Rating: 
Summary: Reviewing this film is a trap
Review: Consider this: Shakespearean films more than other films are dependent upon the director's translation of the text. HAMLET in particular has been adapted roughly 43 times in film. I'll say up front that this version is not my favorite interpretation, but I won't deny that it certainly set the standard back in its day.For those unfamiliar with the play, Hamlet's father, the king of Denmark, has recently passed away and he resents the speed with which his mother, Queen Gertrude, remarried. It doesn't help that her new husband is the dead king's brother, Claudius. Soon an apparition who is the spirit of his father, the dead king, visits Hamlet. The ghost explains that Claudius, Hamlet's uncle, murdered him in his sleep and tells Hamlet to avenge his death. The remainder of the story primarily revolves around the Prince's struggle to stop thinking and start doing (exemplified by the famous "To be, or not to be" speech. Can Hamlet do what it takes to truly avenge his father's death? Olivier and his much-celebrated interpretation of HAMLET are considered by many to be the best of all Shakespeare film adaptations -- it certainly bears the indelible stamp of its director/star's personality. Apparently, the Academy agreed rewarding it with Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress and Best Costume Design and among others. (Trivia: Olivier's direction was also nominated losing to John Huston for "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" in 1948). Olivier's take on Shakespeare's story of madness and murder most foul is unmistakably cinematic -- he takes full advantage of the medium, avoiding the trap of merely filming a play as some Shakespeare adaptations do, with monologues delivered as internal thoughts heard in hushed voiceovers. He occasionally uses dizzying camerawork to show Hamlet's inner turmoil, a trick that could never have worked on stage. The setting, lighting, and cinematography are wondrous setting the somber and Gothic tone. Some notable scenes for me include the sequence where the Ghost appears. Olivier uses sound and voice to create the disorientation that Hamlet and others feel when in the presence of the supernatural for a great creepy effect. Another arresting scene is when Laertes and Claudius are planning the murder of Hamlet. It starts with a close shot of the duo but slowly backs away, as if it wants to separate itself, and the audience, from the bloody deeds being discussed. But there are many disappointing choices made. Substantial cuts were made to the text (forgivable if you realize he needed to cut a 4-hour play into at least 2 hours. The omission of the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (childhood friends of Hamlet who are ultimately killed because they were too loyal to Claudius, and not to the Prince) is unfortunate as they bring so much contrast and subtle texture to the play. While I am a great fan of Olivier's, I strongly believe there were certain roles that were out of his range, Hamlet topping the list. (And I'm not even going to talk about the fact that 41 year old Olivier is playing a character who is in his mid to late twenties.) Olivier also insists on taking the Freudian approach with Hamlet and his mother Gertrude, an idea not really supported by the text suggesting that the real reason Hamlet is upset is not so much due to his father's murder, but that he should be with Gertrude, not Claudius. But the thing that nags at me most is that Hamlet is fundamentally a man of action, though a man of action who is aware that his actions have consequences. He is divided: determined to act, destructive when he does act, and consequently disconnected from his actions. But while Olivier lives well in the language and his rendering of the lines is a kind of dark poetry, his overall portrayal is mannered and brooding and almost petulant. It's a disappointing adaptation by an otherwise brilliant actor. Now as a DVD, this release of HAMLET is by the superior Criterion Collection. Criterion DVD's are often considered to be state-of-the-art, and this one is no exception presenting a nicely restored film good quality and sound. A definite must for a film collector. Having said all that, I'll end my review this way: again, this is not my favorite version of HAMLET (go watch Branagh's, Zeffirelli's or even Mel Gibson's versions) but as a piece of cinematic history this is definitely a watchable film worth seeing for it's accomplishments and cinematography.
Rating: 
Summary: The indispensable film version
Review: There have been many film Hamlets and Sir Laurence, even after he won the Academy Award for his performance here, felt that he was far from ideal. But every Hamlet makes for a different show. Olivier is a frantic Hamlet, energetic even in his melancholy, and he gives a great show. With gorgeous black-and-white cinematography that brings to life the castle Elsinore and great supporting performances, this is one classic that is never dull. Criterion as usual does a fantastic job. The picture and sound quality of this disc are top notch. My only complaint is that the disc contains no extras. Even the Henry V Criterion had a nice commentary track by a film historian. Because the cinematography is so luminous, however, I'm willing to overlook it. Some probably prefer Branagh's Hamlet, but until it comes out on DVD, one has no excuse not to own Olivier's.
Rating:
Summary: Overplayed but still classic
Review: This used to be the definitive "Hamlet," but I fear it has become quite dated with its painfully obvious Freudian interpretation of the characters and their motivations. Olivier delivers a great performance, as does the supporting cast, and the production lends a fog-enshrouded creepiness to the matter, but it gets lost a bit in the heavy-handed reading of the work itself.
Rating:
Summary: Olivier is fantastic!
Review: A film by Laurence Olivier The word "masterpiece" is thrown around far too often these days, but for years I have heard that this version of "Hamlet" is Olivier's masterpiece. Recently I had the opportunity to see this masterpiece and for the first time I saw Olivier at work. I was impressed with what I saw. To the modern ear, Shakespearean language can sound awkward and archaic, but with Olivier, much of the dialogue sounded like easy conversation. I once heard "Hamlet" described as the most structurally perfect play, that every action stems directly from something else in the play and that every action happened in that particular way because it had to, that there was no other way for the actions to work out. I am not enough of a Shakespeare scholar to be able to really speak to this, but I do know that when done well, "Hamlet" is a fascinating play, and a fascinating film. Olivier succeeded at doing this play well. The story is one that is well known. Hamlet (Laurence Olivier) is a prince of Denmark. His father had died a month prior, and Queen Gertrude (Eileen Herlie) married the dead king's brother, Claudius (Basil Sydney). Hamlet has been brooding, unable to accept either his father's death or his mother's rather quick remarriage. This continues until Hamlet sees the ghost of his father, who tells him that he was murdered, and that the murderer is now sitting on the throne of Denmark. As a character said early in the film, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Hamlet must avenge his father, but in such a way that he can get away with it. As he begins to plot, he pretends to be mad (crazy), so that his excesses can be excused away. So begins the story. This is an impressive movie, from the acting to the set design. The castle has a dark, gloomy atmosphere and it feels (and looks) real rather than looking hokey (the movie is more than 50 years old, after all). I was most impressed with Olivier, and rather less so with Jean Simmons, as Ophelia. The character (and her motivations) just didn't feel real to me this time. Excellent movie and highly recommended for classic film buffs.
Rating:
Summary: "Dead for a ducket! Dead!!!"
Review: With those words spoken with a maniacal glare, Lawrence Olivier had my complete attention. He is both director and the lead in this classic version of the celebrated play. The direction is smart, reminiscent at times of visual techniques used in "Citizen Kane." Praise, indeed! However, his acting performance is frustrating. He speaks softly, letting the poetry of the language speak for itself, then has a brilliant moment or exceptional scene, only to blaze sensationalistic at the wrong times. One such instance was just after Hamlet slays Polonius. Olivier cries out at the top of his voice, "Is it the King?!" Hamlet states early in the play that he is only playing at madness. Why is he then drawing so much attention to his bloody actions when we all know he just left the King praying on a lower level? He knows it couldn't be the King. Once again, his direction is amazing, but there are some excellent examples of why actors should not direct themselves. Seriously, who's going to tell them their performance needs work? Another scene that had me scratching my head was after the "players" first arrive. Why does Olivier pull the lead player aside, telling him that he has lines for him to memorize, only to have the "play-within-a-play" enacted without any words at all? He should have cut that earlier scene, or let the players have their lines.
The meeting with Hamlet's ghost is incredibly creepy here, with trick camera work, an eerie score, great special effects, and a thudding heart-beat announcing the ghost's arrival. This is my favorite version of this particular scene. Jean Simmons looks very pretty here, and she does have her moments, but there are better portrayals of Ophelia in other renditions of the play. Both Helena Bonham Carter, in the Mel Gibson version, and Kate Winslet, in the Kenneth Branagh version, are superior. Jean Simmons is good, but not great. Horatio is wooden for the most part. When will actors learn that one doesn't stop acting simply because it is not their turn to speak. Gestures and expressions, people! Lawrence Olivier uses subtlety in ever scene at ever moment, that is why so many consider him a great actor. Once again, the character of Laertes is portrayed with only a little passion. Catch the Kenneth Branagh version to see a vengeful Laertes on the verge of exploding with blood-lust! Overall, I was disappointed with the supporting cast. They have their moments, but none of them can match Olivier's performance. To quote a critical review I read, "Olivier is triumphant!" As both director and actor, his work here, for the most part, shines. Thank you.
Rating:
Summary: Great Dane
Review: Sir Laurence Olivier's 1948 version of Hamlet sets the standard for film version of the play about the Danish prince. Much as he did with Henry V, Sir Laurence exercises some significant plot points and characters from Shakespeare's play, but it is done to concentrate the focus of the film on the brooding prince. Make no mistake about it, this is Sir Laurence's film all the way. He brings an amazing breadth to character who disintegrates from a happy and sensitive man into a tormented and lost soul. There are some other great performances including Eileen Herlie who plays the Queen and is Sir Laurence's mother in the film despite being thirteen years his junior, a young Jean Simmons is luminous as Ophelia and Basil Sydney is effective as the villainous Claudius. Horror film notables Peter Cushing and the now ubiquitous Christopher Lee also appear as does Stanley Holloway. The film was a major success and it helped earn Sir Laurence his only competitive Oscars in 1948 as Best Actor and as producer on the Best Picture award in addition to two others for Best Art Direction (B&W) and Best Costume Design (B&W). He is also the only Best Actor Oscar winner to direct himself to the award.
Rating:
Summary: OLIVIER MASTERFUL IN HAUTING ADAPTATION
Review: There are several film versions of Shakespeare's great play about the troubled Prince of Denmark; Mel Gibson's imbues the drama with a barely restrained mania while Kenneth Branagh's is notable as the most nearly complete version yet made. Still, it is Olivier's production which remains the standard, and justifiably so. His is the performance which I believe most nearly matches the Bard's own vision of how the tormented Hamlet should be played--sensitive, caustic and impassioned yet tortured and lost. Olivier's direction leads the viewer inexorably into the heart of the play, whose characters move through the nearly inescapable walls of Castle Elsinore like sleepwalkers through a lucid dream. But Olivier couldn't do it all himself, and doesn't need to. Felix Aylmer is a likeable wise old fool as Polonius; Eileen Herlie is an appropriately confused queen and mother; Basil Sydney is well-cast as the villain who would rather not be; and Jean Simmons shines as Hamlet's innocent love, whose disintegration is so realistic it breaks the watcher's heart. More, the individual scenes are beautifully orchestrated. Oliver's rendition of the "To be or not to be" soliloquoy is pure magic, and the story's climactic duel is worth the wait, as Hamlet and Laertes (Ophelia's brother, well assayed by Terence Morgan)duel to the death--one unwittingly, and both to the death of more than each other. True, the production is incomplete, and the lack of Rosencranz and Guildenstern is a regrettable omission. But overall, Olivier's film captures the essence of Shakespeare's play like no other. As long as Hamlet is studied in schools, this will be the version most often used to show how the play should be done. A worthwhile addition to even the most discerning video library.
Rating:
Summary: Another good Lawrence Olivier adaptation of Shakespeare
Review: This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film. In this release Olivier's second adaptation of a Shakespeare play, Olivier again plays the title role. Unlike the previous film, this one is in black and white, It follows the story of a Danish prince bent on avenging the murder of his father by his uncle.
I would assume that most people know the plot so that is all I will say about it, The DVD has no special features which is not normal for a Criterion release.
Rating:
Summary: Overplayed but still classic
Review: This used to be the definitive "Hamlet," but I fear it has become quite dated with its painfully obvious Freudian interpretation of the characters and their motivations. Olivier delivers a great performance, as does the supporting cast, and the production lends a fog-enshrouded creepiness to the matter, but it gets lost a bit in the heavy-handed reading of the work itself.
Rating:
Summary: Best Vesion Of Hamlet
Review: I watched this with pure pleasure, enjoying every minute of it. Although Laurence Olivier at forty had been criticized (rightly) as too old for the part of Hamlet, the soliloquy: "To be or not to be" seems to me - the words of a melancholy man in middle age, and not that of a young student at university. When I read the soliloquy out of context, it seems to be a poem to fit any crisis. However, the final line introducing Ophelia, "Nymph in thy orisons, be all my sins rememembered," seems to be written by Shakespeare as anti-climatic statement underscoring the soliloquy, with Hamlet speaking the line to himself. In Olivier's Hamlet, as in the Franco Zeffirelli - Mel Gibson version, that line is removed from the end of the speech, and spoken elsewhere in an address by Hamlet to Ophelia. This detracts from the soliloquy and the play as a whole, as do all versions where Shakespeare's lines, verses, scenes, and acts are misplaced or omitted outright. Olivier as a director experimented with background music more typical of a Hollywood film drama then a Shakespeare play. Olivier also experimented with the limited special effects of the time, such as a wandering - often out of focus camera, and corny sound effects such as a loud heart beat each time the ghost of Hamlet's father was around. Remembering Shakespeare used poetry for special effects, his plays always suffer when directors use mechanics. All things considered - I completely enjoyed this. The black and white film gives it an eerie haunting quality - like Orson Welles' version of Macbeth, making the viewer understand Hamlet as a poingnant powerful tragedy. The supporting cast memmbers make the drama most believable, unlike other versions I've seen where the tittle character turns Hamlet into a one man show. I can't resist the temptation to compare and contrast Olivier's Hamlet with the Zeffirelli - Gibson version. Obviously the latter appear to have seen or studied the former. Jean Simmons' Ophelia compares well with the performance of Helena Bonham Carter. Mel Gibson seems to mirror the shouting and intense physical expressions of Laurence Olivier. However whereas Gibson seems aggreesive more often than not, Oivier seems to be manic - depressive, ascending and descending from the meek to the belligerent - depending on the act or scene. Both are excellent versions of Hamlet. However, without a doubt, Laurence Olivier's is the better.
|
