Customer Reviews

Hamlet [VHS]

5 star:		(118)
4 star:		(46)
3 star:		(24)
2 star:		(15)
1 star:		(12)

 

 

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.

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.

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 !

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.

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.

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.

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".

We all know the story so there is no need for me to summarize.

It's not a bad rendition but there are a few problems. It suffers mainly from a strong Ophelia and a weak Horatio. Ophelia, as played by Helena Bonham Carter, is played too strong to believe she would go mad and kill herself. Nowhere, in the movie, is there any indication she is ruled by her father, brother and whomever else would try. She herself, as written, is a weak person and needs to be played weakly.

Horatio, as Shakespeare wrote him, is the only one Hamlet trusts. Yet, nearly 75% of his lines are cut and he spends the majority of the movie looking concerned but standing around doing nothing.

The pacing really stumbles until about halfway into the movie. The best part is the dueling sequence. The rest of the time, the pacing doesn't quite make it.

I was also disappointed the "From this time forth, my thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth" soliloquy was cut. It, along with the "To be or not to be" speech are two of the most important moments of Hamlet's progression.

Gibson delivered the "To be or not to be" soliloquy extremely well, fortunately. His Hamlet is most believable after he sees the ghost.

However, if you have not seen this version, be prepared for one thing: the director suffers from what I call the "Olivier Complex." Just because Olivier played Hamlet with an Oedipus complex doesn't mean he was right. When Hamlet confronts his mother in her closet, it is an extremely annoying scene in the movie. Much better to portray him as a son who loves his mother as a MOTHER, not as a lover.

Otherwise, the scenery is gorgeous, the costuming was nice, other than Glenn Close's operatic braids--I kept expecting her to break out in a Wagner opera--and the rest of the casting is quite good. Ian Holm plays an excellent Polonius.

All in all, it wasn't bad. It wasn't great but it wasn't bad.

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.

Like many people, I was capitivated by Gibson's long-ago performance in Gallipoli. Before Mel went to Hollywood and became a two-dimensional 'movie star,' he possessed a persona that projected great innocence and a purity of character rarely seen in film. It was wonderful to get to see that side of Mel Gibson again. Good show, Franco!