Watch Hamlet For Free

Sadly Over-hyped

Don't Believe the Hype

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

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

Once again, I read reviews saying this is the worst portrayal of Hamlet in the history of cinema. Hey, I'm not a big fan of Mel Gibson, but this film makes the story and some of the language accessible. Personally, I would much prefer a more sophisticated adaptation, but I have had extensive Shakespeare studies in my education. This is Shakespeare for a more pedestrian audience (young people included) and what's wrong with that? I love classical music and theatre, but the snobbishness that some approach it with is a real turnoff. I believe that for certain individuals, they feel these things need to be protected so they can be the only ones to enjoy these things. I agree that Gibson is much too old to be playing the young prince and it is pretty sparse in language. But isn't it better to have a populace that knows the story and doesn't have to wade through a 60 line soliloquy, than to have them just ignore the whole thing. I showed this to some of my nigh grade students and heard very few complaints.

Having just completed a review of the Branagh Hamlet, I felt it fair to offer my two cents on this one also.Shakespeare is not above criticism. Nor does a person require a Ph.D to enjoy, or even interpret his words. While the historical plays may benefit from some due diligence to flesh out the finer points, the plays were written for a colloquial Elizabethan audience who were hungry for entertainment, innovation and also a little sex and violence.Not too different from people today I think.Hamlet is a very complicated play about a conflicted, hallucinogenic kid who struggles to cope with an uneasy, perhaps immoral, relationship with his mother and the marriage of her to his uncle after the sudden death of his father. It's heavy stuff, and boy does it get heavier. All that said it can easily serve as digestible entertainment on the level of a vengeance story. There is a reason this play has lived for so long. No matter how you transform it, the song remains the same. Even if this version of the song isn't perfect, it's largely a delight to the ear and also the eye. It is also quite accessible and easy to follow. In nearly every area I demonized the selfish Branagh production, this Franco Zeffirelli one excels. The ambiance is richer and more convincing in the dank castle halls. The editing flows surprisingly well for a two hour performance. The long lensing really zeroes in on the performances. There is a wealth of context in the relationships of Hamlet with all the major players. It feels as if Zeffirelli is acutely aware of subtext and exploits it with subtlety at every turn. With some exception, the actors are all steeped in the part and not simply engaging in dry recitation. Paul Scofield is absolutely scorching as the Ghost, who may, or may not actually exist. Ian Holm as Polonius is vibrant and also sad. Helena Bonham-Carter is just about perfect for Ophelia. Glen Close too really nails her unfortunately small part. Mel Gibson? He doesn't do all that bad. You really do take Hamlet as crazy, that's for sure. But Lethal Weapon could have easily been passed over for somebody better. On the other hand, without him, the film probably wouldn't have ever been made. To be or not to be I guess.

On the surface, one might reasonably conclude that Mel Gibson and Glenn Close starring in Hamlet may be some kind of joke, a parody of the Shakespeare play, but there is no joke. This movie is for real and both Mr. Gibson and Ms. Close give commanding performances in their respective roles. This movie is proof that when given quality material under excellent direction, talented actors will flourish. The rest of the cast is stellar too, but this movie squarely revolves around the two lead characters and if their performances fail, then the whole movie fails. In recent years, Mel Gibson's reputation has taken hits, but there can be no denying that he is a gifted actor and in this movie presents a novel, dynamic interpretation of Hamlet that brings new life to the character, transforming a brooding young man into a man of action who takes charge and pays the price, wherein lays the tragedy. For Hamlet is a tragedy. However, unlike previous renditions of the play, which focus on the murky and somber, this rendition is lit up, the characters are active, Gertrude is young and beautiful, all of which make the ending even more provocative and powerful. This movie should have been nominated for an Academy Award in every major category; that it wasn't is perplexing. All in all, this movie represents another triumph for Franco Zefirrelli, once again who proves that Shakespeare can be produced for the screen, if you do it right.

This was the first of two filmed "Hamlets" in the nineties, the other being Kenneth Branagh's from 1996. Franco Zeffirelli had earlier made one of the great Shakespeare films, his "Romeo and Juliet" from 1968. (I have not seen his version of "The Taming of the Shrew"). Whereas his "Romeo and Juliet" was set against the background of the sunny Italian countryside, his "Hamlet", in keeping with the play's Scandinavian setting, is appropriately cool and northern, although it was actually filmed in Scotland.Branagh's "Hamlet" was also filmed in Britain, but the two films are very different in terms of their visual style. Branagh shot his film in the depths of an icy winter against the formal grandeur of Blenheim Palace. The interior scenes, by contrast, are opulent and palatial; all the leading characters wear splendid costumes. (The film is updated to the nineteenth century, so that means crinolines for the women and military uniforms for the men). Branagh's aim seems to have been to contrast outward pomp and splendour with inner corruption and decay. Zeffirelli's film is set in spring against a castle on the cliffs above the sea. The exterior scenes are often sunny; the predominant tone is the bright green of the grass. In this case, however, the interior scenes are dull and claustrophobic; the predominant colour is the grey of the castle walls. The film is set in mediaeval times; not the high Middle Ages, which might have made for greater visual colour, but earlier, in the eleventh or twelfth century. (This period may have been chosen as this was the time when the Danish chronicler Saxo Grammaticus wrote the first version of the Hamlet story). The costumes, even of the royal or aristocratic characters, are dull and subdued; Zeffirelli seems to have intended them to reflect the mood of the characters in the play. I first saw this film in the cinema on the recommendation of my then girlfriend, but I did not hold out any great hopes for it, as Jill tended to judge every film solely on the looks of its leading man, a sort of female equivalent of those lust-stricken males who will solemnly insist, against all the evidence, that Pamela Anderson or Bo Derek really are great actresses. Mel Gibson was one of her particular heart-throbs, but at that time I regarded him principally as Mad Max and just could not envisage him as Hamlet. Well, Jill was right and I was wrong. Talk about coming to jeer and staying to cheer. Gibson is actually very good. He is not as polished as Branagh as a speaker of Shakespearean verse, but he brings his own rough honesty to the part. Like Branagh, however, he has little time for the traditional concept of Hamlet as indecisive, passive and melancholy. His Hamlet is vigorous and robust; his low spirits and disgust with the world are not the result of some innate character flaw but rather a natural reaction to the tragedies of his father's death, his mother's betrayal and the revelation that his uncle is a murderer. Of the other major characters, I liked Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia (indeed, I preferred her to Kate Winslet). I also liked Alan Bates as Claudius. His performance is rather different to Derek Jacobi's in Branagh's film, but equally persuasive. Jacobi suggests that Claudius could have been a good man under different circumstances, before he allowed himself to be led astray by ambition and lust. Bates' character is a more straightforward villain, but one who is adept at hiding his villainy beneath an outward show of jovial good fellowship. Paul Scofield's Ghost is less frightening than Brian Blessed's, but perhaps more moving. The one major character I did not like was Glenn Close's Gertrude. In 1990 I still thought of her mainly as the bunny-boiler in "Fatal Attraction", and her performance here did little to dispel that impression. To start with, she is nowhere near old enough to be Mel Gibson's mother. More importantly, Gertrude seemed to be fatally attracted not only towards her brother-in-law but also towards her son, embracing both with vigour and kissing them warmly on the lips. Close and Zeffirelli seem to have been heavily influenced by the idea that there is an incestuous attraction between Gertrude and Hamlet, something which has always seemed to me to owe less to Shakespeare than to Freud (or possibly to a misunderstanding of Freud), and which I think works to the play's detriment. The big difference between this version and Branagh's is length. Branagh's version is based on the full uncut text of the play and runs to over four hours, nearly twice the length of Zeffirelli's which, like Olivier's, is based on an abridged version. (The Fortinbras subplot, for example, is omitted altogether). Doubtless abridging the play in this manner makes commercial sense; three hours or thereabouts ("Titanic", "Lord of the Rings", etc) seems to be the outer limit of the modern cinema-goer's patience and Branagh's film did not do well at the box-office. Nevertheless, it is in my view the better of the two films, bringing out not only the full complexity but also the full emotional power of the play. Zeffirelli's version works well as a film in its own right, but it is little more than half of what Shakespeare actually wrote. 8/10