So much better than the previous episode! It's not one of Shakespeare's better efforts, and the edits make some of the characters do odd things, but it is entertaining. I have two casting quibbles. Tom Sturridge's Henry is just bizarre. Fortunately, he spends a lot of the play off stage! George Streatfeild is a good actor, but Edward IV was famously tall and gorgeous. Streatfeild just doesn't capture the charisma and dash of Edward. Why would anyone follow him?
9 Reviews
A far from bloodless war
TheLittleSongbird16 August 2019
All of William Shakespeare's history plays are at the least well worth reading and watching at least once, my personal favourite being the most famous one 'Richard III'. Which is why 'The Hollow Crown', both seasons but especially the first consisting of the Henriad tetralogy (with 'Henry V' being the one slight disappointment), is so highly recommended, its acclaimed reception being more than justified.
'Henry VI Part 1' was a very good start to the second season coined War of the Roses'. Found Part 2, which has the same strengths and not quite so good things, even better, found the performances even stronger, that it had more tension and it was a little more tasteful. Neither part of 'Henry VI' make the play a favourite of mine, but it is one of Shakespeare's darkest, longest and most difficult to perform and worth getting acquainted with regardless of whether it does much for you or not. It is again one of the least faithful adaptations of 'The Hollow Crown', with there being omissions/truncations in the text which can make the adaptation feel a touch rushed on occasions.
Visually, 'Henry VI Part 2' is very handsome, as can be expected with 'The Hollow Crown' series, with a lot of effort put into making the costumes and settings as evocative and detailed as possible, neither being too stark or too elaborate. The photography is often cinematic-like, expansive in places without being overblown and intimate in other places without being restricted. The music also achieves that balance, didn't find it over-scored anywhere which is so easy to do with such a big, bold approach to the material.
Shakespeare's text, even when not complete, is as poetic and thought-provoking as ever, while Dominic Cooke does wonderfully with not making the adaptation feel stagy or too much of a filmed play. Instead it's opened up without being too over-theatrical, it is often dark, bold stuff that doesn't jar that much with the material. The pull no punches direction of some scenes is hard to watch but also powerful and didn't find it that tasteless. There were times though to me where some of the uncompromising approach was taken too far.
The performances are even better here, and they were fantastic in the first part too. A big standout being Benedict Cumberbatch's goosebump-inducing Richard. Sophie Okonedo is very commanding without over-playing as Margaret, no mugging or looking bored in sight, her out-and-ahead-of-her-time portrayal is still interesting. Tom Sturridge is a charismatic and sincere Henry, while Ben Miles' Machiavellian Somerset stands out again. Adrian Dunbar plays Plantagenet with plenty of fire, and Keeley Hawes has seldom been more pert.
In conclusion, great and even better than the very good first part. If you don't like cuts and uncompromising approaches to material this won't be for you, but if you like something brilliantly made, compelling and with more than great performances this shouldn't be missed. 9/10
'Henry VI Part 1' was a very good start to the second season coined War of the Roses'. Found Part 2, which has the same strengths and not quite so good things, even better, found the performances even stronger, that it had more tension and it was a little more tasteful. Neither part of 'Henry VI' make the play a favourite of mine, but it is one of Shakespeare's darkest, longest and most difficult to perform and worth getting acquainted with regardless of whether it does much for you or not. It is again one of the least faithful adaptations of 'The Hollow Crown', with there being omissions/truncations in the text which can make the adaptation feel a touch rushed on occasions.
Visually, 'Henry VI Part 2' is very handsome, as can be expected with 'The Hollow Crown' series, with a lot of effort put into making the costumes and settings as evocative and detailed as possible, neither being too stark or too elaborate. The photography is often cinematic-like, expansive in places without being overblown and intimate in other places without being restricted. The music also achieves that balance, didn't find it over-scored anywhere which is so easy to do with such a big, bold approach to the material.
Shakespeare's text, even when not complete, is as poetic and thought-provoking as ever, while Dominic Cooke does wonderfully with not making the adaptation feel stagy or too much of a filmed play. Instead it's opened up without being too over-theatrical, it is often dark, bold stuff that doesn't jar that much with the material. The pull no punches direction of some scenes is hard to watch but also powerful and didn't find it that tasteless. There were times though to me where some of the uncompromising approach was taken too far.
The performances are even better here, and they were fantastic in the first part too. A big standout being Benedict Cumberbatch's goosebump-inducing Richard. Sophie Okonedo is very commanding without over-playing as Margaret, no mugging or looking bored in sight, her out-and-ahead-of-her-time portrayal is still interesting. Tom Sturridge is a charismatic and sincere Henry, while Ben Miles' Machiavellian Somerset stands out again. Adrian Dunbar plays Plantagenet with plenty of fire, and Keeley Hawes has seldom been more pert.
In conclusion, great and even better than the very good first part. If you don't like cuts and uncompromising approaches to material this won't be for you, but if you like something brilliantly made, compelling and with more than great performances this shouldn't be missed. 9/10
Henry VI Part 2
Prismark1022 January 2024
Writer Ben Power condensed the Henry VI cycle of plays. Director Dominic Cooke has gone for the graphic bloodthirsty route.
Once again this is Game of Thrones meets The Godfather as civil war wages in England.
It starts with Somerset losing his head and then being mocked by his enemies.
The deposed King Henry VI (Tom Sturridge) walks around his former kingdom having lost his mind.
The Yorkist Edward IV (Geoffrey Streatfeild) ascends the throne. A marriage is arranged by Warwick with the family of King Louis of France. To bring a peaceful union.
Only Edward finds love at first sight with Elizabeth (Keeley Hawes.)
This leads to anger, embarrassment and changes of allegiances. It is also a chance for the former Queen Margaret (Sophie Okonedo) a chance to seize the throne again on behalf of her husband.
By the end waiting in the wings is the future Richard III (Benedict Cumberbatch.)
It goes at breakneck speed. The Shakespeare plays is a fictitious view of history just like the Netflix's The Crown.
Once again this is Game of Thrones meets The Godfather as civil war wages in England.
It starts with Somerset losing his head and then being mocked by his enemies.
The deposed King Henry VI (Tom Sturridge) walks around his former kingdom having lost his mind.
The Yorkist Edward IV (Geoffrey Streatfeild) ascends the throne. A marriage is arranged by Warwick with the family of King Louis of France. To bring a peaceful union.
Only Edward finds love at first sight with Elizabeth (Keeley Hawes.)
This leads to anger, embarrassment and changes of allegiances. It is also a chance for the former Queen Margaret (Sophie Okonedo) a chance to seize the throne again on behalf of her husband.
By the end waiting in the wings is the future Richard III (Benedict Cumberbatch.)
It goes at breakneck speed. The Shakespeare plays is a fictitious view of history just like the Netflix's The Crown.
Amazing Adaptation!
reducedsc16 July 2018
If your measure of a Shakespearean production is its fidelity to the text, then this will disappointment. But this film *adaptation* is a brilliant streamlining of Shakespeare's massive and overlong trilogy. Tom Sturridge and Sophie Okonedo, in particular, bring great insight and power to their roles. A wonderful interpretation of a rarely produced play.
Engaging and dramatic but the majority has the feel of a placeholder
bob the moo16 August 2020
Picking up right after the end of the previous film, this half closes out the battle between Somerset and Plantagenet reasonably quickly and moves its focus back to the throne itself. Once beyond this we move to the push and reign of Edward before it then concludes in a way that sets up the next episode of Richard III. I do not know the text well enough to confirm, but it feels like a lot was cut out of this film, and that a lot of violence and speed was put in its place. It does work in this regard, but the downside is that a lot of characters feel small when they are probably not; in particular the rise of Edward feels like a placeholder necessary to setup the next film with the bigger star. The speed that the tension of the first film is resolved adds to this feeling because it brings in Richard, who we already know will be the focus of the third film, and the film does seem to play into this - although of course the material is structured more or less this way, but the film leans that way.
It doesn't help that Edward is played out beside two very strong performances in Okonedo and Cumberbatch, as well as others in smaller roles (Townsend for example). As a total film it also spends a lot more time on battles than the first film did, and it does feel like the language is stripped back to make room for this; the characters being known from the first film cover for this, but there is a lot of beheading and violence, which works in terms of making everything feel very accessible and lively, but also feels unnecessary because the performances had done well enough to show the tension and stakes.
It is still an engaging, dramatic, and accessible film, but it does feel a bit like it is not as strong as the first film, and that it is building to the final one.
It doesn't help that Edward is played out beside two very strong performances in Okonedo and Cumberbatch, as well as others in smaller roles (Townsend for example). As a total film it also spends a lot more time on battles than the first film did, and it does feel like the language is stripped back to make room for this; the characters being known from the first film cover for this, but there is a lot of beheading and violence, which works in terms of making everything feel very accessible and lively, but also feels unnecessary because the performances had done well enough to show the tension and stakes.
It is still an engaging, dramatic, and accessible film, but it does feel a bit like it is not as strong as the first film, and that it is building to the final one.
More slitting of throats
Red-1254 October 2020
Henry VI Part 2 (2016) is the second episode of The Hollow Crown, Season 2. It was directed by Dominic Cooke.
The great actor Benedict Cumberbatch plays Richard. It's a small part, but he sets the scene for Richard III. Sophie Okonedo remains an excellent "she-wolf from France." Tom Sturridge does well as Henry VI.
Truth in reviewing: I'm not an expert in the Wars of the Roses or Shakespeare's early histories. Other reviewers have commented that some of Shakespeare's lines were omitted, and I assume that's correct. I know that Henry VI was actually three plays, here distilled into two. Poetic license.
As always, the movie has great BBC production values. It's worth watching Henry VI, Part 2 because it's rarely produced on stage. If you love Shakespeare, you won't want to miss this. If Shakespeare isn't for you, try Henry IV Parts 1 & 2, Henry V, and Richard III.
This film has a very high IMDb rating of 8.2. I rated it 9.
The great actor Benedict Cumberbatch plays Richard. It's a small part, but he sets the scene for Richard III. Sophie Okonedo remains an excellent "she-wolf from France." Tom Sturridge does well as Henry VI.
Truth in reviewing: I'm not an expert in the Wars of the Roses or Shakespeare's early histories. Other reviewers have commented that some of Shakespeare's lines were omitted, and I assume that's correct. I know that Henry VI was actually three plays, here distilled into two. Poetic license.
As always, the movie has great BBC production values. It's worth watching Henry VI, Part 2 because it's rarely produced on stage. If you love Shakespeare, you won't want to miss this. If Shakespeare isn't for you, try Henry IV Parts 1 & 2, Henry V, and Richard III.
This film has a very high IMDb rating of 8.2. I rated it 9.
Utterly uninspired; turns beauty to ugliness
sarastro712 February 2017
Although it's quite ridiculous to rate it a "1", I have to say I largely agree with the previous reviewer. The spirit of Shakespeare's poetry and beauty is completely absent in this sliced-up and cut-down version, which seems to have had no other ambition than to appeal to Game of Thrones fans. The producers are clearly all big fans of graphic throat-cutting, almost to the point of fetishization. There are good scenes here and there, but by the standard that a good adaptation should be a good representation of Shakespeare's story and poetry, this version falls almost as short as it possibly can. There is little love of Shakespeare on display here. This is one of the worst Shakespeare adaptations ever made (and this comes from someone who collects them, and owns virtually every adaptation of a Shakespeare play ever released on disk), despite some of the actors being good (the guy who plays Henry VI, for one). I habitually re-watch my Shakespeare DVDs, but this is one I don't anticipate ever having any desire to see again.
The hollowed-out Crown
kaaber-213 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Well, there isn't much left of Shakespeare's trilogy, is there? Brave Talbot, practically the hero of Shakespeare's part one, is left with only a few lines to speak, and if we want to see more of him, we have to check "deleted scenes", where we find Talbot receiving King Henry on the French coast - but still with no lines to speak. For some reason, the Duke of Somerset has taken the Duke of Suffolk's place in Queen Margaret's bed, and there's no Jack Cade rebellion. I still have to work out why so much has been cut and altered (except for obvious budget reasons and because it seems to have been decided that Cumberbatch was to play Richard of Gloucester, the series opted to include the often-filmed "Richard III" rather than have Henry VI, part 1, 2 and 3). But I do detect the reason for one paring-down: Joan of Arc. We see her merely as a female victim instead of as the chief instigator of the French revolt against the English as she is in the play. Well, after all, Joan has been canonized since Shakespeare wrote "Henry VI", so it won't do to upset the Catholics.
The series is watchable, but it's not good. It can't hold a candle to the first "Hollow Crown" series. But the last episode, "Richard III" saves the day (apart from the unwarranted overuse of Queen Margaret).
wanted so much to like it
mavalent-116 May 2016
What can I say...
Really wanted to like it so much and had one of the biggest scares of my life. I didn't watch Part I of Henry VI.
But Part 2 is hideously violent. OK, it was meant to be violent, it is the War of the Roses. But the violence totally supplanted the poetry.
Everything was cut. Heads, limbs, throats, and worse of all the poetry, the attachment to any character...
Only Queen Margaret was left pleading for less mediocrity on her Lancastrian side and obviously Richard Gloucester, who was the only one who spoke anything interesting and seemed to have a plan.
Result: I couldn't give a damn for the lives of anyone in the play and am really on Gloucester's side when the next episode (Richard III) comes out next week. Which is the first time this happens for me, Richard is meant to be an astute dictator whom we love to hate. But I was never on his side!
Well I hate everyone on Henry VI part2, but Gloucester is clever and I'm rooting for him to do with all the imbeciles he encounters in his own play.
At least he will be able to speak poetry.
Pity he won't live to get rid of Henry VIII!
If the BBC is trying to make Shakespeare without including poetry in it, then they should add a warning for Richard III, because in this play it is everywhere:
Attention: This work may contain traces of poetry!
Declaration: I detest be-headings!!!!! And tribal imbecility!!!! Which was what I saw in Henry VI Part 2!!!
Really wanted to like it so much and had one of the biggest scares of my life. I didn't watch Part I of Henry VI.
But Part 2 is hideously violent. OK, it was meant to be violent, it is the War of the Roses. But the violence totally supplanted the poetry.
Everything was cut. Heads, limbs, throats, and worse of all the poetry, the attachment to any character...
Only Queen Margaret was left pleading for less mediocrity on her Lancastrian side and obviously Richard Gloucester, who was the only one who spoke anything interesting and seemed to have a plan.
Result: I couldn't give a damn for the lives of anyone in the play and am really on Gloucester's side when the next episode (Richard III) comes out next week. Which is the first time this happens for me, Richard is meant to be an astute dictator whom we love to hate. But I was never on his side!
Well I hate everyone on Henry VI part2, but Gloucester is clever and I'm rooting for him to do with all the imbeciles he encounters in his own play.
At least he will be able to speak poetry.
Pity he won't live to get rid of Henry VIII!
If the BBC is trying to make Shakespeare without including poetry in it, then they should add a warning for Richard III, because in this play it is everywhere:
Attention: This work may contain traces of poetry!
Declaration: I detest be-headings!!!!! And tribal imbecility!!!! Which was what I saw in Henry VI Part 2!!!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
