Commentaires des utilisateurs

It stands to reason that Larry Olivier's version of Hamlet is one of the best, and even if he was a little old for the role (in his forties by this time) it really is the perfect role for him.

One or two things to note - the camera angles and shots are often stunning, from above, using angles and shadows, extreme close-ups, and so on. This gives the sometimes ponderous adaptation atmosphere and the black and white photography is gorgeous. Amongst the supporting cast Jean Simmons is a childish, doting Ophelia but this works well. Not working so well are the soliloquies largely within Hamlet's head (and therefore, voiceover). This seems a little gimmicky and only really makes sense with 'To be or not to be'.

That aside, this really is Larry's show and he is brilliant. Despite a few cuts it does the original play proud and is, like Welles' Macbeth and Othello, a truly cinematic reading.

Olivier is absolutely mesmerizing as the dane of Denmark. I have seen Gibson's and Branagh's versions, and Olivier is still far and away the most impressive performance. Whenever I think of Hamlet, I always think of Olivier's Hamlet. The picture as a whole is very well done, although in parts it can seem a bit chinsy. Olivier (as director) firmly establishes the mood for the picture, and the ensemble acting is terrific. Watch for a very pompous Polonius!

Hamlet (Laurence Olivier), son of the murdered king of Denmark, contemplates whether or not to take vengeance on the murderer and now king, Claudius (Basil Sydney), Hamlet's uncle. Hamlet must also decide what to do about his mother, Gertrude (Eileen Herlie), who is now married (quite happily, it seems) to Claudius, and Claudius' chief adviser, Polonius (Felix Aymer). In the middle of all this is Hamlet's love Ophelia (Jean Simmons), who is completely confused --- and hurt --- by Hamlet's increasingly bizarre behavior.

Like the Zeffrilli/Gibson and Branaugh versions of Shakespeare's classic that followed, Olivier's adaptation is a mostly excellent film with several annoying flaws keeping it just out of reach of greatness.

Olivier is superb as Hamlet --- especially when delivering the soliloquies, several of which are genuinely powerful. The rest of the cast, however, is a mixed bag. Herlie is very good, managing to completely overcome that fact that she is really 13 years younger than Olivier. Sydney has his moments and does a decent job, but never really gets across who Claudius really is. Aymer is amusing but nothing more. Simmons makes a good Ophelia, albeit not a great one. Norman Wooland is excellent as Horatio (which is a tough role to actually be memorable in). Stanley Holloway is good as the Gravedigger, but somehow he doesn't nail the part the way Billy Crystal did in the 1996 version. Finally, Peter Cushing is… odd as Osric. The rest of the cast is either stiff or completely uninteresting.

However, other than some weak performances, Olivier does a superb job directing everything. The atmosphere during the ghost scenes is absolutely suffocating and starts the film off well. And right from that scene, it's obvious that the camera work is going to be awesome. The camera moves and sweeps everywhere --- but not just for the sake of moving and sweeping like many movies (coughMichaelBaycoughcough). It creates extraordinary images and energy that make many scenes unforgettable --- without calling too much attention to itself.

William Walton's creepy music adds a lot.

Finally, the climactic fencing scenes are genuinely great – easily the best fencing scenes in a version of Hamlet and possibly among the best in film history.

However, despite many great scenes, the movie never creates the emotions it needs to really make the blows come. Yes, some scenes are truly compelling, but on the whole, it misses the mark in that department.

However, the scenes that work are brilliant, and despite the lack of emotional power, it is an entertaining and superbly made film that's just as worthwhile as its 90's successors (although it is marginally inferior to them, which is odd --- the 40's version inferior to the 90's remakes!).

This adaptation of "Hamlet" by Laurence Olivier (he both starred and directed) is a brooding, somewhat slow-moving, but also memorable version of Shakespeare's great play. Olivier's personal performance as the Danish prince is by far the strongest aspect of the picture.

Hamlet is one of the most complex and fascinating characters ever created, and no two great actors ever play him quite the same way. Olivier portrays him primarily as "a man who could not make up his mind", and his fine and often subtle acting brings to his role a deep understanding of his character's inner struggles and dilemmas, both moral and practical. He renders Hamlet's most famous lines in a distinctive way that reveal the many possible paths in Hamlet's future. It is a performance not to be forgotten.

If Olivier the actor is masterful, Olivier the director is good but not perfect. A great deal of Shakespeare's text was eliminated, getting the running time down to 2 1/2 hours, but even so there are times when the movie seems rather slow-moving, especially in the first hour or so. Most of the cuts involve interactions with the minor characters, and some of the original play's minor roles are cut completely out of the film. The result is to concentrate the emphasis even further on Hamlet himself and on his pessimistic meditations. While this enables Olivier's fine acting to become even more prominent, it does eliminate some very interesting portions of the story whose absence will be regretted by those viewers who love the play.

Olivier does add some good touches, though. He emphasizes the somber tone with numerous tracking shots of the castle's gloomy corridors and staircases. The filming of the famous sequence of events at the end is very good, and is much livelier than the rest.

While this is probably not the very best interpretation of the play "Hamlet", it is as good an interpretation of the character Hamlet as you will ever see. For that reason alone it is must viewing for any fan of Shakespeare or of Olivier.

I understand that Laurence Olivier called his adaptation of William Shakespeare's masterpiece more of a study of "Hamlet" than a direct adaptation. Nonetheless, the result was a marvelous film. At heart, the movie is a look at base impulses. In fact, I see a connection to another 1948 movie: "Treasure of the Sierra Madre". The latter focuses on the horrific actions to which greed drives people, much like how "Hamlet" looks at vindictiveness. Neither offers a rosy view of humanity.

The cold, Gothic sets frame the story perfectly. Elsinore's dreary look does as much to emphasize the characters' futile existence as any of the actors do. I should note that I've never seen a stage production of "Hamlet", so I'm not the best person to offer a comparison to a live version. I understand that Olivier cut much of the story to condense the movie so that he could emphasize the psychological aspect. Even so, he turned out a masterpiece, becoming the first person to direct himself to an acting Oscar, and giving us the first Best Picture winner not from the US. As for whether it was the year's best movie, I'd rank it as equal to "Treasure of the Sierra Madre", with both offering devastating focuses on the human condition. Definitely see it.

I had expected something extraordinary from an actor I had thought was one of the greatest Shakespearean performers, but I just could not see it. I did not think it was bad but I remained unmoved. Also, there were substantial cuts to the text.

Maybe sensibilities change. Maybe I am too jaded by modern lavish production values to appreciate this primitive-looking one. The pace seemed jerky, some of the acting mannered, including Olivier's, and the mannerisms seemed dated and not all of a consistent style. The miracle I hope for is that the play in its fullness could be intelligibly pitched to a modern sensibility - or else that the production style could elucidate an earlier sensibility. In this version, the flowery Renaissance sensibility that pervades the lovely poignant scene of the death of Ophelia seems replaced by half-hearted Freudianism and a dated concept of medieval style where austerity and floridness jarringly conflict.

I would be grateful if one production could make clear to me why Hamlet feigns madness. I guess I am still looking for the definitive Hamlet.

For years I've considered the classical soviet screen-version of Hamlet directed by Kozintsev (1964) as the best adaptation of the play. I still think it's a masterpiece, however now it fills the second place in my preferences and the first one belongs to Lord Laurence Olivier. To begin with, I was astonished to find out that scenery, costumes and make-up in Kozintsev's film clearly resemble those from Olivier's version. No doubts, our producer knew and appreciated earlier English movie and deliberately copied the settings. Well, I don't blame him: he used it successfully, but the lack of originality is somehow disappointing. The scenery is really wonderful: cold, gloomy, dark, gothic, haunting and even more impressive for being black-and-white. And then… LORD LAURENCE OLIVIER IS THE BEST SHAKESPEAREAN ACTOR EVER. No one else can make the 16th century Bard's text sound modern, natural, alive, expressive, exciting, clear and full of hidden before meaning. Indeed, soviet actors pronounce the text fantastically well, but in Russian: I mean in translation by talented Russian poet Pasternak. And recently I've become interested in reading and watching Shakespeare in original. And here Olivier is an unparalleled performer. He portraits his hero wonderfully. His Hamlet is dignified and noble, reserved and mistrustful, emotional and ruthless (when he knows it is justified), and deeply frustrated (for he is disappointed in everyone except the foreigner Horatio). He is willing to act and yet waits to understand what's happening better. However events take an unexpected course and lead to the final tragedy. At the beginning Hamlet is called `a man who couldn't make up his mind'. Well, I would choose other words: `a man who changed his mind too often', but it wasn't his fault – so were circumstances. And Olivier presents these changes very vividly and truthfully. He makes `To be or not to be' an unusually powerful scene showing Hamlet just a man who sees so much evil all around that he nearly commits suicide. He is stopped only by sudden understanding that death is unremediable and too frightening – natural thought for any sensible man, brave as he is. Such simple variant pleases me better than more sophisticated ones. Somebody may disagree with Olivier's conception of the character but everyone has to admit that while Larry acts he creates complete, convincing, living image of his hero (and very sympathetic, by the way). I also would like to mention Jean Simmons. She seems to be severely misjudged by most reviewers. Simmons is an excellent Ophelia – a simple, naive young girl, merely a child, affectionate, light-hearted, playful, flirting and exceptionally sensitive. An absolutely charming scene is that of Laertes' departure. Polonius makes his solemn speech and Ophelia all the time mischievously distracts attention of her brother. I like all Olivier's films for such amusing trifles. Gertrude is well chosen too, quite believable. Eileen Herlie clear shows that at the end Gertrude understands her husband's wicked game and takes the poison consciously. However, Claudius is not impressive enough, to my mind. To see a perfect thrilling Shakespearean villain you have to watch Kozintsev's film.

Of course the play is noticeably cut. I confess I miss Hamlet's passionate soliloquy `Is not this monstrous that this player here…', and also Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (they are important, for Hamlet faces the treachery of friends in their part). On the other hand more complete versions are rather overlong. I am not sure that Branagh's four hours movie gains anything from using the full text. This film is dynamic and worth seeing not only for the sake of Lord Laurence's outstanding performance, but because it is extraordinary interesting version of the familiar play.

Sir Laurence Olivier takes a stab at the brooding Danish prince in William Shakespeare's Hamlet. He's really too old to play the prince realistically. At most, he looks like the same age as his mother Gertrude. Even that is a great feat since Eileen Herlie is in actual life 11 years younger than Olivier. Olivier makes his version concentrate more on Hamlet's self doubt. "This is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind." He also plays up the Oedipus complex aspect of Hamlet. This may not be the definitive theatrical version of Hamlet. It is an interesting one made by a master. He has obviously thought it through and made the necessary cuts in his own ways. Olivier is obviously comfortable with the material. It is classically made with enough cinematic flourishes to keep it interesting.

What a tedious few hours this film makes for! I enjoy Shakespeare and Hamlet is (obviously) one of his great plays. But not if you only knew it from this version.

As others have said here, it's difficult to understand all the acclaim this film received in its day. Quickly looking over the list of "Hamlet" films on IMDb, it does seen that this 1948 production was the first filmed version since the silents (or at least the early talkies) so maybe that was part of it. And I suppose at the time the staging and set might have seemed unique (?). But it just came across to me as VERY stage-y, and far too dependent on clouds of dry ice smoke for atmosphere.

The setting also suffers from an odd combination of not enough people (many scenes where nobody else seems to inhabit this big castle except Hamlet) followed by too many people (rooms suddenly fill up out of nowhere with hangers-on and courtiers). The castle is just WAY too big and full of odd, useless spaces that were probably meant to give you a sense of Hamlet's confusion and isolation but instead had me thinking about how big the soundstage must have been to build all these sets and what a pain it must have been to film and the tracking shots as the actors moved around. And the matched set of 6 trumpeters appearing out of nowhere to play elaborate fanfares every time the King walks by felt like something out of a Warner Bros. cartoon. I kept expecting them to turn sideways and be playing cards.

The age thing? The fact that Olivier was 41 is not the problem. It's the fact that with the heavy theatrical makeup and bad blond dye job/wig he looks 52. Part of what Hamlet is about is the problem of being a young adult confronting big issues for the first time in your life. In this version, you keep wondering why this middle-aged man can't get it together.

As for Olivier's talents -- well, he certainly does have the technical ability to speak Shakespeare in a way that generally makes sense of the words -- but good phrasing is NOT the same thing as being able to ACT it well.

In all, there was not one aspect of this film that made me think it was worth watching it. It gets a "3" from me only on the strength of it being Shakespeare's text (or at least some of it.)

The amount of lines taken from this play and used in our everyday conversation is staggering. Like all of the Bard's works, his endurance is not only the mastery of language, but really in storylines that just never get old. Above, everything else, Hamlet is an interesting tale. Olivier's interpretation however, is very dark. Very deliberate. He shies away from the humor completely, and instead takes a slow, purposeful tack. To that, it might not appeal to some. In such a long play and movie, the humor is sorta needed to jostle you a bit, and break the overall bleakness of the tragedy. You don't catch a break here I'm afraid. Id classify this therefore as for more advanced taste, and not for the average moviegoer. Olivier's other two attempts, Henry V and Richard III, specifically the latter, will garner more mainstream appeal.

For better or worse, this remains the definitive film version of hamlet.

I confess I'm not happy with that. Olivier re-edits the script considerably. What appear to be continuity innovations simply fall flat for me. The worst instance of this is the famed "to be or not to be" speech (most of it delivered in voice-over), which jumps out of nowhere in this version, apropos nothing. Olivier gets away with this butchery on the basis of his roaring egotism (which finally leads to a roaring Hamlet to the end) and the fact that his is one of the most careful directions of the play-as-film to be found on film.

Which of course leads me to the positive aspects of the film. Simply as a film, it is brilliantly designed and executed. I've rarely felt a film so successfully blend claustrophobia and depth - this is accomplished through careful juxtapositions of scenes of high-contrast black & white with scenes filled with grey fog; only Hitchcock could have done better (but of course Hitchcock would never have made Hamlet).

And although Olivier's performance is really over the top, he wisely makes sure that all the other actors get to come close to that level, especially the actor playing Hamlet's nasty step-dad. So the film vibrates with energy almost from the get-go and all the way to the end.

I keep trying to see every film version of Hamlet i can find, to see if the final, absolutely really and truly definitive version of Shakespeare's play (and not Olivier's version of it) might yet be viewed; but until then, this will have to do.

More confident direction from Olivier than for his Henry V from four years earlier, and he dumbs down some of the dialogue in hopes of attracting a more mainstream audience. The Shakespearean dialogue is still a challenge, but the plot is straightforward enough and Olivier is superb, managing to stand out amongst a cast featuring talent as diverse as Jean Simmons and Stanley Holloway.

The writings of William Shakespheare are always accredited as being the greatest literary works in the history of western civilization. The film, "Hamlet", won the academy award for best picture in 1948; suffice it to say, that an accolade such as this merely scratches the surface on the brilliance of this Shakesphearian production!! So many famous quotes of Shakespheare's are from "Hamlet" "Sweets to the sweet": "The dog will have his day": "There is something rotten in the state of Denmark": "Neither a borrower nor a lender be": "Get thee to a nunnery": "Sometimes Sister" : These are some famous quotes from "Hamlet". This literary masterpiece contains a list of world renowned soliloquies as well. "Too too this flesh shall melt-": And, of course, "To be or not to be-",: These are some of the quotes and soliloquies. There are so many, I have just rattled off a few!! When an actor or actress takes on a Shakesphearian endeavor, it becomes an acutely sensitizing challenge for them which represents an artistic epitome in their careers!! Shakespheare evokes an absolute height in human creativity, and the succinct polarization of both genders in "Hamlet" establishes a necessary storyline cohesiveness which is pertinent to all of the main characters in the movie. While a film like "Hamlet" is viewed as lofty in its disposition, the actuality of Shakespheare's work, is that such an idealism is very disconcerting! More often than not, the esoteric philosophies which are so eloquently manifested from the romanticist characters in Shakespheare's works, are usually vitiated with an emphatic desperation!! These Promethian philosophies are invariably preempted by the visceral components of perseverance. Shakespheare has always had a penchant for his characters to be provoked into agitated responses. "Hamlet" is an example of such emotions, "King Lear" and "Merchant of Venice" are also such examples of these intense displays of rancor!! I have seen this version "Hamlet" many times. Sir Lawrence Olivier does a remarkable job at directing this film (He also plays the role of Hamlet). Olivier won for best actor in 1948 with this role!! Olivier is a Shakesphearian aficionado who has the ability to carry off a successfully cunning articulation of "Hamlet" by astutely depicting its fatalistic irony!! The solemn imagery in "Hamlet" is extremely poignant!! Shakespheare had such a profound prescience with human emotions that he has manufactured an eternal impact on man's conception of what intellectually spellbinding literature should be!! I do like the 1948 performance better than the 1996 version with Glen Close and Mel Gibson,the gripping enmity in the 1948 movie seemed more believable!! The fact that "Hamlet" won for best picture in 1948 is a very insignificant modicum of this movie's formidable allure!! Such an embodiment of pejorative candor which is illustrated in "Hamlet" became an enticing attribute to the film in which the movie viewer could easily appreciate!! The myriad of belligerent proclivities demonstrated by the part of Hamlet encompasses a mindset which nurtured an extremely tumultuous cerebral unrest!! This is the principle reason that Olivier's rendition of "Hamlet" is so incredibly stunning!!The cinematography is sensational in this film, and the acting from virtually everyone with this presentation of "Hamlet" is paramount!! See this film!! It will elevate your intellectual awareness of Shakespheare, and hopefully, it will also enlighten your perspective of this great masterful work of Shakespheare's which became an academy award winning major motion picture!!

There are very few names that inspire people to become actors. Not movie stars, but actors. Among them are Marlon Brando, Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn, and Sir Laurence Olivier. Having already some familiarity with the works of William Shakespeare (by no means, am I an expert, but I know some things), I judged it was time to see how Olivier himself treated one of the Bard's most famous works.

Well, the first impression I got from watching this movie is that it is quite obviously a labor of love. Olivier was an avid practitioner of Shakespeare, and this movie is his tribute. And, one thing I can say about this version of Hamlet is that it appears to be a more faithful interpretation, rather than an adaptation with whole scenes taken out for the sake of time, continuity, and/or to keep the audience's attention. While ambitious, the results are mixed.

First, let's cover what I did like about the movie. On the top of that list is Jean Simmons as Ophelia. Her performance was nearly flawless as Hamlet's girlfriend, who loses her mind after her father's death. Another surprise I spotted was character actor Stanley Holloway (Liza's father in "My Fair Lady") as the gravedigger in the "Alas, poor Yorick" scene. And the swordfight finale was well choreographed.

Now, for what I felt was lacking. Many of the actors in this movie (particularly Basil Sydney, who played King Claudius) appeared wooden. Even Olivier himself looked like he had succumbed to mediocre performance at times. A lot of the lines sounded like they were phoned in, and Polonius (Felix Aylmer) sounded too much like he was dispassionately reading from "Poor Richard's Almanac" while dispensing his wisdom to his children, Ophelia and Laertes (Terence Morgan).

As Hamlet himself said, "The play's the thing", but this is a play put on film. With that, there is an inherent problem with its presentation: Sometimes, it doesn't translate well. While I am sure that on stage, this was phenomenal, on screen it is hit-and-miss. But, like I said, it was a labor of love, and it does mark two firsts in Oscar history: The first movie directed by its star, and the first independent film, to win Best Picture.

For purists and those who study Shakespeare, this presentation is the one to watch. It's a no-frills, camera-eye view of the play utilizing a single set. But this is not just another movie to watch for the sake of watching it. It has been said that true art has flaws, and by that very definition, Olivier's "Hamlet" is art, warts and all.

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

It seems almost heretical to say over fifty years after Olivier's Oscar-winning film has passed indisputably into the realm of "classic," but the fact of the matter is that this is a badly butchered and only tolerably performed adaptation of Shakespeare's play. Olivier and text editor Alan Dent cut the script to the bone, eliminating not only the character of Fortinbras (who is a common casualty of the editor's pen), but Rosencrantz and Guildestern (who are indispensable to depicting a complete version of the story).

Most of the acting is forgettable, with only Academy Award nominated Jean Simmons making any impact as the tragic Ophelia. Olivier is frankly wooden in the role (his 1937 stage performance was universally panned), making one realize that Hamlet was never really his part and that posterity would have been better served if he's left this play alone and instead filmed one of his stage successes such as Macbeth or Titus Andronicus.

Olivier's success comes as a director rather than an actor, depicting Elsinore as a gloomy and forbidding haunted castle. The drum representing the ghost's heartbeat is a masterfully effective device and the look of the film can only be described as wonderfully Shakespearean.

While the virtues of the film are spotty, one scene must surely be ranked as among the greatest ever committed to celluloid: the duel between Hamlet and Laertes in Act V. It is hard to imagine any other production (stage or film) competing the excitement or tension of this compelling action, and Olivier's celebrated leap from a high tower to finally do away with Claudius is worthy of every platitude it has received. (Compare this to the ludicrous display of Kenneth Branagh throwing a magic rapier from across the palace to hit a super hero's bulls-eye into Claudius' heart in the vulgar and miscast 1996 film and you'll see what I mean.) Olivier's "Hamlet" was an important milestone in it's day, but is badly dated and does not stand up well to more recent productions such as Derek Jacobi's 1978 BBC production with the pre-Star Trek Patrick Stewart as a magnificent Claudius (in my mind the definitive screen "Hamlet") or the filmed record of the John Gielgud/Richard Burton 1964 Broadway production (which is truer to the play's theatrical roots). Olivier's film is indeed a classic, but it brings to mind Mark Twain's definition of the word: "a book that someone praises but doesn't read."

Just as when you think about the Ten Commandments, you think of Charlton Heston as Moses in "The Ten Commandments" (1956). Everyone knows that Hamlet looks like Laurence Olivier. People concentrate on Olivier and may miss the great camerawork and atmosphere for him to work in. There are longer and flashier versions out now, many quite good however this is the one that will always come to mind. I will not attempt to interpret the meaning behind the story however most of the acting and all of the words are quite clear. If you are afraid of misinterpreting the play, take a course on it. Otherwise, this will play stands on its merit, and you will be fascinated. It is a tad irritating not having the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern dialog.

Just a quickie synopsis, Hamlet's father, the king of Denmark, is dead and his uncle marries his mother. His father's ghost returns to say his uncle dispatched his father on purpose (murder most foul) while he seeks revenge, he is also distraught with indecision. How he acts with friends and relatives to conduct his plans is the play.

Naturally, the word Criterion should alert you to the quality of this version.

Olivier and this film both deserved the Oscar for Best Actor and Film respectively. However, despite being the best film of 1948, the film is not, in my opinion, the best production of Hamlet brought to the big screen.

There are at least two others that I felt were superior to this film; but neither remotely approached winning the Oscar for Best Film: the 1996 version by Kenneth Branagh and Girgori Kosintsev's protrayal in 1964 (Russians do great tragedy). My personal favorite still remains Branagh, however. These observances do not decrease the performance of Olivier in this version, of course. It is well worth watching for than alone.

Uta Hagen's "Respect for Acting" is the standard textbook in many college theater courses. In the book, Hagen presents two fundamentally different approaches to developing a character as an actor: the Presentational approach, and the Representational approach. In the Presentational approach, the actor focuses on realizing the character as honestly as possible, by introducing emotional elements from the actor's own life. In the Representational approach, the actor tries to present the effect of an emotion, through a high degree of control of movement and sound.

The Representational approach to acting was still partially in vogue when this Hamlet was made. British theater has a long history of this style of acting, and Olivier could be said to be the ultimate king of the Representational school.

Time has not been kind to this school of acting, or to this movie. Nearly every working actor today uses a Presentational approach. To the modern eye, Olivier's highly enunciated, stylized delivery is stodgy, stiff and stilted. Instead of creating an internally conflicted Hamlet, Olivier made a declaiming, self-important bullhorn out of the melancholy Dane -- an acting style that would have carried well to the backs of the larger London theaters, but is far too starchy to carry off a modern Hamlet.

And so the movie creaks along ungainfully today. Olivier's tendency to e-nun-ci-ate makes some of Hamlet's lines unintentionally funny: "In-stead, you must ac-quire and be-get a tem-purr-ance that may give it... Smooth-ness!" Instead of crying at meeting his father's ghost (as any proper actor could), bright fill lights in Olivier's pupils give us that impression.

Eileen Herlie is the only other actor of note in this Hamlet, putting in a good essay at the Queen, despite the painfully obvious age differences (he was 41; she was 26). The other actors in this movie have no chance to get anything else of significance done, given Olivier's tendency to want to keep! the camera! on him! at all! times!

Sixty years later, you feel the insecurity of the Shakespearean stage actor who lacked the confidence to portray a breakable, flawed Hamlet, and instead elected to portray a sort of Elizabethan bullhorn. Final analysis: "I would have such a fellow whipped for o'er-doing Termagant; it out-herods Herod: pray you, avoid it."