essentially classless and without obvious ethnicity in a very class- and ethnic-conscious society like the U.K., and c) our own craving for a sense of drama in the career of someone who's touted - and has used this touting for his own benefit, make no mistake - as a phenom. Part of the reason Branagh has been able to make a name for himself is because he has either consciously or unconsciously found a way to tap into the drama that we crave from the careers of the famous. FRANKENSTEIN has been a disappointment as a film but incredibly satisfying as a way of resolving the dramatic tension. "WHEN will Branagh fall on his face?" or "WHEN will he finally be found out a fraud?" I mean, we're loving it, aren't we? When Branagh was 23 and being interviewed he made a facetious remark that he felt sure that one day he would suffer such a spectacularly public failure, but that if he made some sort of comeback, "everyone would say, 'Wow, what a story.'" (can't remember the exact words, but that was the gist.) Cynical, perhaps, but true. Branagh provides entertainment for everyone who has an opinion on his work, whether it is positive or negative. If I was to characterize Branagh's cinema with some high-sounding title, I'd call it a "cinema of displacement." It's most illuminating to look at Branagh's projects and career, on multiple levels, as the work and livelihood of a displaced person. Much has been made of his background as a displaced person (i.e. his emigration from Ulster as a child), but I don't think anyone has considered just how greatly it has influenced his career on many levels. Which leads to a more difficult question, how did this person end up where he is? And where does he go from here? I can't say I disagree with some (but certainly not all, in the case of HENRY V especially) of the criticisms of his art, but I can't help feeling that such criticism is missing the point entirely. It seems to touch on reality only shallowly. When considering Branagh's projects I have to admit I have real trouble ignoring these larger issues which seem to be such an integral part of his creative output. And, having a sense of these larger issues, I have to ask myself as someone who likes to critique and analyze things: do I really have the nerve to discuss this filmmaker seriously on such a level? What would be the point? Surely it goes beyond the usual artistic standards we apply in the field of film criticism or even of media criticism (as far as Branagh's status as wunderkind). Unfortunately, I don't think the writer of the DEAD AGAIN piece in CINEMA JOURNAL really was prepared to go beyond those standards either. Let me put it this way: for me, trying to look at Branagh's films, especially his post-HENRY V work, as a Serious Critic, in this sort of forum, would be like taking a college architecture class out on a field trip to critique a homeless person's cardboard box under a bridge on architectural principles. You can do it, I suppose, but why? Just a thought.