Hamlet

Rating:
Summary: THE BEST FILM ADAPTATION OF 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 version surpasses Kenneth Branaugh's overblown version and is even better than Laurence Olivier's film.

This is a very realistic and natural version set during 13th Century (the period Shakespeare set his play in). The acting is amazing; Mel Gibson and Glen Close both give the best performances of their careers and everyone else is also fantastic. The film was shot entirely on location in real castles, it has amazing photography by David Watkin and a great score by Ennio Morricone...

Rating:
Summary: Accessible and triumphant
Review: The triumph of Zefferelli's Hamlet is in his brilliant use of the hidden and the known talent of Mel Gibson. Gibson conveys a modern meaning and pace to the play without, sacrificing the purity or ambiguity of its lines. As such, this video is essential to the teacher of the play- for without it, too many will miss one of the greatest achievements in art. If we are to keep Shakespeare alive, we must lure the uninitiated, young and old from their cables and video games. Mel Gibson is 'safe' and popular enough to break some of the initial resistance. That he also happens to do a remarkable, if unconventional job of it all, is why this will be a standard for many years. I was assisting a student who said to me, "This, (meaning Shakespeare's prose,) is supposed to be the best writing ever?" Then she watched the movie- asked questions and returned to the prose, soliloquy by soliloquy and was, I believe, transported from the MTV land to the sublime. That's a sweet prince.

Rating:
Summary: Medieval Mental Hospital-or so it seems!
Review: This is a wonderful movie-completely moving, beautiful and heartbreaking.
I liked how the movie looked,it was like watching a magazine but with action and people having strange words come out of their mouth and wierd clothes. These poor lost souls in the movie are sadly out of fashion, and obviously are in need of group therapy and wacking each other with big foam bats to get all that anger out of their system.

I love this movie and also recommend any movie tha

Rating:
Summary: "A hit. A palpable hit"
Review: The decision to watch a filmed version of HAMLET is roughly comparable to choosing whether to vacation in the Bahamas or Aruba. You'll get a tan from both but the ambience will surely vary. Olivier's HAMLET is classic, introspective, and hesitant. Branagh's is fully texted and purposefully allegorical. But,if one wishes to see a more decisive Dane, who combines this sense of deliberation with charm, humor, and exaggerated violence, then one would do well to turn to Mel Gibson's Hamlet. Director Franco Zeffirelli has lopped off much of the original text, excising those scenes that were of more import to Shakespeare's audience but retaining the rest.

The viewer who knows the play well can tell from the opening scene that Zeffirelli chooses not to begin with the conversation between Marcellus and Bernardo, whose dialogue about the ghost of Hamlet's father foreshadows the imminent appearance of a ghost whose 'reality' in the context of both contemporary and modern audiences has been endlessly debated. Such divergences between the original text and this filmed version do not detract from the visual and visceral power of Zeffirelli's vision. Hamlet, as Gibson plays him, is not the meek and indecisive Olivier, who seems unsure until the closing scenes as to what lengths he will go to eliminate the rottenness that is now Denmark. Gibson's Hamlet is more closely attuned to the printed version who can seem indecisive in one breath but violently purposeful in the next. One of the most enduring enigmas in a play that is riddled with them is the enduring controversy as to whether Hamlet is seeking to cleanse Denmark's rottenness under the claim that he is a legitimate avenger of Heaven as the ghost seems to imply or he is simply seeking a personal vendetta against the man who killed his father and bedded his mother. Gibson makes it clear in the scene when he encounters his uncle, the now king, engrossed in prayer, and has the long-awaited opportunity to kill him with impunity. Hamlet decides not to since death while praying might still admit King Claudius to Heaven. For Hamlet, such a death and pleasant afterlife, is not punishment enough. Hamlet will wait to dispatch the King in a manner that will surely doom his soul to eternal torment in Hell. Thus, Gibson is fixed in his interpretation of a prince who resists being a pawn in a game of political chess, while all the while transforming himself from pawn to chess king as he masterfully moves the rooks, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to their undeserved deaths in England.

Glenn Close, as Gertrude, Hamlet's mother, has been unfairly pilloried as being too youthful and attractive to be convincing as a woman who ought not have remarried quite so soon after her husband's death. Her performance is, nevertheless, quite riveting and is probably closer to the dilemma that Shakespeare envisioned as he wrote of a woman who chose to overlook the obvious in favor or re-establishing a moral center for a country that was in turmoil and could not turn to a moody, brooding prince for salvation. With each heart-rending word from Hamlet that pushes her nose in the slime of real world grubby politics, Gertrude stands revealed as a woman who was more simple in her life and philosophy than simple-minded in her acumen. It is no fault of her own, as Hamlet so viciously accuses, that she has failed to see what to him is so painfully obvious.

Since this HAMLET is a truncated version of the text, much of the grist for the scholarly mill has been thankfully eliminated. Shakespeare's contemporaries might have exulted in and commiserated with the long dramatic advice that Hamlet gives to the passing troupe of actors, the purpose of which was to present on a microcosmic scale within the play-in-a-play what Hamlet was to accomplish on the macrocosmic. For modern audiences, such digressions would surely have diluted their interest. What Zeffirelli and Gibson do manage is to present a two hour howl of pain of a man who is caught in a box, locked with a key that can double as a self-immolating sword. For many of Shakespeares' heroes--as well as his villains--the choice of their use of a life-saving key or a life-ending samurai dagger is what continually drags audiences to eternally reenact the angst of his best and worst. This HAMLET does that as well as any other of Shakespeare's plays.

Rating:
Summary: Shakespeare Understood!
Review: Mel Gibson's portrayal of Hamlet is wonderful. (Course, I'd say that about ANYTHING he does) He brings out Hamlet's darkness and makes you mourn right along with him. He also makes the spoken language of Shakespeare clearly understood which makes for easy viewing of the story that is so masterfully written.

And who doesn't love to hate that mother of Hamlet, portrayed by Glen Close. She does a wonderful job as well.

This movie moves us close to the stage as if you were in the theater itself.

Rating:
Summary: A Very Respectable Version
Review: Mel Gibson's 1990 version of argueably the greatest of William Shakespeare's works unquestionably has its flaws, but certainly holds it own among myriad other versions of the play. Please, don't pay too much attention to those who would attempt to compare Gibson's Hamlet to any of his action roles; Hamlet is perhaps the most complex intellectual character in all of the English language. It is unfair to compare him to a futuristic road warrior or a Three Stooges-loving, suicidal cop.

The reason why Gibson was cast as Hamlet in this version is simple: he helped cast himself. Why? For the opportunity to establish himself as an actor with serious talent, not just serious sex appeal. His Hamlet possessed more than enough of the emotional depth and range necessary for the role, and Gibson also brought an intangible element: his own charisma. As we do with Jack and Rose in the movie _Titanic_, we truly rooted for this Hamlet, despite knowledge of the inevitable conclusion.

Gibson looks uncomfortable at first (nervous?) and starts out slowly; tentatively. He finds his acting feet soon thereafter, and by the end of the film, his presence seems to upstage that of the other actors. So while it is a somewhat unbalanced performance in that regard, Gibson's physical communication of his torment was both dynamic and convincing. The explication of information during his monologues was far superior to Derek Jacobi's BBC version in the late '70's, and in my opinion, over the decades and the evolution of acting methods and styles, supercedes Olivier's 1948 version. If you can overlook the fact that Mel Gibson is a very grown-up version of Hamlet, then his rendition, while flawed, is still an effort worthy of The Bard.

His supporting cast was very well chosen, with the exception perhaps of Glenn Close as Hamlet's mother, Gertrude, who must have been eight years old when Hamlet was born! Helena Bonham Carter was simply outstanding as Ophelia... the madness of Shakespeare's characters is a difficult state to emulate, and the heartrending sadness she bears is palpable.

Franco Zeffirelli is a longtime Shakespeare veteran, most memorably for directing the 1968 version of _Romeo and Juliet_, considered by many to be the best film adaptation of any of Shakespeare's works. He paints an atmosphere in Elsinore as cold as the tension between Hamlet and his father, but perhaps tries a little too hard to make things fresh by infusing awkward new camera angles and an unbalanced (and sometimes nonexistant) complimentary music score.

If you're thinking about buying Gibson's Hamlet simply because you are a big Mel fan, then by all means, you should do so. You'll see a side of Mel that you hadn't seen prior to 1990, and in many ways, haven't seen since (_Braveheart_ was a triumph, but it's simply a different genre than Shakespeare). But if you're looking for the best version of Hamlet, and you have to choose between this version and Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version, I would strongly suggest Branagh's. It is a full-text version (excellent for students) while Gibson's has cut scenes, re-organized scenes, and missing characters. Branagh's moves much more swiftly, vividly, and energetically, and although it is set in the 19th century rather than the 15th/16th century, the language still fits snugly in that timeline and in no way affects the plot. But if you don't have to choose, don't count out Gibson's version one way or the other. It is definitely worth viewing, and perhaps you'll consider renting both versions before buying.

Rating:
Summary: Laughable
Review: Mad Max as the most classically tragic figure of all-time - what a joke! Glenn Close is abominable and hardly old enough to be his mother - plus Gibson's too old to play the young prince, anyway.

I love Shakespeare, but this was atrocious. Laurence Olivier would be turning over in his grave if he saw this despicable display of an acting attempt by Gibson. Watch Olivier or Branagh's versions if you desire true Shakespeare- not the faux watered-down version. He was great in Braveheart - but ladies and gents, Braveheart this is not.

Rating:
Summary: THE DEFINITIVE HAMLET TO DATE (12/2002)!
Review: Gibson's strongest role. The best Hamlet I've seen to date. A must add movie to any collection. Why can't this be purshased on DVD is my only question. The studios need to get with it. I suspect that the marketing people are asleep at the wheel again as has become typical of our modern age (talk about tragedies). Our movie makers have become so overly concerned with what Joe 6-pack and the teen aged girls are wanting to be watching that they have forgotten all about what a great film is. Gibson's Hamlet stands as a fine example. Buy it. Watch it. Suck out the marrow. Love it and share it with those you love.

Rating:
Summary: Feasible
Review: In teaching "Hamlet" I use Olivier's version for my own preparation, Branagh's for 5-10 minute excerpts from the play, and Gibson's for whole scenes and longer stretches. The latter version holds students' attention best due to a judiciously (for the most part) edited script, the Zeffirelli "pretentious" style (much of the play let alone the medium of film is about pretense), and the full-blown, "sincere" Gibson style. Branagh is certainly superior in portraying Hamlet's "antic disposition," but younger students and "first-timers" are slow to pick up on the play's verbal ironies. Moreover, Branagh's passionate scenes can seem overplayed because of the theatrical resonance of his tenor timbre. He may look like more of a Scandinavian, but Mel has the look my students recognize.

Rating:
Summary: Mel Miscast as Hamlet; Mediocre Production
Review: Mel Gibson has built a successful film career as an action hero, so, what an odd, awkward choice he was to play tortured Hamlet. Dying his hair blonde another silly miscue. And having Glenn Close (who is about 5 yrs older than Mel) playing his Mom, sheer goofiness. Production values and overall feel is rather crude, totally unlike Kenneth Branagh's magnificent 1996 version of Hamlet. Selectively chopping away at the play's script did not help this awkward version either.