Hamlet Reviews

• To Thine Own Self Be True...

  
  By A281NPSIMI1C2R on 2002-02-04
  While this is a complex movie that demands your full attention, this has to be one of my favorite Shakespeare plays. It is beautifully acted out in a gorgeous castle filled with tapestries and everything you would imagine a castle to be from the candlelight to the dimly lit spiral staircases.
  
  The most enjoyable scenes are when Hamlet expresses his thoughts in soliloquies and gives insight into what his character is feeling. Mel Gibson becomes Hamlet and I thought this was perhaps some of his best acting ever! Glenn Close is exceptional as Gertrude, the incestuous mother. The uneasiness and distrust in Denmark since King Hamlet's death and Queen Gertrude's remarriage sets the mood for the rest of the movie.
  
  The story begins on the outer ramparts of Elsinore castle. A ghost appears and Hamlet, speaks to his deceased father. The ghost asks Hamlet to revenge his "most foul, strange, and unnatural murder." Hamlet then deviously plots a psychological revenge by putting on a play in which a scene portrays the actual murder of his father.
  
  "I'll have grounds
  More relative than this-the play's the thing
  Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King." -Hamlet, Act 2, 603-605
  
  Once guilt takes hold of the King, the pieces of the puzzle start to fit together and you realize that one immoral action only makes another wrong even more probable.
  
  Throughout the play, Hamlet shows his intellectual superiority and states his case by saying: "Do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe?" While he desires to have the upper hand until the end, he cannot of course know all the intentions of those around him nor can he escape his own fate.
  
  An Unforgettable story that made an impression on me in school and still holds a certain fascination for me. Did Hamlet ever really love Ophelia? That is the question.
  
  "It is in my memory locked." -Ophelia
  
  ~The Rebecca Review
  
  

• Since brevity is the soul of wit ...

  
  By A3D6TFYRMIV3ZL on 2005-05-01
  I will be brief; though whether witty, too, as this production is ... why, I know not.
  For 'tis not a trifle thing to take a play like Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and cut its length
  Almost in half, without thus giving up half of its meaning. Yet, Signor
  Franco Zeffirelli: even he, who aught already did for "Romeo
  And Juliet," hath made his mark again here in most splendid fashion.
  
  The Prince of Denmark's been portrayed by Thespian royalty near and far,
  First among these the great Sir Laurence. Yet here now comes Mel Gibson: a most
  Unusual choice, 'tis true; and better known for other roles. But although
  Action star and ladies' favourite, this venture made him humble; justly so:
  "The play's the thing," he says as Hamlet, and as himself, he adds: "Hamlet belongs
  On stage." And he deplores that merely one of his enactments of each scene
  Should be preserved on film forever, and that he never had the chance
  To delve into the role anew from night to night. - Fear not, good Sir: I think
  You did great honour to the Bard's intent; well understood unhappy Hamlet's
  Scorn, his rage, his doubts, his terrible paralysis, all his tormented soul.
  
  I also do agree that although ten years older than the prince when you
  Took on the part, those extra years provided further insight of the kind
  That's needed for this complex role. Hadst but maintained you this same sense of
  Hamlet's gravitas until the end, of my full'st praise you wouldst have been assured.
  Alas, the levity that you let creep into the final duel with Laertes
  In my view ill becomes that scene, and although Hamlet on its eve hath had
  A premonition of his death; hath spoke of providence and sparrows,
  And looking at the sunset sighed, I doubt that when he meets Ophelia's brother,
  He's so far gone beyond all caring that he'd make light of their encounter.
  ("The rest is silence," too, would have impressed me more without the lisp.)
  
  But let that be. For I do join you in applauding those who
  With you hearkened the appeal of Signor Zeffirelli; and who
  Most heartily deserve to share this feature's laurels. Princes of
  British theatre: the late, great Alan Bates - usurper Claudius -
  All ruthless power, cunning, even carnal, brushing away his pangs of guilt;
  Yet, reck'ning he doth not escape. Paul Scofield, next, th' ill-fated ghost;
  Not bearing arms, as Shakespeare wrote, but verily a perturbed spirit,
  As Hamlet calls him, in his pain. And Ian Holm as counsellor
  Polonius: not ponderous, nor slow of tongue and eye but quick, and yet
  Slain by the prince, in Claudius's place. They all have stood on stage a hundred times,
  And brought to life the Bard's great plays, so well doth it behove one new, as Master Gibson
  Is, to Shakespeare's world to credit them for lessons learned; and not just for their acting.
  
  Also permit me, pray, to speak about the ladies in this male-dictated play:
  Glenn Close's Gertrude, youthful queen, who gives the lie to Hamlet's chide
  And his unmerciful reminder of her flesh's humbleness, and of her
  Age. A bit too Freudian, perchance, her and her son's relationship
  (That's an approach I've never liked). But a commanding presence, all be told.
  Yet, even more praiseworthy is Miss Hel'na Bonham-Carter; her
  Ophelia well-neigh impossible to replicate, she's *that* convincing.
  Now rose in bloom, in love; now in distress, now finally in lunacy; she wails,
  Her hair is tangled, clothes in rags, prophetic words she speaks disguised as
  Songs and flower talk, before she drowns and thus propels this drama's end.
  
  What else? Oh aye, of course: Kudos must also go to David Watkin,
  In charge of camera, and Signors Ennio Morricone and Feretti
  - by first name Dante - for this film's score and the design of its production.
  Faithful reporting, too, would be amiss without a word on Hamlet's foils:
  Horatio, his school fellow, in Stephen Dillane's able hands, as is
  Laertes in Nathaniel Parker's; and Trevor Peacock as the gravedigger,
  Spot-on: a diamond in the rough. As player king, moreover, have a
  Look out for Pete Postlethwaite; and unlike the movie by Olivier
  This one includes both Rosencrantz and Guildenstern - Michael Maloney and
  Sean Murray. Fortinbras, though, you'll search in vain in this production, too.
  
  The words, of course, are those of Shakespeare, though moved around a bit, but not in
  Ways that by and large, methinks, the Bard would take exception to. Save, that is,
  "Get thee to a nunnery," which doth assume a diff'rent connotation here:
  A kinder, gentler Hamlet, who still contrives to show some care about Ophelia.
  (But would he really? Nay, I think not.) "To be or not to be" not in the
  Courtyard but the crypt, however, that is amazingly intense: both
  The performance and the imagery. As generally Zeffirelli
  In troth well uses film's ability to convey meaning visually, as
  In the burial of Hamlet Senior, the prince's wordless visit to
  Ophelia, and in the punishment of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
  
  But let me close now. Brief I would be, that was my promise - well, there goes that.
  Such is reviewing! Yet, what I wish, in faith, dear reader, thou hadst found
  Within these lines is that I recommend this film. So go and watch it - presently!
  
  Also recommended:
  The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works 2nd Edition
  Hamlet (The New Folger Library Shakespeare)
  BBC Shakespeare Tragedies DVD Giftbox
  Olivier's Shakespeare - Criterion Collection (Hamlet / Henry V / Richard III)
  William Shakespeare's Hamlet (Two-Disc Special Edition)
  Grigori Kozintsev's Hamlet
  Peter Brook's King Lear
  Richard III
  Henry V
  Julius Caesar
  
  

• Gibson's a great Dane !

  
  By AQ8DU6XVA3USJ on 2000-07-30
  This is a Hamlet that's easy on the eyes and the mind...if you don't have the time and stamina for Branagh's 4 hour version, and can't get hold of Olivier's exquisite 1948 film, this is the one for you ! Mel Gibson is excellent as Hamlet. He gives him humor and a masculine vigor, and the top-notch supporting cast is superb. I especially like Alan Bates..his lusty, murderous king is fabulous...and mention should be made of Nathaniel Parker's wonderful Laertes. David Watkin's cinematography is stunning, Ennio Morricone's score subtle and beautiful, and the production one of Zeffirelli's best. This is very enjoyable Shakespeare, even for those who normally don't like him, and I highly recommend this to parents who would like to introduce their teenagers to the Bard. Don't miss this glorious movie !
  
  

• .

  
  By on 1999-11-30
  It's odd. As I read through some of the negative reviews of this version of Hamlet, I can almost agree with some of the points that are made. But it doesn't change the fact that this is far superior to Branagh's version. I know how much it bothers Branagh fans and many Shakespeare purists to hear that, but that just makes it that much more fun to say. The basic reason for this is that Zefferelli, although he is a bit too carefree with his cuts and shuffling, has far better aesthetic sensibilities than Branagh. The emotions of the characters in this version are far more compelling, engaging, and distinct than the lukewarm indifference that comprised the tonality of Branagh's adaptation. And though I'm no Mel Gibson fanatic, he does an *exceptional* job in his role, and keeps the film compelling through all of its hacks and alterations. Though far from a perfect adaptation, this is an engaging and rewarding movie. I've always thought it was far better than most people seem to give it credit for.
  
  

• Mel IS Hamlet!

  
  By AF5NK8K1Q9M53 on 2004-01-31
  I own this VHS and use it regularly to teach the play in my college courses. The students watch the Brannaugh version first and then watch Mel Gibson's metamorphosis into the being of Hamlet. The general consensus is that the Gibson version is far superior to the Brannaugh version simply because Mel brings more depth to the character of Hamlet via the juxtaposed emotions of quiet contemplation, stinging wit, and raving anger. Brannaugh's Hamlet tends to be steadily caustic in nature and speaks (shouts) all of the lines at mind whirling pace! Gibson's delivery of famous soliloquies is natural and laced with appropriate emotion, which allows the watcher to completely comprehend each scene. Mel Gibson does not play the role of Hamlet - Mel Gibson BECOMES Hamlet! Truly Mr. Gibson's portrayal of the Prince of Denmark is one of the pinnacles his acting career. To those who scoff at the notion of Mad Maxx playing Hamlet, I have a word of advice - "Watch it, and you'll change your mind!"
  While this film has been roundly criticized by so-called movie "experts" due to Zeffirelli's cutting and rearranging of certain lines and scenes, it would do those "experts" well to learn a little about Elizabethan theatre. An average Elizabethan audience NEVER saw the entire play all at once as they relied on natural lighting in the theatres of their day. The Elizabethan directors (including the Bard himself) had to eliminate scenes in much the same way as did Zeffirelli. So, upon closer examination, it appears as though Brannaugh's version of Hamlet is the less "correct" version. Don't get me wrong...I still admire Brannaugh's Hamlet. I am just weary of the constant criticism Mel Gibson's portrayal garners.
  This version of Hamlet also contains incredible performances by Helena Bonham-Carter as the naive, young Ophelia and Glenn Close as a less than virtuous Gertrude. The scenery and costuming is absolutely captivating! Finally, the portrayal of the ghost, a role which Shakespeare wrote for himself to perform, is carried out brilliantly by Paul Scofield who is forceful yet subdued. We are left to wonder, as would the Elizabethan audience, whether this ghost is pure or a devilish incarnation - which is THE KEY to what drives the plot of the play Hamlet. Buy this dvd if you want to see a stunning version of Hamlet! I know I am (to replace my vhs).
  
  
• A wonderful primer and more accurate than people think.
  By A37F8W82A1E6L7 on 2004-03-03
  Gibson as the Melancholy Dane.

  Originally, Shakespeare's plays were intended for the masses. At the time they were looked at like Adam Sandler movies are today. What's wrong with making his greatest work more accessible to contemporary audiences and possibly setting off a few sparks of interest in folks who may have otherwise been content to spend their $10 on a Happy Gilmore sequel instead?

  I was an English major in college and spent a lot of time that first semester `decoding the bard'. It wasn't until my sophomore year that I was able to truly immerse myself in the language and enjoy Shakespeare for what it is. Had Gibson's Hamlet been around I may have been able to get into the waters a bit quicker. His performance was riveting and the rest of the cast was simply amazing. I fell in love with Helena Bonham Carter's Ophelia and nearly cried when she... Wait! Spoiler there. (Yes, Shakespeare can be spoiled for the uninitiated.)

  One last thing I would like to point out to those who complained about Mel being far too animated and crazed as Hamlet. Melancholia was considered a medical term in Shakespeare's time. It was a generic term used to describe a variety of psychological maladies, which included mood swings and possibly even schizophrenia. Just because Gibson chose to go in a different direction from more traditional interpretations doesn't make him wrong. He may have been closer to The Bard's vision of the character than Olivier or Richard Burton. (Maybe.)

  Regardless, this is at the very least a very entertaining interpretation of a great classic. Now let's talk about why Brannaugh's uncut, super, four hour edition has not been released... What fools these mortals be.
  
  

• My Very Favorite Mel Gibson Film!
  By APDPA11IZPYLN on 2004-04-08
  Mel Gibson just SHINES as the ambivalent (but Oedipal) prince Hamlet in this adaptation as does Glenn (I boil baby rabbits) Close cast as his mother Gertrude, Helena (Fight Club) Bonham-Carter as the tragic, suicidal and drowning, Ophelia, and the great Shakespearian actor Paul Scofield as the ghost of Hamlet's father.

  This version of Hamlet is for the rank and file as it is stripped down, easy to understand & watch.
  
  

• A fine interpretation of Shakespear'es Masterpiece
  By A12O41YU3TZVZA on 2000-09-26
  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.
  
  
• Sliced and diced, yes, but oh what remains!
  By ABN0LJR11E97M on 2005-07-28
  In a Catholic family which includes a daughter who still wears a threadbare "Braveheart tee", a mother who has seen "Signs" three times on the big screen, and several men folk, who, in spite of the female Murphys' incessant pratings about Mel Gibson being one of the Almighty's more lovely creations, are nonetheless willing to admit that the man, after all, can act, it should come as no surprise that this 1990 film, directed by the flamboyant Franco Zeffirelli, is not known as "Zeffirelli's Hamlet" but "Mel's Hamlet." What is surprising, perhaps, is how much this film adaptation has grown on Clan Murphy over the years, in spite of Zeffirelli's mutilation of Shakespeare's text. Cut by half―nay, chopped, hacked, eviscerated, generally shot all to hell, with no Fortinbras, nary a complete soliloquy except for the inevitable "To be or not to be," with lines reassigned all over the place―this two-hour script of a four-hour play should have been enough to make these bardolaters grieve...were it not that the acting and staging of what remained was so remarkably satisfying.
  
  To begin, Zeffirelli is an Enthusiast with an operatic streak. His many virtues and occasional vices, cinematically speaking, appear to stem from a temperamental tendency to what the Italians call "sprezzatura." Let us say, "dying in his own too much." But Zeffirelli has taken his over-the-topness down a notch in this film, befitting its bracing North Atlantic setting designed by the brilliant Dante Ferretti. Zeffirelli has thereby resisted the temptation to Wagnerian excess that I, for one, would have loathed. Instead, the medieval Norse Elsinore that the filmmakers have created, an elemental time and place in which springtime seems like a promise never kept, is subdued in color and ornament, but rich in texture. It reels with labyrinthine staircases leading everywhere and nowhere at the same time, as in one of those dizzying Escher lithographs. More to the purpose, perhaps, Zeffirelli and his cast put their sets to good use. The actors move, interact, fill the stage―unlike the Talking Heads productions one so often sees, in which characters stand around babbling beautifully, but never seem to inhabit their spaces, let alone live in them.
  
  I was impressed, too, as I have been before, with Zeffirelli's talent for getting inside the rhythms and Weltanschauung of another century, another culture. With a play like "Hamlet", this time-traveling facility can be especially valuable, as it has become notoriously difficult for us twenty-first century postmoderns to get our imaginations around a world in which vow-breaking, adultery, incest, and political murder are shocking crimes, worthy of gasps rather than snickers; in which a belief in Ghosts, Angels, Demons―even Eternal Damnation―are tenable metaphysical positions held by sophisticated, educated, people. But that was the world Shakespeare lived in, the world his text hands us, and many directors, circumscribed by their own broad-minded relativism (not to mention, devotion to Foucault-laced lit crit) cannot seem to stage it any longer without dragging in boatloads of irony. What the audience is usually left with is a Prince of Denmark whose much-ballyhooed "nobility" consists of little more than a furious facility for skewering hypocrisy (Branagh) or a rebel-without-a-cause ennui (Almereyda).
  
  Zeffirelli, however, by all accounts (like his star, Gibson), still adheres to many of those traditional concepts which form the subtext of this Elizabethan revenge play, and the anti-anti-hero he gives us looks a good deal more, I suspect, like the tragic hero of former ages than has been seen for some time. Burdened, baleful, a little batty, yes, and ultimately broken, but no deconstructed Hamlet this...and my goodness, how refreshing it is.
  
  As for Gibson himself, there has always been something a little ADHD about the actor, and he holds the screen with his energy as much as his good looks. In the role of Hamlet, his athleticism and animal spirits imbue the top-heavy Dane (always thinking too precisely on the event) with an intensity and edginess that I found most appealing. Not that there's anything blunt or un-intellectual about Mel's Hamlet, either, let us hasten to add; just that, for once, I was able to believe that the Prince of Denmark was by nature a robust male with an intact personality―-until, at least, he returns from school to find his familiar Elsinore transmogrified into the Twilight Zone.
  
  Too, and to his credit, Gibson is one of the few Hamlets I've seen who actually thinks his words as he speaks them; is even surprised on occasion―horrified―by his own suddenly tempest-dark thoughts and impulses. This, too, was refreshing, as actors aren't the only ones who know these lines so well they could recite them in their sleep.
  
  The rest of the cast is excellent, though the mangled dialogue frequently leaves the actors with insufficient material to build their characters' motivations. Helena Bonham-Carter comes across as too feisty and ornery to suit my personal taste in Ophelias, but her mad scenes are nonetheless deeply affecting. Paul Scofield is a soft-spoken, purgatorial Ghost whose impact proves no less powerful for being restrained. Ian Holm's busy-bee Polonius is not so much malicious as enormously irritating, as he should be, I suppose, mixing the devil's own pride with a fawning servility towards his sovereign―-Alan Bates doing a finely calibrated "bloat king" Claudius. The latter is an interpretation for which I usually care little, as it runs the risk of lessening the danger the character should pose to our protagonist, but it works well here as performed by one of Britain's most seasoned performers. Kudos, too, for Nathaniel Parker's endearing Laertes, who proves a worthy mirror-image for Hamlet's faltering will-to-revenge; one can see the poor man's fury, shame, pity and befuddlement, all in the space of a moment, particularly in the engrossingly staged final swordplay with Hamlet.
  
  Special mention, I think, needs to be made of Glenn Close's Gertrude. In spite of her occasionally off-putting Brunhilde-ish get-ups, she is primo throughout. She is also the first actress, in my viewing experience, to nail the poisoning scene. No delicately swooning Gertrude this, as is so common even with the finest actresses. Her Gertrude's death is not only *not* pretty, as they say, it's just about what one would expect, if one really thinks about it, from a fast-acting "potent poison" capable of reducing an otherwise vibrant woman to a lump of worm food in the space of a couple of minutes. As someone who has worked in hospitals with the very sick and dying, all I can say is, "Yes."
  
  Least favorite scene: Ophelia's overtly challenging interchange with her father upon Laertes' departure. In response to Polonius's command that she no longer see Hamlet, Ophelia spouts off with a perfectly sarcastic "I shall obey, my Lord." To my way of thinking, any young woman (especially in that day and age) strong enough to stand up to her paterfamilias in such a ballsy manner should have the whatsis to keep a good grip on her wits when the obnoxious old so-and-so is later killed. The whole episode came across (to me) as an ill-advised and anachronistic concession to the ravenous demands of feminist criticism, and certainly proved a source of cognitive dissonance vis-a-vis Ophelia's later unraveling.
  
  Favorite scene: The Hamlet-Gertrude "shenting scene," in which an enraged Hamlet mimics "making love over the nasty sty" on top of his own pole-axed mother. For Hamlets, this scene is like the tenor's big aria at the climax of an opera; which means that to be fully satisfying, the Hamlet in question must have had the good sense to check himself till now; must have saved something for the finale. Gibson, in keeping with his legendary ability to project rage on screen (think of the revenge-of-his-wife scene in Braveheart-―yikes!) does just that, and the result, when he finally lets fly here, is a doozy: It takes little imagination on the part of the audience to understand why Gertrude is hysterical with fear that her son is about to kill her, perhaps even rape her.
  
  But that's still not the (pardon me) climax, for a second later Close manages a one-eighty that few actresses could navigate: She vises her out-of-control son in a violent lip-lock, and it is Hamlet's turn to be shocked nearly out of his skin.
  
  Okay, so maybe the whole Oedipal thing has been done to death in the last fifty years of Hamlet productions. Goodness knows I've often wished to see just one Closet Scene which didn't end up in Gertrude's bed, with Gertrude's robes falling sexily off her shoulders as her son tosses her about; but in these folks' skillful hands the effect is grisly rather than titillating. This is something of a ghost story, after all, and we should come away just a little freaked out.
  
  I'm reminded of the cover of the program for the Tygre's Heart Shakespeare Company's 1997 production of Hamlet, which read:
  
  "Father dies. Mother marries uncle. Dead father visits son. Son plots revenge. Stepfather plots sons death. Mother is poisoned. Son is poisoned. Dying son stabs stepfather...Hamlet: Suddenly your family seems normal."
  
  Now if only, if only, this had been a nice, plump three-hour Hamlet, complete with "Rogue and peasant slave" and "O how all occasions" speeches left intact...
  
  
• A good abridged Hamlet
  By A2MSEFHQ6N61F3 on 2006-11-14
  I just taught a course on Hamlet for Lifelong Learning and this was one of four film versions of Hamlet I used. This is a very good short version of the play. Mel Gibson does a credible job and the supporting cast is excellent. Glenn Close as Gertrude is outstanding - she shows the giddiness and joy of new love which helps to explain the rashness of her remarriage. Alan Bates as Claudius is likeable and you can see why Gertrude violated canonical law to marry him. This is the incestuous relationship at the heart of the play. Think of your mother marring your uncle.
  
  The reason I did not use Olivier's Hamlet is that while it's a good film with great acting - it's a very bad Hamlet. Freud was very much in vogue at the time and Olivier distorted the movie to put overtones of the Oedipus Complex into it. Also the Claudius in this film is obnoxious and there is no reason for Gertrude to marry him or for Hamlet to delay so long.
  
  One of the important points of this play is the struggle between the two "mighty opposites" of Hamlet and Claudius. They have to be seen as equals. The best Claudius I have seen is Derek Jacobi in Branaugh's Hamlet (also my favorite version of Hamlet).
  
  For a short version of the play, I would definately recommend this Hamlet over the Olivier version.
  
  Another point for viewers to note, in Shakespeare's time, a ghost could either be good or evil. Hamlet has doubts about the truth of the ghost's statement until the mousetrap play proves the allegations. At this time Hamlet assumes the ghost is a good, but sometimes an evil spirit can be telling the truth. It is up to the viewer to decide if the ghost is from heaven or from hell.
  
  
  
• Mad Max Does Denmark
  By on 1999-06-22
  Appalling. I cheered when Hamlet died and wished more people were dead. Here is a play that has survived 400 years and Zeffirelli tries to butcher it into obscurity. The adaptation was done without regard to character development or motivation. The cuts were obvious and the shuffling of dialog was painful. Who wouldn't flinch hearing "Get thee to a nunnery" during The Mousetrap? The characters were flat (and we know Shakespeare didn't write them that way) and the action questionable (at best). The Ghost was weepy (and we know Paul Scofield has range enough for better) and Polonius lacked his political weaseliness (and we know Ian Holm is an actor of incredible subtlety). Ophelia had no real motive for going mad since the only emotions she showed towards Hamlet or her father were annoyance and fear. Claudius was eminently forgettable. There is nothing in the original text to indicate Oedipal behaviour on Hamlet's part, yet here it is again, added (I suspect) purely for shock value. Also, why does Zeffirelli think it better to show you scenes that Shakespeare wrote as described by a character? Would it not have been more powerful to hear Ophelia describe, through her shaking fear, how Hamlet came to her room rather than show him doing so? Zeffirelli doesn't understand that the strength and elegance of the play is in the language. Rent Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet. It is vastly superior and true to the play. Branagh's Hamlet was the result of passion for the Bard's work and it shows. Zeffirelli's Hamlet was the result of his own arrogance - and it shows.
  
  
• Perfectly dreadful
  By A1AKHIUP31187J on 2005-11-06
  I give this film version of Hamlet one star only, and that is for the Paul Scofield's terrific ghost, which is perhaps emblematic of the several smaller roles taken in this production by superb Shakespearean actors of British backgrounds.
  
  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. 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. The problem here may be partly interpretation, and hence the responsibility of Zeffirelli.
  
  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.
  
  One is much better off going to any of number of other cinematic Hamlets, begining with Olivier's magnificent 1948 assumption. And if the objective is to appeal to a mainstream audience, why not turn to Almereyda's 2000 film, set in New York City? For all of its eccentricity, that film, contains some interesting performances, and on the whole, possesses the tragic quality that a good Hamlet should.
  
  
  
• A Very Respectable Version
  By A3M2O06MCHJG18 on 2003-01-13
  Mel Gibson's 1990 version of argueably the greatest of William Shakespeare's works unquestionably has its flaws, but certainly holds it own among myriad other versions of the play. Please, don't pay too much attention to those who would attempt to compare Gibson's Hamlet to any of his action roles; Hamlet is perhaps the most complex intellectual character in all of the English language. It is unfair to compare him to a futuristic road warrior or a Three Stooges-loving, suicidal cop.
  
  The reason why Gibson was cast as Hamlet in this version is simple: he helped cast himself. Why? For the opportunity to establish himself as an actor with serious talent, not just serious sex appeal. His Hamlet possessed more than enough of the emotional depth and range necessary for the role, and Gibson also brought an intangible element: his own charisma. As we do with Jack and Rose in the movie _Titanic_, we truly rooted for this Hamlet, despite knowledge of the inevitable conclusion.
  
  Gibson looks uncomfortable at first (nervous?) and starts out slowly; tentatively. He finds his acting feet soon thereafter, and by the end of the film, his presence seems to upstage that of the other actors. So while it is a somewhat unbalanced performance in that regard, Gibson's physical communication of his torment was both dynamic and convincing. The explication of information during his monologues was far superior to Derek Jacobi's BBC version in the late '70's, and in my opinion, over the decades and the evolution of acting methods and styles, almost supercedes Olivier's 1948 version. If you can overlook the fact that Mel Gibson is a very grown-up version of Hamlet, then his rendition, while flawed, is still an effort worthy of The Bard.
  
  His supporting cast was very well chosen, with the exception perhaps of Glenn Close as Hamlet's mother, Gertrude, who must have been eight years old when Hamlet was born! Helena Bonham Carter was simply outstanding as Ophelia... the madness of Shakespeare's characters is a difficult state to emulate, and the heartrending sadness she bears is palpable.
  
  Franco Zeffirelli is a longtime Shakespeare veteran, most memorably for directing the 1968 version of _Romeo and Juliet_, considered by many to be the best film adaptation of any of Shakespeare's works. He paints an atmosphere in Elsinore as cold as the tension between Hamlet and his uncle, but perhaps tries a little too hard to make things fresh by infusing awkward new camera angles and an unbalanced (and sometimes nonexistant) complimentary music score.
  
  If you're thinking about buying Gibson's Hamlet simply because you are a big Mel fan, then by all means, you should do so. You'll see a side of Mel that you hadn't seen prior to 1990, and in many ways, haven't seen since (_Braveheart_ was a triumph, but it's simply a different genre than Shakespeare). But if you're looking for the best version of Hamlet, and you have to choose between this version and Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version, I would strongly suggest Branagh's. It is a full-text version (excellent for students) while Gibson's has cut scenes, re-organized scenes, and missing characters. Branagh's moves much more swiftly, vividly, and energetically, and although it is set in the 19th century rather than the 15th/16th century, the language still fits snugly in that timeline and in no way affects the plot. But if you don't have to choose, don't count out Gibson's version one way or the other. It is definitely worth viewing, and perhaps you'll consider renting both versions before buying.
  
  
• Accessible Version of a timeless play - worth 4.5
  By A34LZI23RDEU85 on 2006-03-30
  Once again, I'd like to give a half-star rating, but alas . . .
  
  As my by-line indicates, I am a former high school teacher. Without exception, this is the version of Hamlet that is a class-room favorite. (I show 2 others: Branaugh (2nd place) and the film starring Ethan Hawke (everyone hates it).) It is accessible to younger viewers and is just a beautiful film all around.
  
  The filming, camera work and sets are impeccable. One is instantly transported into the world these characters inhabit. As to the script, it IS heavily edited; however, most of what is omitted (see note below) is "shown" to the audience through visual media. This isn't a "filmed version of the play"; it is a film based on the play. In that framework, it is quite well done. I particularly like the beginning scenes that make Hamlet's description of his mother - "Like Niobe, all tears" - come to life.
  
  The acting, to my thinking, is superb. The emphasis here is on Hamlet's relationship to his mother, Gertrude. That comes through quite clearly. Gibson's Hamlet comes across as a soldier - a man of action - who agonizes over the eternal consequences of his acts. He is believable in the role, masterful in some ways. Likewise the supporting cast. Helena Bonham-Carter and Glenn Close provide particularly vibrant portrayals of their characters.
  
  So, why not 5 stars? Without the "Fortinbras" subplot, some of the urgency in the play seems missing. While definitely a secondary story-line, it provides a framework that adds tension to the play as a whole as the war is waged both outside the castle walls and within.
  
  Overall, this production gets an A. Very accessible. Very easily understood. And haunting in its own way.
  
  
• Response to "Poor Disjointed Production"
  By ANH44ZXODVUDZ on 2005-01-22
  In an earlier review, "Me Just This Guy" describes how he "lost all respect for this interpretation of Hamlet" when Mel Gibson as Hamlet uses the phrase"...enterprises of great pitch and moment" in his "To be, or not to be" soliloquy. He ridicules the 'mistake', calling it a 'goof up' because the word 'pith' should have been used instead of 'pitch'. He goes on to suggest that actors need to "1) Know the script, 2) Know what the script means".
  
  What script is "Me Just This Guy" referring to? It's worth reading a scholarly edition of Hamlet (& other plays) to learn of the difficulties in agreeing on a definitive script. In the case of Hamlet, 'pitch' is used in one early version of the play (Quarto 2), and is the preferred use in many published editions (e.g. Cambridge). 'Pith' is used in other early editions (e.g. Folio), and appears in other modern versions of the play (e.g. Oxford).
  
  Pitch has several relevant meanings, including one prevalent in Shakespeare's day: "The height to which a falcon or other bird of prey soars before swooping down on its prey".
  
  
• Cuts to the Chase
  By A3628L43ZVEMP5 on 2005-09-22
  The 1990s were glory years for Shakespeare, highlighted by TWO superb Hamlets. The Branagh version was the complete play done in a sumptuous manner and is a must for Shakespeare lovers. The Zeffirelli version, starring Mel Gibson and performed against an undefined medieval backdrop, is a must for anyone who wants to know what Hamlet is about but is intimidated by Shakespeare.
  
  The text is butchered to the bare bones. Part of this is because you don't have to say what you can show. But Zeffirelli and his writers knew exactly what to cut out to make the play flow and not lose the name of action. This Hamlet moves along with the swiftness of an action movie. And the script retains the most famous lines.
  
  The casting may seem peculiar, but Gibson plays a potent Hamlet, a welcome change from the typically moody introverted scholar. The rest of the cast is uniformly excellent, most of them old hands at Shakespeare -- Ian Holm, Alan Bates, Paul Schofield, Helena Bonham Carter. The only weak link is Glenn Close; to be fair, Gertrude doesn't have a lot of lines with which to establish her character, and Close compensates with a lot of wide-eyed expressions.
  
  Extras prove a mixed blessing. A trailer and two features, one short and one long. Both the latter are puff pieces on Gibson. The short one is an older Mel reflecting back on the experience. The longer one is done home-movie style, mostly with Mel reflecting on the role as he's in the midst of it, with comments by Holm, Bates, Close, and Bonham Carter -- and Mel's real-life parents -- thrown in. Both documentaries are painless and provide insight to an actor's approach to the most famous role he's ever had to play; and the longer one has intriguing behind-the-scenes clips. But a documentary about Zeffirelli, especially focussing on his desire to make Hamlet and why he made it in this manner would have been welcome. Or a documentary about the play and/or the role of Hamlet itself. So would a running commentary, perhaps by a Shakespeare scholar who could inform those unfamiliar with the play about what they're seeing, and fill in the gaps about what was excised. Nevertheless, if you want to see this Hamlet to watch Mel Gibson in action, the extras will make you happy.
  
  Both the Branagh version and the Zeffirelli version are recommended, but while the former is a marathon, this Gibson version is a lively sprint.
  
  
• Gorblimey, it's 'orrible!
  By on 1999-09-05
  Somebody should be assigned to guard Franco Zefirrelli. That's right, guard him. Whenever Zefirrelli says, "Hey, I'm gonna make a movie out of Shakespeare!", he should be slapped in the head. Repeatedly. Maybe that'll dissuade him. From his ridiculous ROMEO AND JULIET to his terrible TAMING OF THE SHREW, and now with this nightmare, Zefirrelli's plan has been simple and threefold.

  A) Hire the worst actors you can find. The Ophelia in this production is good, and the Polonius isn't bad, but the rest of them should not be allowed anywhere near Shakespeare.

  B) Simplify. Cut out the heart of the story. Pare to the bare bones and then pare some more. If a nuance remains, keep choppin'.

  C) Make it ludicrous. What do you want? Hamlet chopping about with his sword in 1.5? Threatening Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? Falling in love with his mother, perhaps? It's all here.

  Avoid at all costs.
  
  

• "A hit. A palpable hit"
  By A3O2RCKAMSE9X7 on 2003-02-01
  The decision to watch a filmed version of HAMLET is roughly comparable to choosing whether to vacation in the Bahamas or Aruba. You'll get a tan from both but the ambience will surely vary. Olivier's HAMLET is classic, introspective, and hesitant. Branagh's is fully texted and purposefully allegorical. But,if one wishes to see a more decisive Dane, who combines this sense of deliberation with charm, humor, and exaggerated violence, then one would do well to turn to Mel Gibson's Hamlet. Director Franco Zeffirelli has lopped off much of the original text, excising those scenes that were of more import to Shakespeare's audience but retaining the rest.

  The viewer who knows the play well can tell from the opening scene that Zeffirelli chooses not to begin with the conversation between Marcellus and Bernardo, whose dialogue about the ghost of Hamlet's father foreshadows the imminent appearance of a ghost whose 'reality' in the context of both contemporary and modern audiences has been endlessly debated. Such divergences between the original text and this filmed version do not detract from the visual and visceral power of Zeffirelli's vision. Hamlet, as Gibson plays him, is not the meek and indecisive Olivier, who seems unsure until the closing scenes as to what lengths he will go to eliminate the rottenness that is now Denmark. Gibson's Hamlet is more closely attuned to the printed version who can seem indecisive in one breath but violently purposeful in the next. One of the most enduring enigmas in a play that is riddled with them is the enduring controversy as to whether Hamlet is seeking to cleanse Denmark's rottenness under the claim that he is a legitimate avenger of Heaven as the ghost seems to imply or he is simply seeking a personal vendetta against the man who killed his father and bedded his mother. Gibson makes it clear in the scene when he encounters his uncle, the now king, engrossed in prayer, and has the long-awaited opportunity to kill him with impunity. Hamlet decides not to since death while praying might still admit King Claudius to Heaven. For Hamlet, such a death and pleasant afterlife, is not punishment enough. Hamlet will wait to dispatch the King in a manner that will surely doom his soul to eternal torment in Hell. Thus, Gibson is fixed in his interpretation of a prince who resists being a pawn in a game of political chess, while all the while transforming himself from pawn to chess king as he masterfully moves the rooks, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to their undeserved deaths in England.

  Glenn Close, as Gertrude, Hamlet's mother, has been unfairly pilloried as being too youthful and attractive to be convincing as a woman who ought not have remarried quite so soon after her husband's death. Her performance is, nevertheless, quite riveting and is probably closer to the dilemma that Shakespeare envisioned as he wrote of a woman who chose to overlook the obvious in favor or re-establishing a moral center for a country that was in turmoil and could not turn to a moody, brooding prince for salvation. With each heart-rending word from Hamlet that pushes her nose in the slime of real world grubby politics, Gertrude stands revealed as a woman who was more simple in her life and philosophy than simple-minded in her acumen. It is no fault of her own, as Hamlet so viciously accuses, that she has failed to see what to him is so painfully obvious.

  Since this HAMLET is a truncated version of the text, much of the grist for the scholarly mill has been thankfully eliminated. Shakespeare's contemporaries might have exulted in and commiserated with the long dramatic advice that Hamlet gives to the passing troupe of actors, the purpose of which was to present on a microcosmic scale within the play-in-a-play what Hamlet was to accomplish on the macrocosmic. For modern audiences, such digressions would surely have diluted their interest. What Zeffirelli and Gibson do manage is to present a two hour howl of pain of a man who is caught in a box, locked with a key that can double as a self-immolating sword. For many of Shakespeares' heroes--as well as his villains--the choice of their use of a life-saving key or a life-ending samurai dagger is what continually drags audiences to eternally reenact the angst of his best and worst. This HAMLET does that as well as any other of Shakespeare's plays.
  
  

• The supporting cast is what makes this film worth viewing
  By A1ENG8BAJM4FN6 on 2004-11-11
  Dear Mr. Gibson,
  
  I realize that you have nine children and a wife to provide for, but is nothing sacred to you? I don't mind you exploiting and over-dramatizing violence, religion or even Scottish history, but please, stay away from Shakespeare in the future. Though not even your director, Mr. Zeffirelli, will not criticize your flailing arms and agape mouth to represent fear and/or confusion, it does not mean it is good acting. Just because you have a knack for pouting and making puppy eyes does not mean that you should resort to making them in nearly every scene. I am disappointed in your director for not telling you to use some real acting, for he has made acceptable Shakespeare films in the past. Remember also that there is a time and place for staring off into the distance, but usually one can tell the person is thinking about something, whereas you basically look like you've forgotten your next line and are staring blankly ahead - a dear in headlights, if you will. I have also never met anyone who does it quite so often as you did in this film.
  
  Again, I beg of you, Mr. Gibson, stick to violence, religion, comedy - even historical fiction - just stay away from Shakespeare. Let the British do Shakespeare, for they are his countrymen after all. Shakespeare was not meant for Hollywood, and I fear Mr. Zeffirelli forgot this when he directed Hamlet. Shakespeare deserves a bit more depth and reflection - especially Hamlet - than the typical Hollywood actors/directors/producers can provide and you, Mr. Gibson, are very typical.
  
  
• What the heck happened to Ophelia?
  By A39CIEMLO9A5BJ on 2000-01-09
  Having had to compare the relative merits of Zeffirelli's and Branagh's Hamlets, I think that there are a few points which people tend to overlook. Branagh has been criticised for making his version 'too long'. Well, that's only because he includes every line that Shakespeare wrote - it's along play. So if Zeffirelli manages to tell the story in only an hour and a half, what does he miss out, and are those omissions the right ones? Yes, Gibson IS good as Hamlet. What I'm concerned about is a character who constantly gets overlooked in both stage and film adaptation, namely Ophelia. Where is she in Zeffirelli? He omits her only soliloquy, and replaces her account of Hamlet coming to him 'with his doublet all unbrac'd' (2.1.77-84) with a representation of that encounter which draws our attention more to Hamlet's suffering than to hers. The fact that she might have a mind of her own is glossed over repeatedly. For instance...

  1. She looks and acts like a girl (Kate Winslet's Ophelia is most definitely a woman). The fact that all the men in her life mess with her mind is detracted from because, as a child, we more or less expect her to be told what to do.

  2. Mel Gibson has been quoted as saying he was shocked by the idea that Ophelia and Hamlet might have a sexual relationship - in this film, she's supposed to be fourteen. What exactly is a thirty year old man doing pursuing a girl less than half his age with such passion? Zeffirelli removes the notion that Ophelia might be a sexual person, and with it another element of her independence in a patriarchal world.

  The real killer is her appearance. Pale and flowing dress, long romantic hair...do you have any idea how long Ophelia has been played in this way? Over a hundred years, back to the dark times when all the critics were men and thought that Ophelia was 'too exquisitely touching' to examine in depth. So instead we have this romanticised doll, pretty to look at, touching in her madness, but still a thing, not a person. Zeffirelli, like so many before him, more or less uses Ophelia as a way to look at Hamlet, and reduces her character to the bare minimum needed to convey the slightest sense of her tragedy. Check out Branagh, it beats it by a long way. Watch it in two chunks, if you must.
  
  

• Pretty Good Bard
  By A3ICDLUQ3V2QY2 on 2002-08-10
  All Shakespeare productions elicit mixed reactions, and what impresses one will fail to touch another. This "Hamlet" is no exception. Repeat Shakespeare director Franco Zeffirelli creates a comprehensible, straightforward presentation that is excellent for newcomers to the Tragedy, but will lack a great deal for purists.

  Many object to the casting of professional heartthrob Mel Gibson as the doomed Dane, yet he acquits himself very well. In a remarkably difficult role, he creates an accessible character without sacrificing the depth of inner turmoil we've come to expect from our Hamlet. He also plays well against his two female leads. Glenn Close as Gertrude creates a character who paradoxically is the opposite of and a complement to her star-making role in "Fatal Attraction." Helena Bonham Carter, princess of the costume dramas, carries off the varied subtlety of Ophelia, a difficult role on which many very skillful actresses have fallen down.

  Some of the other characters simply fail to make an impression. It's hard to even place anything done by Alan Bates' Claudius. Iam Holm as Polonius seems like it ought to be a casting master stroke, but the potential of the master actor in the role just isn't exploited as it should be. Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are abridged to the point of inconsequence, as are Horatio, Bernardo, and Pete Postelthwaite's intriguing but uninvestigated Player King.

  Screenwriters Zeffirelli and Christopher De Vore recut the scenes and action to make use of the potential of the camera. Moving locations allow private speeches to be more private and the public events to be more public. The flow isn't necessarily improved, but it is much more compatible with the nature of film, which is wildly different than the stage. Not everyone will like the way the classic scenes have been resequenced, but the structure will satisfy those weaned on movies over theatre much better than a straight line-for-line reading would do.

  All in all, like any other Shakespeare film, this will thrill some and bore others. Purists are warned that this is a movie, not a film of a staging; neophytes are warned that this is not light fare, and will require more than one viewing to gloss. Take everything with a grain of salt, and enjoy.
  
  

• Laughable
  By AI3Z25FWNK4QS on 2002-12-05
  Mad Max as the most classically tragic figure of all-time - what a joke! Glenn Close is abominable and hardly old enough to be his mother - plus Gibson's too old to play the young prince, anyway.

  I love Shakespeare, but this was atrocious. Laurence Olivier would be turning over in his grave if he saw this despicable display of an acting attempt by Gibson. Watch Olivier or Branagh's versions if you desire true Shakespeare- not the faux watered-down version. He was great in Braveheart - but ladies and gents, Braveheart this is not.
  
  

• "These Are the Best Actors in the World."
  By A34PAZQ73SL163 on 2005-10-11
  I put off seeing this film for many years as I did not believe that Gibson would issue appropriate treatment to Shakespeare's masterpiece. In retrospect, Braveheart and Gibson's own masterpiece, The Passion, should have alerted me that Mel was a serious artist with extensive vision far before his later achievements came along. Here, more venturesome viewers than I, discovered that Gibson was not a bubblegum actor but a figure worthy of association with the bard. With this film we see a rather early glimpse of what Mel Gibson would become. There is a boyous impetuousity and energy to his performance that makes him infinitely believable. Helena Bonham-Carter is her princessularly beautiful self. As a feminine figure of wonder she has few peers. Ian Holm, as always, is first class. The same can be said of Glenn Close. One of the things I find rewarding about watching Shakespeare on DVD is turning on the subtitles and having the text enhance the visual experience...and enhance your mind as well.
  
  
• I feel ill
  By on 2000-02-14
  Hamlet lying on top of his mom, giving her a steamy kiss. I've gone all through my book, and I can't find that happening anywhere in it. It is possibly the most disturbing image I have ever seen. The acting wasn't horrible (except for Ian Holm's - and I so liked him in "King Lear," too.) Ah, well. Franco makes his actors wear odd costumes which are supposed to add to the authenticity of the production but are actually just distracting. And he shuffles and removes key lines, and even scenes. Not the worst filming of a Shakespeare tragedy I have seen, but most certainly not the best.
  
  
• Gibson brings Hamlet to life.
  By AKUQY60YL6RPE on 2001-02-11
  Yes, the text is edited. Yes, some key scenes are missing. Yes, the incestuous relationship between mother and son is obvious. But you can't please everyone. For my money, this is the best Hamlet on tape. Mel Gibson IS Hamlet. From one actor to another: Good job Mel! One suggestion for viewers - if you have closed caption capability on your tv, use it. For first timers it makes the dialogue easy to follow. And if following along with the play you can see where they cut out scenes. Buy it and watch it, you won't be disappointed.
  
  
• Hamlet Lite, perhaps, still, a fine film
  By A1IU7S4HCK1XK0 on 2002-06-25
  This version of Hamlet has an outstanding cast. Mel Gibson tackles the ultimate anti-action hero Hamlet, so that is a bit surprising. Glenn Close, Paul Scofield, Alan Bates, Ian Holm, Helena Bonham-Carter--if any cast could do Shakespeare, these players should be able to pull it off.

  The movie was filmed on location at Elsinore (Helsingor) Castle in Denmark, the actual castle mentioned in Hamlet. The costumes are done in period dyes (carmine, indigo) to lend a genuine feel. There is plenty of action despite Hamlet's reluctance to revenge his father's murderer. In fact, the final scene, where Laertes and Hamlet fight a duel is absolutely marvelous.

  A lot of the minor plot activity in the original play has been cut. Most viewers will notice that Rosencrantz and Guilderstern (perennial favorites) are not mentioned by name but are used logically in their duplicity with King Claudius. This, and other omissions, makes this seem like Hamlet Lite, but it does make for a crisp screenplay.

  The spareness of the screenplay points up the beauty of the soliloquies, which is a good thing because you have to listen to them carefully. Not much is left to show the inner torment of a scholarly son who is being urged to violent action. In fact, there is really only one scene where Hamlet shows his fatal hesitation, and that is where Claudius is praying in the tomb. Hamlet reasons that killing Claudius when he is "shrived" or forgiven of sin would send him to heavenly reward while his father was sent precipitously to hell, no chance to repent. But this scene alone was not enough to reveal the famous indecision.

  Even so, I enjoyed this version of Hamlet and think it was an interesting interpretation.
  
  

• Feasible
  By A6FIAB28IS79 on 2002-11-08
  In teaching "Hamlet" I use Olivier's version for my own preparation, Branagh's for 5-10 minute excerpts from the play, and Gibson's for whole scenes and longer stretches. The latter version holds students' attention best due to a judiciously (for the most part) edited script, the Zeffirelli "pretentious" style (much of the play let alone the medium of film is about pretense), and the full-blown, "sincere" Gibson style. Branagh is certainly superior in portraying Hamlet's "antic disposition," but younger students and "first-timers" are slow to pick up on the play's verbal ironies. Moreover, Branagh's passionate scenes can seem overplayed because of the theatrical resonance of his tenor timbre. He may look like more of a Scandinavian, but Mel has the look my students recognize.
  
  
• Shakespeare badly served
  By A2VMS83X8EJYBD on 2006-01-25
  First, let me clarify that I sometimes like Mel Gibson as an actor, even sometimes as a director. Also, let me say that Franco Zefferelli has a very fine eye for color and composition, fine enough to make all his films interesting to look at. However, the problems of this film are many-fold, so many that in spite of its being pleasant to look at, it is unpleasant to watch and hear. The biggest problem is the director's lack of depth. Viewing this movie, I have the distinct impression that Zefferilli's first thoughts were about the length of the picture (keeping it from exceeding "two hours traffic") and making interesting-looking pictures. This surface-oriented approach to Shakespeare indicates that the director placed little emphasis or made nearly no effort at what constitutes the heart of his work: Making the most of the language.
  
  Among other errors, Zefferelli makes unfortunate cuts and emendations. For example, he guts much of Claudius's soliloquy in the prayer scene, leaving the character almost a stock villain (this in spite of an excellent actor, Alan Bates, in the role). He also seems to be unconcerned with temporal logic: Hamlet and Laertes cannot duel properly with bated or unbated rapiers because of the medieval setting. It is absurd that they use broad swords rather than rapiers in the duel scene, swords which are meant to hack, rather than stab, contradicting the whole point of the unbated and poisoned tip of the foil. The medieval story always, in Shakespeare, has to be consistent with the Elizabethan context in which it was composed.
  
  Finally, Mel Gibson, ordinarily a decent film actor, is hung out to dry and unable to negotiate this, the most challenging male role in English theatre, alone. He needs a director who is both a deep thinker and who knows how to challenge his actors to find the spine of their character and bring it to the surface. Zefferelli just didn't (or couldn't) make his leading actor dive deeply enough into the character - especially not THIS character. And Mel Gibson is an actor who himself lacks the depth needed to investigate Hamlet thoroughly, and his is surely an actor who needs a very different type of director for this kind of role.
  
  I give the film its two stars, however, for a couple of reasons: First, the supporting cast has two gems in it -- Helena Bonham-Carter is, in spite of some very odd choices from her director, a wonderful Ophelia, and Ian Holm is one of the very best Poloniuses I have ever seen. Second, as bad as this film is, it is far less painful than Kenneth Brannagh's so-called "uncut" Hamlet.
  
  
• Hamlet
  By AJ7FDDS32GTX9 on 2006-03-19
  I teach English at a local Community College, and I use this film version of "Hamlet" to back-up the Shakespeare text of the play. This film version is very close to the actual play.
  
  
• The Bard would be turning in his grave!
  By A107UOX7KZHZLB on 2000-01-25
  Mel Gibson's unworthy portrayal of the Prince of Denmark can only be worsened by noting the fact that he broke the iambic pentameter of "Yea, from the table of my memory, I'll wipe away all trivial fond records...." Something is indeed rotten in Denmark! The rest is silence.
  
  

• William Shakespeare's Hamlet (Two-Disc Special Edition)
• Romeo & Juliet
• Henry V
• Much Ado About Nothing
• Macbeth / McKellen, Dench (Thames Shakespeare Collection)