A Coroa Vazia

What distinguishes these hollow crown productions from their predecessors is the crystal clarity of the text as delivered by the cast – well done everyone! It is so easy to fall into the trap of believing that the text is to be delivered as verse. Twaddle! Ideas like that permeate school English classrooms where failed actors teach gullible pupils that iambic pentameters rule. No, they do not! Furthermore, good presentation of Shakespeare is so often ruined by over enthusiasm on the part of the performers. Without wishing to name names, I saw one version of "Much Ado About Nothing" where the comedy in the text was entirely lost because the director and his cast insisted on inventing and adding their own comedy instead. It is a brave man who would want to out-do Shakespeare! The ability of these Hollow Crown productions to tell the story which leads ultimately to the "Wars of the Roses" was admirable. There was so much to say – even before the "Wars" had begun. I should probably watch them all over again….! And I think I will!

What makes this selection of History plays so sublime? The glorious Ben Wishaw as Richard II. The equally glorious Tom Hiddlestone as Henry V. The - again - equally glorious Jeremy Irons as Henry IV. The fantastic supporting cast - especially Simon Russell Beale and Julie Walters and Rory Kinnear....

Also, the spellbinding music, the authentic locations, the detailed costumes, the sensitive cinematography, the wonderful direction and, of course, the eternally magnificent words.

I cannot find enough superlatives to praise these sublime productions. Shakespeare's language, his vision and his political and social world, brought to life by different directors with differing approaches, but with a singular aim - to entertain an audience with the most powerful weapons available - language. For me, they succeeded. To paraphrase the words of another denizen of Shakespeare's limitless imagination, Prospero, these productions: "...are such stuff as dreams are made on;"

Thank you, whoever had the common sense to commission and nurture these productions; the best thing I have seen on my television this year. And my 19 year old daughter and 16 year old son agree - I am no wrinkled greybeard, bemoaning the loss of the golden age, but I hope to see more of these productions; stunning gems of real culture and tradition, nestled amidst the dross of reality TV programming and the glorification of idiocy that is typified by the celebrity culture in which we live.

My copy of the DVD is on order, and I cannot wait to watch these magnificent productions again. And again and again and again....

Arguably one of the very best screen adaptations of Shakespeare ever produced. They have pulled off what many have tried and failed to do: make good cinema out of the plays. The necessary realism is there, without detracting in any way from the source material. And the acting is for the most part really superb. Hats off especially for Jeremy Irons, David Dawson, Tom Hiddleston and Ben Whishaw. The latter's Richard II far surpasses any portrayal I have seen, both onstage and onscreen.

I have enjoyed watching the first series and I am about to begin the second set with Henry VI and Edward III.

The acting is impeccable (how could it not with that cast?), the closed-captioning appreciated by a Deaf individual and the battle scenes fascinating and interesting. I am a big fan of historical costuming and valued the work that must have gone into them.

For those who are not fans of Shakespeare this series may not be for you. I did not mind the old language but it takes a bit of getting used to if you are not familiar with it.

I was disappointed to see Charles VI, King of France, wearing the Order of the Golden Fleece during Henry V. This Order was established by Philip III, Duke of Burgundy (aka Philip the Good) in 1430 to celebrate his marriage to Isabella of Portugal. Henry V and Charles VI both died in 1422, eight years before the Order's inauguration.

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.