Rating: 
Summary: Watched It and Loved It!
Review: As a high school student, we were forced to read the book and we watched the movie afterward.After reading the book, HAMLET was still just another one of those books that you just read. Yet, after viewing the movie the book came into better focus. It turn my learning into an actually interesting experience.Now that I am no longer in high school, I have rented the movie myself and enjoy it even more every time.
Rating:
Summary: FAR BEYOND EXPECTATIONS!!!
Review: I was deeply offended by Gibson's "Braveheart." For a while I refused to watch his movies, but with this movie, I somewhat forgave him. The images are done with rare delicacy and beauty. The symphony music flatters the images. Gibson is phenomenal as Hamlet. He portrays the many dimensions of Hamlet (his sorrow, his fury, his feigned madness, and his sharpness) quite well. Alan Bates is by far the best Claudius I have ever seen. Claudius is a difficult character to perform because of his many dimensions. He killed his brother, and stole his wife and crown. Yet, he is a reasonable monarch. He is VERY likable when he quells Laertes' raid with pure courage and intelligence. Also, he clearly regrets his murder and suffers for it. I tip my hat to Alan Bates. Scofield is superb as Hamlet's father. He displays pure human sorrow. Laertes is outstanding in his display of his character's multiple dimensions. (A loving son and brother, a revenge driven monster, and a penitent victim.) Ophelia is fine as the helpless pawn, and Gertrude and Polonius are fine as the characters who never see the plainest point. One thing the director avoids is the common mistake that Hamlet is simply stalking Claudius. It is clear in this movie that Hamlet and Claudius are stalking EACH OTHER. Also, this movie outdoes the book in that the filler is eliminated, and the scenes are juggled to make more sense. (Ex. Rather than seeing Hamlet's father's ghost first thing, we see the funeral of Hamlet's father. This makes it more frightening when Hamlet's friends tell him that they have seen his father.) My only complaint about this is that the director deletes lines that indicate Hamlet wants to be king.
Rating: 
Summary: Gibson is good...
Review: Wow!Way to go Mel ~ as the brooding guilt ridden Hamlet. A great performance... This film has the right temperament and brings out the characters with great consideration. Another good performance by Glenn Close as his mother Gertrude. If ya haven't tried it ~ buy it!!
Rating:
Summary: Best Hamlet Video to date
Review: After studying Hamlet for English, the class then proceeded to watch several different versions of Hamlet, and compared against Kenneth Braughn's 4-hour movie that I found quite dull, Mel Gibson' version added new life and vigor to the play, something I hadn't quite gotten from the book, and certainly soemthing I hadn't gotten from Kenneth Braughn's. Thus, I highly recommend this movie, its quick, its lively, and its thouroughly enjoyable.
Rating:
Summary: Even better on re-viewing
Review: After recently spending days viewing all currently available video Hamlets, I realize that this is definitely the best of the lot. Branagh's version is certainly valuable for the full text and is beautifully filmed, but that is part of the problem. The 19th century setting makes the instructions from Claudius to the King of England to kill Hamlet on his arrival ridiculous. This is a much too civilized court for the rottenness in Denmark. The Zeffirelli version sets Hamlet in a dark, primitive, medieval Denmark where all is possible. Branagh is a stage Hamlet, an actor playing a part, however well, while Gibson IS Hamlet for the two hour duration of the film. The blonde wig Branagh wears is also rather off-putting, as though he were dressing up as Laurence Olivier in his version. I also find the cameo parts in the Branagh version rather self-indulgent, particularly that of Robin Williams and Charlton Heston, or simply incompetent (Jack Lemmon). All the actors in Zeffirelli's version are living their roles, with their facial expressions changing moment to moment as the play unfolds. No ego trips here.
Rating: 
Summary: GIBSON, ALTHOUGH GOOD, IS NO BRANAGH!
Review: This is a pretty decent version of my favorite play Shakespeare ever did. Even though I say it is good, it is very soundly beaten by Branagh's version. Mel Gibson, although a great actor, could not pull it off as good as Kenneth Branagh. In this version, Gibson seemed to underact in scenes that I think should have deserved more drama into it (like the "Too, too solid flesh," and the "To be, or not to be" speeches, and the scene in where Hamlet dies). He also overacted in scenes that shouldn't have been that dramatic (like in the scenes were he first talks to his Father/Uncle, and in his mother's closet). Branagh, on the other hand, pulled it off the way it was meant to be, as Gibson's way was not to be. Was it just me, or did it look like Hamlet was trying to make love to his mother (olayed somewhat well by Glenn Close) in the closet scene, after he had murdered Polonius? In my words, UUUUGGGHHH! The mood was dark, darker than Branagh's version. This version did have some good moments: The fight scene at the end, and Hamlet's confrontation with is father. If there was anything that even trys to make this film be as good or better than Branagh's version is the locations in where they filmed. The castle that they filmed this in was absolutely stunning, and some of the sets were neat looking. But they still couldn't rival the beautiful manor, or the dazzling rooms, in which Branagh's version was filmed. This version also had edited out some very important scenes, like the Norewegian army movements, the scene where the Norwegian prince and the British ambassador arrive, and, might I ad, that changing scenes around, and adding several unimportant scenes, was not great. Branagh's additions did not mess up the storyline. If you wish to see this version, do it only if you do not wish to sit through the four hours that Branagh's version uses to tell the story. I warn you though, this film is also slow. It is a good film, but take my advice, Gibson is better as an action star (even though FOREVER YOUNG was a good film, according to me). Branagh's version, although twice as long, moves along faster. Grade: B+
Rating:
Summary: Simply the Best
Review: This is, by far, the best Hamlet ever put on screen. The critical distinction between this version and Kenneth Branagh's, (besides the length) is that Mel "is" Hamlet, while Branagh is "doing" Hamlet. Perhaps Kenny was over-worked from his directing duties, but that is no excuse for boring an audience for 4 hours. In my own humble opinion, the film is actually improved from the editing. I would rather watch this film than read the play...again.
Rating:
Summary: A fine interpretation of Shakespear'es Masterpiece
Review: Of course, the best version is Olivier's 1948 version. No one could master Shakespeare as well as he did, with an ease of voice and command of language and drama. But this modern version is excellent. Fine performances, great cinematography as is always the case under the direction of Franco Zefferelli. He had done of course the 1968 Romeo and Juliet and when his name along with Mel Gibson came out... it was sure to be a great film. And it is. There is not much emphasis on the ghost, nevertheless, only appearing once when he is originally supposed to come out twice, second time in the bedroom scene between Hamlet and his mother. That scene in particular is very distorted in this version. Mel Gibson and Glen Close actually have an incestuous intimate moment that any audience may find disturbing. The tragic endings are well performed. Helena Bohham Carter is a great Ophelia gone mad and Glen Close a pretentious, hypocritical queen. Mel Gibson.. for an actor who has done roles in the Lethal Weapon movies is quite good. Most of the Hamlets in the past, Olivier (though the best) and others are elderly and do not truly fit the original Hamlet the Bard envisioned- a young man out for revenge and that is what we see with Mel Gibson's performace.. a younger and more vigorous character.. not the "depressed, weak " Hamlet many have recreated in Romanticism. We can see even Hamlet's influence in Braveheart when it comes to Mel Gibson. Hamlet is very much a hero even if a tragic hero. And when people think of hero.. they think of Gibson. The Patriot is another reminder. Great film.
Rating:
Summary: In a word--Phenomenal
Review: I have read some of the more negative reviews of this movie, and I utterly disagree. First of all, Mel Gibson was the PERFECT Hamlet, and when you think of how little prior experience he had with Shakespeare, it makes his performance that more impressive. Secondly, the issue of the script being cut is entirely understandable. I recently directed a production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream", and cutting the script was vital. The people who are complaining about the shortend version must realize that not everyone will be able to sit through 3 hours of Elizabethen English(It's painful for me to say, but entirely true). The performances of all the actors involved was amazing, and this version, in my opinion, is one of the greatest ever!
Rating:
Summary: Riveting
Review: This was my first Hamlet experience, other than reading the book which I did concurrently. The lighting was magnificant, Mel Gibson's performance was of academy award caliber. It was not boring and moved along briskly, as to keep your interest. The production and directing was beautiful. I loved it. It had emotional content so long as you have feelings. A complete and perfect tragic potrayal of Shakespeare
|
