Hamlet

[Ben Morgan]

So who's seen the Hamlet movies? I've only watched Mel Gibson's and Kenneth Branagh's versions, and I liked Branagh's the best. Has anyone seen the 2000 one?

[Tobias March]

Laurence Olivier's version is one of the best, but Branagh set out with the goal of getting the whole play on screen.

Are you referring to the Ethan Hawke version? Never saw that one.

I had this idea years ago of rewriting Hamlet as a film noir type script :p

[Ben Morgan]

I really liked the ghost scene in Branagh's version

[Karl J Barnes]

Though I love the Sir Oliver's version, I really admire Gibson's. Mainly because, he wasn't at the time, a very well noted actor and he pulled off the role with aplomb.

[rick]

I'm a huge fan of the Branagh film, as far as I am concerned it is the finest film version of the play ever made.

However having said that, I do have a real fondness for the Derek Jacobi version from the PBS Complete Shakespeare Plays from the early 1980’s, with Patrick Stewart as Claudius and Lala Ward as Opehlia.

[mattx110]

I'm a huge fan of the Branagh film, as far as I am concerned it is the finest film version of the play ever made.

However having said that, I do have a real fondness for the Derek Jacobi version from the PBS Complete Shakespeare Plays from the early 1980’s, with Patrick Stewart as Claudius and Lala Ward as Opehlia.

Oh god. I want to see that. I love the "Descent into madness" shakespeare plays. They really test how unlikable someone can become before you lose sympathy.

[BoosterBronze]

I actually liked the 2000 Ethan Hawke version. Kyle McLaughlin and Liev Schiriber mostly made up for Ethan Hawke being mediocre at best, and the bold, 'cut everything' approach to storytelling really made for a new type of Hamlet.

Props to Olivier, Gibson, and Braunaughf too though.

[Ben Morgan]

I'm a huge fan of the Branagh film, as far as I am concerned it is the finest film version of the play ever made.

Gotta agree with you on that one, although I haven't seen the 2000 version yet, I doubt it's as good as Branagh's

[Kirayoshi]

I actually liked the 2000 Ethan Hawke version. Kyle McLaughlin and Liev Schiriber mostly made up for Ethan Hawke being mediocre at best, and the bold, 'cut everything' approach to storytelling really made for a new type of Hamlet.

Props to Olivier, Gibson, and Braunaughf too though.
Branaugh pulled off a miracle by making a 4-hour movie that I sat through without looking at my watch once. His version was truly riveting.

The Ethan Hawke version was fairly decent. Who knew Bill Murray could pull off Shakespeare? He was perfect as Polonius.

It ain't really Hamlet, but I have to give props to "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead". The movie starred Gary Oldman, Tim Roth and Richard Dreyfus and was both smart and funny. Dreyfus stole the show as the Player King: "We do backstage what most people do onstage, which has it's own integrity considering that every exit is an entrance to someplace else."

[david r]

Mel Gibson was surprisingly good as Hamlet.

[Jared]

Mel Gibson was surprisingly good as Hamlet.

I haven't seen it, but it seems to me that Gibson would give Hamlet too much Balls. I just can't picture him as a sulking, brood type, unless he's downing whiskey and playing russian roulette by himself.

[Ben Morgan]

I haven't seen it, but it seems to me that Gibson would give Hamlet too much Balls. I just can't picture him as a sulking, brood type, unless he's downing whiskey and playing russian roulette by himself.


That's one of the problems I had with Gibsons version, he made Hamlet seem too much of a man while Branagh portrayed him how he should be

[Ben Morgan]

It ain't really Hamlet, but I have to give props to "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead". The movie starred Gary Oldman, Tim Roth and Richard Dreyfus and was both smart and funny. Dreyfus stole the show as the Player King: "We do backstage what most people do onstage, which has it's own integrity considering that every exit is an entrance to someplace else."

I've thought about seeing that, what would you rate it?

[rick]

That's one of the problems I had with Gibsons version, he made Hamlet seem too much of a man while Branagh portrayed him how he should be

I wrote this in another thread about two months ago, but it really sums up my view of why Hamlet is more of a man of action then his reputation would make you think....


.....Hamlet or more specifically Branagh's Hamlet, I have to say that of course the character comes across as decisive man of action. He comes across that way, because he is a decisive man of action.

Keep in mind that after the senior Hamlet’s ghost tells Hamlet about his fathers murder everything he does for the rest of the play with the exception of his destruction of Ophelia is part of his planned revenge.

The play within a play is a trap to force Claudius into revealing himself as a murderer. The ”To be“ speech is spoken with full knowledge that both Claudius and Polonius are listening in. His revenge on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern for their betrayal is coldly calculated. In all of these things Hamlet is set on his path and determined to have revenge for his fathers murder.

Yes, he does lose it in the end finally becoming almost as unhinged as he has been portraying himself. And yes, through his anger and cruelty he leads directly to the suicide of Ophelia.

But his treatment of his mother Gertrude as a whore and a monster, are while excessively harsh, actually not that far out of line considering that less then a month after her husband died, she not only married her husbands younger brother, but also seems to be much happier with him then her first husband.

I actually have a great deal of sympathy toward Gertrude in the end, but at the same time I clearly understand why she is such a key part to Hamlets anger.

Anyway, while Hamlet does have his doubts about his abilities and his eventual goal, but he never wavers in his desire for revenge for his father’s death. And he just never moves away from it, and in the end his need for revenge kills everyone, guilty and innocent alike.

So in the end, Hamlet is a decisive man of action. It’s just that his decisive actions end up getting everyone killed and the throne in the hands of Fortinbras.


For the record, I did have some real problems with Gibsons Hamlet as an overall production, but Mel's performance was in my opinion, quite good.

[Ben Morgan]

The ghost scene in Gibsons Hamlet wasn't nearly as good as Branagh's either

[Thorlief]

The only Hamlet movie I can like is Olivier's. Zeffirelli and Branagh's are garbage in my opinion

[Karl J Barnes]

That's one of the problems I had with Gibsons version, he made Hamlet seem too much of a man while Branagh portrayed him how he should be

I didn't see the stage version,but supposedly Nicol Williams(I believe that is his name, he played Merlin in Excaliber) showed Hamlet as a dashing der-doer,fighting off pirates and basically being a real he-man.

[rick]

The only Hamlet movie I can like is Olivier's. Zeffirelli and Branagh's are garbage in my opinion


Might I ask why you feel that way?

[Ben Morgan]

I didn't see the stage version,but supposedly Nicol Williams(I believe that is his name, he played Merlin in Excaliber) showed Hamlet as a dashing der-doer,fighting off pirates and basically being a real he-man.
You're talking about the Tony Richardson version, I didn't see that one

[Thorlief]

Might I ask why you feel that way?

Branagh's Hamlet goes Hammy is the best description for his piece of ego run wild. He unfortunately gives a performance that is too stagey for film, that is campy and over the top and frankly, after 4 hours completely irritating. A large chunk of the supporting cast too are unsure of themselves. Too add pain to the misery, Branagh's performance is also matched in his directing style for this film, which also is campy, over the top, excessive. The only two people in major roles who put in stellar performances are Derek Jacobi and Julie Christie.
The best scene in this film is the plotting scene between Claudius and Laertes. Jacobi and Maloney are wonders of nature; the rest of the film is a bore. Branagh stated that he wanted to do a full text version, but my question is: why bother, when you're constantly undercutting the text with visuals and not letting the words do their damn job?
maybe "garbage" was a bit too much, I admit, but really, it's a flawed movie in my opinion

Zeffirelli's Branagh's antithesis. Such performances notwithstanding, the film is, quite simply, dreadful, and more in the vein of high melodrama than high tragedy. Gibson is altogether unable to convey anything of Hamlet's complexity. Where's the necessary equilibrium between insanity and sanity, the fundamental subtlety so present in Olivier's? He's always over the top, always. Why are mediocre actors applauded for their "vitality", when the results are this, well, mediocre? And given her abundant gifts as an actor, Close is especially disappointing as Gertrude.
In fact, it is Zeffirelli who surprises me most of all with this mess, as he has been responsible for several fine renditions of the Bard's plays, not the least of which was his Romeo and Juliet. I don't mean to be picky, but there are so many deficiencies in this production, it is almost laughable. Actors in this production tend to "zombie walk" through lines they clearly don't understand and run flat into disjointed edits, thereby creating what I call "nothing moments" throughout the production. A much better job could have been done.

I don't mean to be particularly harsh but yeah, Olivier's magnificent version is still the best.

[rick]

Branagh's Hamlet goes Hammy is the best description for his piece of ego run wild. He unfortunately gives a performance that is too stagey for film, that is campy and over the top and frankly, after 4 hours completely irritating. A large chunk of the supporting cast too are unsure of themselves. Too add pain to the misery, Branagh's performance is also matched in his directing style for this film, which also is campy, over the top, excessive. The only two people in major roles who put in stellar performances are Derek Jacobi and Julie Christie.
The best scene in this film is the plotting scene between Claudius and Laertes. Jacobi and Maloney are wonders of nature; the rest of the film is a bore. Branagh stated that he wanted to do a full text version, but my question is: why bother, when you're constantly undercutting the text with visuals and not letting the words do their damn job?
maybe "garbage" was a bit too much, I admit, but really, it's a flawed movie in my opinion

Boy, talk about two people seeing the same movie and not seeing the same movie. :)

I actually was a huge fan of Branagh’s visually rich and rather staged version of the play and honestly didn’t think that the visual flourishes took anything away from the play.

Now I grant you they didn’t need to show Claudius actually poison the senior Hamlet, but hey, it gave Brian Blessed an extra scene and that can’t really be a bad thing.

As for performances, with the exception of a rather lost looking Jack Lemmon most of the star turns were rather well done. Billy Crystal was not my favorite grave digger of all time, but he did have fun with the part and told the tale pretty well. And the play with-in a play with Joan Plowright and Charlton Heston was simply stunning.

Who knew that Chuck could actually act??????

It was not a perfect Hamlet, but I have to say that overall I really did like it.


Zeffirelli's Branagh's antithesis. Such performances notwithstanding, the film is, quite simply, dreadful, and more in the vein of high melodrama than high tragedy.


Yeah, that one the less said the better.

[Ben Morgan]

Interesting, I loved the "over the top"ness of Branagh's version. As for the scene where they showed Claudius killing King Hamlet, I thought that was a very good idea and enjoyed it

[Kirayoshi]

I've thought about seeing that, what would you rate it?I'd give it a strong recommendation. A working knowledge of the original play is helpful, but enough of the main plotline figures into the story so you can catch up. Roth and Oldman are delightfully contentious as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern(or is that Guildenstern and Rosencrantz? You lose track after awhile), and Dreyfus does some delightful scenery-chewing as the Player King. Not a huge budget, but it looks good. A thinking person's screwball comedy.

[Thorlief]

I'd also recommend R AND G. Very clever and funny movie, and you have three great actors really enjoying themselves

[The Mutt]

I've seen them all. Each is quite good for very different reasons.

Branagh should get a medal for his accomplishment, but the movie had some casting flaws and a couple of real phony moments. The "Kung Fu" sword at the end was ridiculous.

When I saw Lethal Weapon, I turned to my date and said, "This guy could play Hamlet." Gibson was really good, despite being mostly wrong for the role. The rest of the cast was awesome as well. The best thing about his version is a masterful cutting of the script.

Olivier wrote the book on how to play Hamlet, but the film was a little bloodless.

Ethan Hawke's portrayal was the weakest part of a good film. Whatever else Hamlet is, he is a person that everyone else cares deeply about. Hawke was just so blah. There is a difference between brooding and mopey.

Anybody see Keanu Reeves play him on stage? I imagine I would have killed myself around act three. ~shudder~

[Kirayoshi]

Olivier wrote the book on how to play Hamlet, but the film was a little bloodless.

I liked his Henry V better myself. His Hamlet was good, but the settings looked a little stagy. Plus, I don't know whether the local PBS station showed an edited version or not but I didn't see any of the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern subplot. Not a huge plot, but it did set up one of my favorite Shakespearean passages, the soliloquy with the line, "What a piece of work is man".