Based on what you've told us, I suggest you rent first.

Robin Hood is a light hearted adventure story.
Henry V is a serious adaptation of Shakespeare.
No comparison.
Austin

Watched Olivier, Henry V last week and all I can say is

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Rent, don't buy. Adventures of Robin Hood has multiple
repeat viewing value and is wonderful.

Cheers

The Olivier version is good, however, it is done in classical style unlike Branagh's version, so it may not pack the same wallop. I know that after watching Kenneth Branagh's version I can't ever imagine enjoying Olivier's again.

i had the criterion, great film

it's a better blind buy than rocky V for sure

Do I have to watch Henry I-IV to understand it? I just wish Shakespeare hadn't been forced to split Henry IV into two parts by Harvey Scissorhands. Here's hoping the unrated Japanese cut comes to America.

greenknight:

As others have stated, The Adventures of Robin Hood and Henry V are very different types of films.

Based on your enjoyment of the first, you might be better off giving similar films like Fox Studio Classics' The Mark of Zorro or WB's The Crimson Pirate a try.

Haha i thought many would think i am into swashbucklers... when in fact i'm into the old color medieval movies of the 30s and 40s.
So with that in mind, should i buy Henry V?

...what about Ivanhoe...?... or Flesh & Blood...?... or The War Lord...?...

...I realize that these are not "medieval movies of the 30s and 40s" (there weren't that many in those far-off days, and, afaik, none but TAORH in color...) but they are about medieval times...

. . . . . .

If it's 40's color you want, Henry V has it.

Well if you want a good swashbuckler film I suggest you pickup Scaramouche. The swordfight between Stewart Granger and Mel Ferrer is one of the best swordfighting I seen IMO.

No, it is not a medieval movie, it is a Shakespeare play brought to the screen. Only buy it if you like Shakespeare.

It's Olivier's rah-rah WWII pump-up-the-troops movie. Its low-budget, and they use silver-painted wool as a substitute for chain mail. Its a solid Shakespearean adaptation, but no way is it the repeat-viewing fodder of Robin Hood, unless you are a die-hard Olivier fan, or Henry V is your favorite play.

Both of these are superb films, but as others have stated Olivier's HENRY V is a Shakespeare adaptation (and a brilliant one), not a swashbuckling adventure film.

If you enjoy Shakespeare, definitely give the Olivier film a try. It's a masterpiece.

But if you want swashbuckling adventure, you're better off with some of the other films that have been recommended, especially the Tyrone Power MARK OF ZORRO, which is very ROBIN HOOD-like. Hopefully, they will eventually release the other primo Flynn swashbucklers, CAPATIN BLOOD and THE SEA WOLF.

Also Eleanor Parker never looked better IMHO

Henry V is a superb film. It's Olivier's best Shakespeare adaptation and a brilliantly concieved film.

The Criterion disc has an adequate transfer and a SPECTACULAR audio commentary by Bruce Edder.

My dream would be if someone would do a technicolor restoration on Henry V the same as WB did for Singin' in the Rain and Robin Hood, becuase the 3 strip tech on Criterion's DVD is just so-so.

Well i like Shakespeare, having read and seen other movies of him such as Julius Caesar (Brando), and i meant i've seen the Medieval movies of the 50s and 60s, but i find them rarer in the 30s and 40s which is why i asked.
And yes, Shakespeare plays were set in the medieval times so you can call this movie medieval. It's not a play about a western that's for sure.

Personally, I adore Kenneth Branagh's version of Henry V (I'd love to see it re-released with a better transfer), but I found the Olivier version to be a little cheesy for my taste. It also takes a fairly "light" tone which I didn't think worked particularly well with the material.