I feel like the director of Richard II was taking a rather unlikeable character and trying to make him as entertaining and sympathetic as possible while still highlighting and mocking his flaws, whereas with Henry IV we had a protagonist who was already really appealing, being played as sexy and fun as possible by an actor who is apparently able to conjure charisma out of nowhere. Prince Hal, on the other hand, has the potential to be a strong and charismatic leader but hasn't yet been given the chance to fulfil that potential. affectionate? Richard was an intrinsically weak character, protected by his royal blood and riches as he teetered on the brink of being deposed by stronger men. In Richard II there were a lot of luxurious panning shots of Richard's gold-plated everything, but it wasn't really. And, you know, virile young men in general, most of them dressed in tight leather jerkins unlaced at the throat. It didn't take me long to realise: The Female Gaze is strong with this one. The level of automatic, commanding entitlement both Loki and Hal display is wonderful, although they show it in very different ways. I found myself comparing the two, and the one thing that stands out between them is Hiddleston's ability to play royalty. Because, you know, the only other thing I've really seen him in is his role as Loki in Thor and The Avengers, who despite being a villain is still pretty lovable. Hiddleston's Prince Hal is so charming and handsome that I'm now desperate to see him play a genuinely unappealing character. Within about fifteen seconds of him coming onscreen I had little hearts in my eyes like an anime character, like, what was even happening. And having seen it? I'm now coming to understand why Tumblr is basically a giant online shrine to Tom Hiddleston. I'd been looking forward to this play in particular both because I love Henry IV/Henry V story, and because Tom Hiddleston was clearly such brilliant casting. Tom Hiddleson as Prince Hal was, put simply, totally awesome.

Henry iv part 1 film