User Reviews

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!

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.

'The Hollow Crown' consisted of seven adaptations and two seasons. Season 1 (the Henriad tetralogy) featuring 'Richard II', both parts of 'Henry IV' and 'Henry V', and Season 2 (War of the Roses) 'Henry VI' parts 1 and 2 and 'Richard III'. Both seasons are well worth seeing, the former actually being a must-watch, and the series is fascinating for seeing filmed productions of Shakespeare's historical plays and on the most part very high quality ones too.

It really is a great way to get acquainted with the plays, to see how Shakespeare can be performed well and seeing the lesser known ones (ie. 'Henry VI'). In case anybody's interested too, the late 70s-early 80s BBC Television Shakespeare series, that also features all the historical plays, is worth a view. The visual quality and production values are lower but they are faithfully done, interesting, tasteful and on the most part well acted, though do prefer all 'The Hollow Crown's' versions of the plays over those in that series. Of the two seasons, Season 1 for me comes off better but there is a huge amount to admire about both seasons and all the productions.

Not everything in 'The Hollow Crown' to me worked. The St Crispins Day speech in 'Henry V' (my least favourite of the first season but still very good, 'Richard II' and both parts of 'Henry IV', especially Part 2, were outstanding though), one of Shakespeare's most powerful moments, was too anaemic and restrained when it should rouse. Some of the battles came over as under-populated and needed more intensity.

'Henry VI', both parts, is not going to appeal to all. Especially those that prefer their performances complete, as both parts are very truncated and it does at times affect the pacing and story (a bit rushed and jumpy in spots), and are not too fond of the uncompromising approach in Shakespeare. Actually liked that both parts pulled no punches and had a dark bold approach that mostly did not jar, with some powerfully brutal moments like Joan's exit but this approach was taken too far at times especially with Margaret. Just in case anybody is wondering, did like both parts on the most part very much especially Part 2 ('Richard III' though is for me by far the standout production of Season 2 and the best since 'Henry IV Part 2').

All seven productions are very well made. 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.

Shakespeare's text, regardless of whether it's complete or truncated (the latter being the case with 'Henry VI'), has a lot of impact, most of the speeches sear with the one big exception being the St Crispins Day speech. Any comedy being genuinely funny with great comic timing (like with Falstaff, and it is not overdone or annoying) and the dramatic/tragic moments are powerful and moving (like the wordless moment with Hal on his father's throne). The series is directed in a way that doesn't come over as over-theatrical or static, much of it is tasteful and it doesn't feel too much of a filmed play. There is some great character interaction, like between Falstaff and Hal, Henry and Richard in 'Richard II' and Henry's dressing down of Hal (some tense stuff that).

Cannot say anything wrong with the performances. Standouts being Ben Whishaw's complex Richard II, Patrick Stewart's sincere Gaunt, Rory Kinnear's understated Henry, Jeremy Irons' anguished Henry IV (in a recent years role that shows how great an actor he is), Simon Russell Beale who was born for Falstaff, Tom Hiddleston's charismatic Hal/Henry V (prefer him as Hal), Melanie Thierry's touching Katherine, Sophie Okonedo's ruthless Margaret (am aware not everybody liked her casting though), Hugh Bonneville's nuanced Gloucester and Benedict Cumberbatch's machiavellian Richard III.

In a nutshell, an extremely good series and often fabulous with a few disappointments. 8/10

When I was at school, Shakespeare was as dry as the pages it was written on. To watch it, performed by actors who really know and understand Shakespeare, and can convey that in their work, is to enter a world of majesty, of subtle innuendo, of humour and of total understanding of the work of the Shakespeare who used his gift to allow 'the common man' to discuss and understand the goings-on and political machinations of his age. There are no 'spoilers' when it comes to Shakespeare - the work is out there in a myriad of forms and interpretations, waiting to be read. This production is one of the best available. Watch it, then read the plays. Savour the words. Go back and watch the scene performed. Truly appreciate the nuance and the masterful language of the master at work. I cannot recommend this production highly enough. From the haughty, almost effete King Richard (Ben Wishaw) through Jeremy Iron's haunted Henry IV to the masterpiece of development that is Tom Hiddleston's Prince Hal, this production brings the humanity and the grandeur of the role of King and all that conveys. Get it. Watch it. Love it.

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....

"The Hollow Crown" is BBC's magnificent filming of the Shakespeare's second Henriad (Richard II with Henry IV's rise to power, Henry IV, parts I and II, and Henry V). I believe the first three of these have only been filmed in the old 1970s BBC series of Shakespeare's complete works, and although the old series was at its best with its version of Henry IV, "The Hollow Crown" is far above it. Simon Russell Beale is the ideal choice for Falstaff, even with Orson Welles hard on his heels in the Falstaff compilation "Chimes at Midnight", Tom Hiddleston is a great Prince Hal, and Jeremy Irons, never known to err, shines as the guilt-ridden King Henry IV.

There are some interesting comments on the bonus material for Henry IV, part II that explains why the plays come across so successfully in 2012. Thea Sharrock, director of Henry V, muses that people may be shocked at hearing the actors speak in real surroundings (on location), but of course, that's old hat. Even Olivier anticipated that in 1944 with his Henry V. Moviegoers are not that easily shocked anymore. And although Hiddelston is also mistaken in his claim that it has never been done before, he is right in stating that "Shakespeare is at its best when you speak it like you're making it up." Julie Walters adds, "You've got to speak the lines, not in a stilted isn't-the-verse-beautiful kind of way; it's got to be the way you talk"

This natural way of speaking the lines, more foreign to British Shakespeare productions than to American ones, accounts for the greatness of "The Hollow Crown".

If my father was alive I think he would be giddy to see this because he enjoyed Shakespeare and WW2 movies almost equally. Few household include Shakespeare plays as everyday topics, Marc Anthony's speech when drying dishes and we were fortunate. When Shakespeare questions are asked on 'University Challenge' I find myself screaming at the confused teenagers who were not so lucky.

Granted, 'Coriolanus' was a favorite, but almost all of Shakespeare plays have blood pumping through them and deserve the full treatment of location, mud, costume and conflict so we can absorb the poetry of the script.

This production is likely to open the door to Shakespeare for people who were not given a friendly introduction. As with Opera, some experiences open a door to appreciation and understanding. (mine was the £5 ticket to Covent Garden in 1996 because you only understand what the fuss is about when experiencing a quality, live performance)

To the original audiences, the death of a king was a shocking as the JFK assassination is to us. They enjoyed the glamor, the insight and the drama inherent in power struggles, ambition, just as we do today.

Season 1 - looks at how Henry IV took power, his difficulties with his son and how his son (Henry V) adjusted. Is there anything more timeless than one generation attempting to guide and train the younger? Youthful rejection of everything offered? Recognition too late that the parent was heroic and worthy of admiration?

For some reason, the character of Sir John, penetrated my understanding more when watching this, than ever before. This is likely as a result of my deeper understand as a result of the passage of time.

Season 2 - The third generation (Henry VI) raised without paternal guidance, struggles to keep the crown. The War of the Roses leading to bloody battle. Richard III, was to say the least, ambitious.

The Hollow Crown has an excellent cast.

I saw the Michael Bogdanov directed versions of these plays at the Old Vic some time ago and loved them! But they didn't translate that experience onto the videos sold. This was a fine effort to film the unfilmable with Richard ii and Henry IV Part one coming out of the mix very well. The latter's opening pub scenes are incomprehensible to me and the Bogdanov version solved this by having Pistol burst in wearing a Buffalo Bill costume and firing off his pistols. By the time the audience had recovered from this, the rather difficult scene was over. Get past the opening hurdle and this play becomes one of Shakespeare's wittiest and wisest. This was an excellent production.I was less enamoured of Part two but mainly because it has weaker material in it (the army recruitment scene was tedious.) However this was forgotten when in the second half of the play, Jeremy Irons gave a towering performance as Bolingbroke. Tom Hiddleston was great as Hal/Henry V and you could chart his progress from tearaway youth to hero soldier with fascinated admiration. Surely he is wasted in Marvel films, good as he is in them. Having seen Jeremy's performance as Richard ii in Stratford ,it was brilliant to see him play the man who caused the downfall of that king (Richard II). And all from the comfort of my armchair! Great casting of Ben Wishaw and Rory Kinnear as modern incarnations of Richard/ Bolingbroke in this feud. The BBC have acquitted themselves well.I only wish there was a series 2 featuring the Henry 6th trilogy and Richard iii that completes this cycle of plays .Steve Qualtrough

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.

Over all the BBC shows that it can outmatch the production value of Game of Thrones on a much smaller budget particularly its impressive battles. GoT has learned from this in recent years and no longer does a battle need to take up a whole episode.

The first series, started amazingly strong with Richard II, great performance from Rory Kinnear and Patrick Stewart showed why he was one of the finest living actors with his John of Gaunt speech. Jeremy Irons was superb as the old King Henry IV, and Tom Hiddleston did a cracking job as the young Hal. He was weaker as Henry V, and Branagh version was still better, particularly on the St Crispins day speech.

The second series makes a lot of odd choices. It starts well Anton Lesser returns as Exeter and Hugh Bonneville has a greatly nuanced performance as Gloucester. Ben Miles is a composite of Somerset and Suffolk, and the general machinations of political ambition are good. The wheels start to come of the wagon in sophie okonedo second scene, I'm not sure if she was directed to or chose to play the role as the villain from a panto, but her entire performance feels like it belongs in another play. Things only get worse when Benedict Cumberbatch lumbers into screen with full on cripface just being painfully embarrassing. It was a real pity the Jack Cade plot is lost as it juxtaposes nicely with the lords chasing the crown you have the common folk rising up to be free (though Shakespeare paints him as villain).

All in all the best Shakespeare you'll see outside the Globe, but let down with some poor choices.

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.

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.

All you need to know is that Benedict Cumberbatch plays Richard III. I saw that, and I knew I wanted to watch it. He is superb, I dare say even the Bard himself could not come up with words to say how incredibly he captured this role. Season 2 is about the War of the Roses, using Shakespeare's Henry VI Parts 1 and 2 and Richard III for dialogue. It is different from other film versions of Shakespeare's plays that I've seen which are movie versions of the plays. This is essentially a series of three movies using Shakespeare's dialogue, so when action can replace dialogue, that is what happens. I don't think I've ever heard Shakespeare delivered so realistically and effectively. Though Benedict Cumberbatch plays the meatiest role, everyone in it is outstanding. After each episode, I looked up the real people to find out how much was real and how much fictional. Another powerful role is Henry's wife, Margaret, played by Sophie Okonedo. One of the most dramatic parts, I figured was fictional, was factual. In some parts, I wondered, did Shakespeare actually write it that way? I looked it up. Yes, he did. The dream sequence at the end is really something. It's still in my head. The battle scenes and murders are very gory, at least they sounded gory, I hid my eyes at those parts. I was disappointed that it ended, the story not the gore. I wanted it to go on. Then I found out there is a Season 1! I can't wait to watch it.

I only watched Richard II thus-far but I think it was a masterpiece within a masterpiece. This profound story with this production level is a staggering accomplishment. Richard II broke my heart.

The story is about a king and a duke who through conviction driven necessary action find themselves at odds with one another despite mutual love in kinship.

What is it to be a king?

What is it to wield power and who has that right?

Where is the line between treason and loyalty?

What is it to put on the crown?

I'm not that deeply into Shakespeare, but I will watch the Bard's historical plays and tragedies once in a while if I'm in the mood. (The comedies don't do much for me). I'm the kind of fan who goes to "Shakespeare In The Park" events.

But I once bought a used copy of Ian McKellen's WW II version of "Richard III" and thought it was great. And I enjoyed "Rosencranz and Guildenstern Are Dead" and Branaugh's "Henry V" when they came out as movies.

So for what it's worth, I found a lot to like here and was very glad I got a chance to see these adaptations.

Shakespeare experts and fanatics may find some fault with this collection and some of the casting choices. But if all you want is to get "up to speed" with a few of his historical dramas and see some pretty good acting and story telling, well, here ya go.

Looking forward to the 2nd collection.

I recently purchased both seasons of The Hollow Crown and have yet to stop watching. I'm clean amazed at how deftly the actors chosen did play there part from the beautifully disturbed the King Richard 2nd to the amazing Hotspur. Moving on to the broken king Henry the 6th and deceitful and cruel king Richard the 3rd. being a Shakespeare fan I feel if " shake-Speare " had this kind of media do you think he would jump on it as he did his theater ? These play out like block buster movies packed with great actors, great director, oh of course and a great writer.

The name "Wars of the Roses" refers to the heraldic badges associated with the rival branches of the royal House of Plantagenet , fighting for control of the English throne : White Rose and Red Rose . This is a peculiar updating of Shakespeare's plays fairly races through the Bard's text and adding some historical elements, including recurring issues of ambition , power struggles, corruption , redemption, family conflict, and treason . Being an enjoyable adaptation of Shakespeare's tetralogy of history plays comprising the "Henriad" for the BBC's 2012 Cultural Olympiad :King Richard II; King Henry IV: Part 1; King Henry IV: Part 2; King Henry V. Dazzling and stagy entertainment focusing on the ruthless and power-hungry Richard III being haunted by those he has killed . A deranged Lord competently performed by the great Benedict Cumberbath mercilessly murdering his way to the English throne. Great Britain kingdom is ruled by a sicked Edward IV who violently deposed the previous fleeble King . A web of intrigue veils the lives of all who know only too well that today's friends might be tomorrow's enemies . This interesting film deals with the story of mean Richard III Crookback , 6th in throne succession, while his brother king Henry IV appoints Clarence as Lord Protector of the Realm and preceptor his children . But aside from Edward , his other brother , Clarence , and Edward's two young sons also stand between Richard and the crown of England .

This is a peculiar updating of Shakespeare's plays fairly races through the Bard's text and adding some historical elements. Being an enjoyable adaptation of Shakespeare's tetralogy of history plays comprising the "Henriad" for the BBC's 2012 Cultural Olympiad: King Richard II; King Henry IV: Part 1; King Henry IV: Part 2; King Henry V. Dazzling and stagy entertainment focusing on the ruthless and power-hungry Richard III , being haunted by those he has killed . Great Britain kingdom is ruled by a sicked Edward IV who violently deposed the previous fleeble King . A web of intrigue veils the lives of all who know only too well that today's friends might be tomorrow's enemies . This interesting film deals with the story of mean Richard III Crookback , 6th in throne succession, while his brother king Henry IV appoints Clarence as Lord Protector of the Realm and preceptor his children . But aside from Edward , his other brother , Clarence , and Edward's two young sons also stand between Richard and the crown of England . Subsequently , Richard eliminates those ahead of him in succession to throne then occupied by his ill brother Edward IV . As Richard , Duke of Gloucester , results to be a dominant , unstoppable , nasty lord , gross black spider of a figure that devours or possesses everything on its path .

Agreeable and hypnotic amusement for Shakespeare enthusiasts , resulting to be an academic remake from the classic plays. The film turns out to be like a Shakespearean theatrical drama very well set . Give it high marks for originality and admire some striking set pieces , but hand the superior and real crown to Laurence Olivier's 1956 vintage movie . This awesome series being partially based on historic events , during Two Roses War, Red Rose (York House) ruled by Edward IV and Richard III followers and White Rose (Lancaster House) , Henry VII followers who defeat to them . Finally , there takes place the Battle of Bosworth , in which Richard III is vanquished and a new ruler called Henry VII takes over the kingdom . The picture profits from a terrific cast who gives over-the-top interpretations .All of them provide incisive roles featuring an acclaimed acting , such as : Tom Hiddleston , Sophie Okonedo , Tom Sturridge , Julie Walters , Ben Daniels, Ben Miles , Alun Armstrong , Adrian Dumbar , Keeley Hawes, James Fleet , Geraldine Chaplin, Judie Dench, Michael gambon , Roy Kinnear , Paul Freeman , Phoebe Fox, David Bradley , Michelle Dockery , the best performance comes from Benedict Cumberbatch , of course, and Jeremy Irons as Henry IV but unfortunately his role doesn't last very long .

The series based on historical events : Edward accused Warwick and Clarence of fresh treachery and forced them to flee. In France, Warwick joined forces with Margaret of Anjou and led an invasion of England. When Warwick's younger brother John Neville deserted Edward, Edward in turn was forced to flee to Flanders. Warwick restored Henry VI as king. Henry's renewed reign was short-lived however. With aid from Burgundy, Edward mounted a counter-invasion. Henry was returned to prison, and Edward defeated and killed Warwick at the Battle of Barnet. He then defeated a Lancastrian army at the Battle of Tewkesbury. Henry's heir, Edward of Westminster, was captured and executed. Henry himself died or was assassinated on Edward's order shortly afterwards. Edward ruled unopposed, and England enjoyed a period of relative peace until his death twelve years later in 1483. Edward's twelve-year-old son reigned for 78 days as Edward V until he was deposed by his uncle, Richard III. Richard assumed the throne under a cloud of controversy, particularly the disappearance of Edward IV's two sons, sparking a short-lived but major revolt and triggering a wave of desertions of prominent Yorkists to the Lancastrian cause. In the midst of the chaos, Henry Tudor, son of Henry VI's half-brother and a descendant of Edward III through his mother, returned from exile with an army of English, French, and Breton troops. Henry defeated and killed Richard at Bosworth Field in 1485, assumed the throne as Henry VII, and married Elizabeth of York, the eldest daughter and sole heir of Edward IV, thereby uniting the rival claims. The Earl of Lincoln then put forward Lambert Simnel as an impostor Edward Plantagenet, a potential claimant to the throne. Lincoln's army was defeated and Lincoln himself killed at Stoke Field in 1487, ending the wars. Henry never faced any further serious internal military threats to his reign. In 1490, Perkin Warbeck claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury, Edward IV's second son and rival claimant to the throne, but was executed before any rebellion could be launched. The House of Tudor ruled England until 1603. The reign of the Tudor dynasty saw the strengthening of the prestige and power of the English monarchy, particularly under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, and the end of the medieval period in England which subsequently saw the dawn of the English Renaissance. Historian John Guy argued that "England was economically healthier, more expansive, and more optimistic under the Tudors" than at any time since the Roman occupation of Britain.

Shakespeare's rather rarely performed history plays about late medieval English history.

The first series is about three kings, the first of which is a looney-tune who can't do anything right, which is a bad thing in a king, so he very quickly ends up very dead. The second king is more OK, but he can't get anything important done because people keep trying to take him out, while his son wastes all his time boozing it up in this dive saloon with this bunch of Animal House type guys, one of whom, Fat Jack, is a real riot. The third king is this same son who decides that now that he is king he should get serious so he decides to conquer France, apparently not understanding that even if he conquers it, it will just get conquered back again.

The second series is basically about this long gang war between two families, the North White Flowers and the West Blood Roses. Things get complicated because, on the one hand, the Flowers' capo is a heavy dude, while the Roses' boss is mental, but on the other hand, the Roses' boss's moll, French Maggie, is heavier than any dude around. In the end the last man standing is a Flower, Crooked Dick, but he don't stand for long.

Great cast, great settings, great poetry. Extremely violent and bloody: think Game of Thrones without the skin. Check it out.

As I watched these Hollow Crown episodes, there was something about the delivery of the dialogue that seemed off to me. It was strangely flat and naturalistic, spoken like ordinary dialogue in historical fiction. Then it hit me: the verse is spoken in prose. This is a huge problem. We have amazing production values; sumptuous settings; virtuoso directing; good actors and visual splendor enough to knock anyone's socks off - and we also have Shakespeare's story and words. Tragically, however, without the verse delivery of the lines, we have none of the grandeur of the language; no poetry in the performance. The artfulness of Shakespeare's work has been excised.

There is little to criticize about these versions besides this, but this point of criticism is an all-important one. Reducing Shakespeare's poetry to straight-forward prose is a terrible idea which takes away the audience's joy of the beauty of the words, and also deprives the actors of doing the kind of Shakespeare they want to be doing. I assume it was done to make Shakespeare's language more modern and understandable to an audience that is not weaned on Shakespeare, but to drag Shakespeare down to this level is artistic sabotage. I am deeply against it, and I hope they won't do it in the other upcoming BBC Shakespeare installments by producer Sam Mendes. Sadly, they probably will. Sigh. :-(