Rating: 
Summary: Franco Zeffirelli's Superior Hamlet
Review: Franco Zeffirelli's Hamlet is the definitive film adaptation of the most famous play ever written. This is a brilliant film by a genius filmmaker. This film is a very naturalistic version set during the correct time period, the 13th century (the period Shakespeare set his play in). All of the actors give flawless performances. Mel Gibson and Glenn Close both give the best performances of their careers. The film was shot entirely on location in real Scottish castles, has amazing photography by David Watkin and boasts a great score by Ennio Morricone.
Rating:
Summary: Impressive
Review: I have been an enthusiastic fan of Shakespeare, and in particular Hamlet, ever since I was first exposed to this play in high school. I have read it many times, and have seen it on film and on stage many many times. I can say without hesitation that this is my favorite encactment. I also feel that Gibson makes a far better Hamlet then Kenneth Branagh. If you love the play then you will be swept off your feet by this film.
Rating:
Summary: Mucho better than the Branagh!
Review: This was the FIRST time we REALLY got to see Mel Gibson SHOW WHAT HE CAN DO as an actor, and against great criticism for taking on this part! AND it is truly the most accessible version for people who either 'don't' care for Shakespeare or don't think they can sit through one of the tragedies. And rumor has it that Gibson might have had more to do with the final version of this film, directing wise, than Zefferelli. Subsequent directing efforts on Mel's part give a lot of substance to this rumor. This version ALSO keeps faithful to the TIME period which Shakespeare set the play in, not like the anachronistic Branagh version, and keeps faithful to the spiritual wars going on with the characters, without throwing in "imagined" bed scenes between Ophelia and Hamlet, as Branagh does - something which we doubt Laertes would have approved of his virtuous Christian maid sister doing before marriage. Any film that has Glenn Close, Ian Holm, and Paul Scofield all together in it ought to be watched anyway. But Gibson certainly holds his own, and more, with these other acting powerhouses.
Rating:
Summary: An Incredible Version of Hamlet
Review: The movie opens with the funeral of Hamlet's father, the king of Denmark. Both Hamlet(played with brilliance by Mel Gibson) and his mother, Gertrude(Glenn Close), queen of Denmark, are in deep mourning over the king's death. The next scene shows King Claudius(Alan Bates), who was the former king's nephew, announcing to the inhabitants of Elsinore(the castle where the action takes place) of his marriage with Gertrude, not two months after Hamlet's father's death. Hamlet did not like this turn of events, as he was still deeply in mourning over the death of his father the king, and thought that it was not proper that his mother married so soon afterwards. As he put it, "Frailty, thy name is woman!"
While Hamlet is atop a tower of Elsinore, his good friend Horatio arrives, accompanied by several soldiers. Horatio informs Hamlet that he saw what he believed to be Hamlet's father the night before. Hamlet, taken aback by this news, decided to serve watch with Horatio and the other soldiers that night. When serving watch, he saw an apparition which did indeed appear to be his father. Though in shock, he followed it as it beckoned him, despite his companions' opposition.
When the ghost(played by Paul Scofield) spoke to Hamlet, he told Hamlet that he was murdered by Hamlet's uncle, Claudius, who poured poison into his ear as he slept in the garden. And so, Hamlet begins to plot the demise of his uncle. The best means of which he should do it, he decides, is by feigning madness. The verdict: A huge success. Directed by Franco Zeffirelli of Romeo and Juliet, this movie was everything Hamlet was intended to be, and perhaps a little more. As someone who has read the play, I know which scenes can be removed without sacrificing quality, and, while it wasn't completely accurate to the play, the changes they did make either did not harm it or made it better. All in all, this movie was a huge success, and I definitely recommend it to any fan of Shakespeare. And remember, "To be or not to be: that is the question." Recommended age: 12 and up. Rated PG. 1991.
Rating: 
Summary: Poor, Disjointed Production.
Review: Now I *like* Mel Gibson and I think Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet" is the finest put on film. Furthermore, this production of Hamlet could have been a daring reinterpretation of the play, since portions were removed and the chronological order of events in the play was changed. It is a gutsy attempt to make changes in The Bard's work that could have shown a different side to the work. Truly a risky and difficult undertaking that requires fine judgment and sensitivity to the original work. Now all that being said, I find this work to be singularly unimpressive. In fact, I believe this production falls flat as Evel Knevel's Snake River Canyon motorcycle jump. Why? The original play sets up key moments that have powerful meaning, but the disjointed editing of the work removes those moments and creates no others. We are left with the original build-ups with unsatisfactory resolutions because they were either moved or removed. As Einstein once said, "Things should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler." A funny aside (for sticklers only): The climax of the production is made even more nonsensical when one remembers that at Shakespeare's time, thrusting swords were used. It is possible to put a ball on the tip to blunt it enough for fencing, as done today, and more importantly, as done in the play. The climax of the play depends on this issue because Ophelia's brother tries to cheat and kill Hamlet with an unblunted and envenomed sword during a fencing match. This production, however, takes place during the *middle ages*. Medieval swords are designed to penetrate *armor*. Who cares whether the sword is blunted and envenomed when it can hack and thrust through *armor*. It makes Shakespeare's script denouncing the treacherous use of an "unbated and envenomed sword" ridiculous because of this ill-considered stage context. It's very dificult to make such weapons safe enough for unarmored *fencing*. This is why the Japanese, who use lighter swords by the way, use *wood* -- not blunted softer steel -- to "fence". In Europe during the middle ages, knights wore *armor* when in tounament with these swords and people still got killed. One champion's helmet got so badly dented it had to be carefully cut off his head! And he was the *winner*! So it's kinda funny (O.K., hilarious) to have actors going on about the treachery of an unblunted and envenomed sword when a "fencer" hacked by even a *blunted* medieval sword would hardly notice whether a little blunting ball is on the tip. Kenneth Brannagh's version is better, even in this detail. Anyway, I don't mean to be picky, but there are so many deficiencies in this production, it is almost laughable. Actors in this production tend to "zombie walk" through lines they clearly don't understand and run flat into disjointed edits, thereby creating what I call "nothing moments" throughout the production. A much better job could have been done. If you decide to grit your teeth and watch this version, please don't go into it thinking it is faithful to the original work. It is not. It is a derivative work that should be labelled as such.
Rating:
Summary: Poor, Disjointed Production.
Review: Now I *like* Mel Gibson and I think Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet" is the finest put on film. Furthermore, this production of Hamlet could have been an interesting reinterpretation of the play, even though portions were removed and the chronological order of events in the play was changed. It is a gutsy attempt to make changes in The Bard's work that could have shown a different side to the work. Truly a risky and difficult undertaking that requires fine judgment and sensitivity to the original work. In my opinion, this particular production falls flat as Evel Knevel's Snake River Canyon motorcycle jump. Why? The original play sets up key moments that have powerful meaning in the play, but the disjointed editing of the work removes those moments and creates no others. We are left with the original build-ups with unsatisfactory resolutions because they were either moved or removed - just like Evel Knevel's River Canyon motorcycle jump. As Einstein once said, "Things should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler." A funny aside: The climax of the production is made even more nonsensical when one remembers that at Shakespeare's time, as in the play, thrusting swords were used. It is possible to put a ball on the tip to blunt it enough for fencing, as done today, and more importantly, as done in the play. The climax of the play depends on this issue because Ophelia's brother tries to cheat and kill Hamlet with an unblunted and envenomed sword during a fencing match. This production, however, takes place during the *middle ages*. Medieval swords are designed to penetrate *armor*, blunted or not. So it's kinda funny having actors going on about the treachery of an unblunted and envenomed sword when it makes little difference. A person struck by a medieval sword would hardly notice a blunting ball on the tip. Anyway, I don't mean to be picky, but there are so many deficiencies in this production, it is almost laughable. Actors in this production tend to "zombie walk" through lines they clearly don't understand and run flat into the disjointed edits, thereby creating nothing moments throughout the production. A much better job could have been done. If you decide to grit your teeth and watch this version, please don't go into it thinking it is faithful to the original work. It is not. It is a derivative work that should be labelled as such.
Rating: 
Summary: HAMLET
Review: He owned this role and Glenn Close was marvelous. I was shocked. I had Mel pegged as all brawn, no brains. But, he's went on to do even more terrific dramatic roles as well. This is a great film. Accurate to the play. Nicely done. The first time I realized Mel was a man of substance. This is a good an intrepretation of HAMLET as you will find. The entire cast is convincing and the scenery is marvelous.
Rating: 
Summary: Gibson not right for the role.
Review: Mel Gibson is not a good enough actor to play the extremely complicated Hamlet. He tries his best, but his performance looks over-the-top and forced. This movie also suffers from cutting the play almost in half and not developing the character right. I couldn't understand Ophelia's problem because she was so badly developed. Plus the castle the movie is set in is VERY ugly.
The movie is difficult to watch because the castle is so ugly. Although it has many faults, the ghost scene is good and done in the correct way.
Rating:
Summary: Great Version
Review: What is this the 80's?? Where is the DVD?? Movie Companies Need to Start Working Harder and Faster! Who has A VCR anymore. Poor people and old people thats it!!
Rating:
Summary: Melvin Gibson Tackles A Classic
Review: A friend who teaches English Literature said this is the best film version of Hamlet ever made -- that if Shakespeare could have made the movie himself, this would be it. Melvin Gibson's stretch as a genuine thespian was superb here, and prepared him well for the Lethal Weapon film series. The primary disappointment was (and this is understandable, given the time setting) that we didn't see Melvin driving any motor vehicles, but there's a rumor he's considering another Road Warrior flick, so that should make up for any of Hamlet's deficits.
| 
