Watch Hamlet For Free

Did you people see the same film I saw?

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

it is his film. at all. scene by scene. step by step. it is his play in more measure than the play of his character. and this did "Hamlet" from 1948 different by other adaptations. because the prince of Denmark is more darker than you supposed to be. because Olivier is Hamlet in a strange and dangerous manner , using ambition to transform the performance in a kind of metamorphosis. it is a heavy Hamlet, as a sort of psycho-analysis session for the public as patient. sure, it is a remarkable adaptation. maybe a masterpiece. but it remains , in high measure, the splendid film of Laurence Olivier. not surprising for a great actor who has need of glory.

Of the three Shakespearean plays adapted for the screen by Laurence Olivier, this is the one with which I am the most familiar. It's been quite some time since I've read it or seen it performed but I would guess that Olivier cut a good third, if not more, of the play for this film version. Most significantly, he entirely cut out the major characters of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and Fortinbras as well as quite a few minor ones. In spite of this, however, the story retains its general thrust - if not all the specifics - and the film is still magnificent as Olivier once again utterly excels as both an actor and a director. This was the first British or non-American film to win the Best Picture Actor and Olivier became the first actor to win the Best Actor Oscar for a film that he directed himself. The only other person to accomplish this feat was Roberto Benigni in "La vita è bella" 49 years later. Although Olivier was nominated for twelve Oscars (nine for Best Actor, one for Best Supporting Actor and two for Best Picture), this film was the only one for which he won any Academy Award.As the melancholy Dane, Olivier is absolutely wonderful. While the cuts to "Henry V" meant that the title character was shown in a very positive light, he did not hesitate - as either actor or director - here to emphasise his character's less desirable qualities such as his egotistical behaviour and his utter callousness when it comes to unintentionally killing Polonius. And yet Olivier's performance also draws attention to the character's psychological vulnerability after the murder of his father, thus eliciting sympathy. His lust for revenge has cut him off from his emotions, something which is also seen in his brutal rejection of Ophelia. Olivier also plays the ghost of Hamlet's father in the film and does a fantastic job in that role too.Speaking of Ophelia, the 18-year-old Jean Simmons is excellent, playing the role with a remarkable level of subtlety for someone of her age and comparatively limited acting experience. In spite of playing Hamlet's mother Gertrude, Eileen Herlie was almost eleven years younger than Olivier. While she unsurprisingly looks much younger than him, her very strong performance and great voice meant that I forgot this rather odd age gap existed almost as soon as she opened her mouth. Felix Aylmer, who played the Archbishop of Canterbury in "Henry V", has a far larger role in this film as Polonius and was certainly up to the task. He's just fantastic. Basil Sydney isn't as strong as I would have liked as Claudius but he is still very good. However, I don't think that there is anyone in the film who gives a bad performance. Olivier had such a great eye for casting that it's a shame that he directed a mere five films. I wish that an artist - not usually a word that I use when referring to actors - of his calibre had been more prolific behind the camera. Aside from those actors that I have already mentioned, I would like to single out Esmond Knight (who unfortunately has a far smaller role than in "Henry V"), John Laurie, Terence Morgan, Anthony Quayle and Stanley Holloway. In his first British film, Peter Cushing - one of my favourite actors who, like Olivier, played Van Helsing years later - is good in the small supporting role of the foppish Osric but his performance isn't on the same level as most of his later ones. I have to say that I have never paid so much attention to the extras in a film as in this one! This is because three actors who became very well known in later years made uncredited appearances in the film: Christopher Lee, Desmond Llewelyn and Patrick Macnee. In only his third film, Lee makes two "blink and you'll miss them" appearances just before the duel between Hamlet and Laertes. In the first instance, he appears behind his future best friend and frequent on screen nemesis Peter Cushing in what was their first of 24 films together. Llewelyn was far easier to spot as he appears quite prominently in the background of several scenes. He actually has slightly more screen time than the credited Patrick Troughton, who portrays the small but pivotal role of the Player King but doesn't have any lines. While I was on a constant lookout for Lee and Macnee (the film's only two surviving cast members), I didn't manage to spot the future John Steed. Acting aside, the film looks fantastic. In contrast to the vibrant Technicolor of "Henry V", the film was shot in black and white. Apparently, this was done more for financial than artistic reasons but the black and white cinematography adds to the sense of foreboding. The use of deep focus - probably inspired by "Citizen Kane" - is superlative. As with Orson Welles, Olivier demonstrated that he was a master of not one but two crafts in a single film. Incidentally, Olivier had hoped to make "Macbeth" after "Henry V" but the fact that Welles was working on his own version put paid to that idea. "Macbeth" has always been my favourite Shakespearean play so the fact that Olivier never got to make his version of it for the big screen is hugely disappointing, particularly since it was considered one of his best roles - and that's really saying something - and it would have starred his then wife Vivien Leigh as Lady Macbeth.Overall, the film is a masterpiece in spite of the fact that it cuts significant portions of the play. One of my Top 30 to 35 films of all time.

This is a great movie. It is a true classic. Great acting. Great story line. Great special effects. This movie is very scary. It is a masterpiece. See it. It is mush more fun to watch then reality TV. This one of best movie ever. Shakespeare was one of the best writers of his time. There a lot of people who like Shakespeare that are story snobs. But will say Shakespeare was as good at writing as Steven King. This is better then Godzilla (1954) and almost as good as Godzilla (1998). Godzilla (1954) is great movie. And so is this. It is nothing like. But good like Godzilla and a story just like Godzilla is a story. Great movie. It is a most see.

I do like very much like Kenneth Branagh's film especially for Derek Jacobi's Claudius. However, I consider this perhaps the best Hamlet. The first hour or so is a little slow moving I agree, but I had no real problem with the pace generally with everything else so good. The film is incredibly well made for starters with moody lighting, very interesting and well thought out camera angles and sumptuous costumes and settings. The music is resolutely haunting which suits the complex tone of the play and film more than very well. The writing is outstanding though if I have any criticisms I also agree the soliloquies don't quite work out as they could. Olivier's direction is hard to fault and he is brilliant in the title role. He gets strong performances from a fine cast the best being Norman Wooland's Horatio and Jean Simmons' Orphelia. Basil Sidney's Claudius is also very good, but I marginally prefer Jacobi in the role. All in all, may have one or two minor flaws but these don't stop this Hamlet from being one of the better Shakespeare films I've seen. 9.5/10 Bethany Cox