Recensioni degli utenti

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

Mel Gibson and Franco Zeffirelli's adaptation of Hamlet has filled some of the gaps left by Shakespeare. This version of the classic story is thoroughly watchable. Gibson is perfect as Hamlet the Prince of Denmark, and he is well supported by Glenn Close (Gertrude), Alan Bates (Claudius), Ian Holm (Polonius) and Helena Bonham Carter (Ophelia). However, after already seeing Kenneth Branagh's 4-hour long version, I was left a little let down. Although this version was only 2 hours 20 minutes approximately, it was more boring in parts than Branagh's was. And no one can beat Kate Winslet as Ophelia, though Bonham Carter performed the lunatic scenes extremely well.

The acting, as is aboveforementioned, is the highlight of this version. You can see the emotions boiling over on Gibson's face, and Close gives Gertrude's nature a remarkable realism as both a worried mother and a lustful lover. Bates is the best Claudius I have ever seen, and Holm displays in Polonius what makes him such a great actor.

This Hamlet has an extremely good set design that complements the mood of each scene perfectly. The castle has a great look to it, both inside and outside.

The costumes, particularly those worn by Close, are excellent. They really highlight the mood and temprament of her character perfectly. On top of this, all of the costumes worn by the players (actors in Hamlet's play) in colour and shape symbolise the message that Hamlet was trying to get across.

Technically, this film is very well put together. The shots are each able to complement the action in that shot. Sound effects, especially in the ghost apparitions, as well as the lighting and juxtapositioning, set the moody feel of the film.

Of course, one cannot escape comparing this to Branagh's masterpiece, though in its own right is is a great version of Shakespeare's play that, through its star power and easier-to-follow storyline, should attract the younger audiences that saw Baz Lurmann's 'Romeo + Juliet', '10 Things I Hate About You' and will possibly see the upcoming 'O'. ***1/2 out of *****.

After the king of Denmark dies(yes, back then, battles over ascension were common), his widow soon marries the man's brother. But Hamlet, the natural heir to the throne suspects that it was not as natural a demise as it might appear... could the man now bearing the crown be implicated? I have not read the play itself, but I have seen other adaptations(and I can definitely tell that the dialog is kept intact, if there are trims... so we get the undeniable lyrical skill, wit and cleverness of Shakespeare, with sayings that people sometimes forget actually are from him), and the '48 one with Olivier is a tad better. Gibson in the role is obviously the more crowd-pleasing choice, if he does do a good job. Everyone does give a passionate performance, and we are graced with immense talent in the cast, counting Close, Bates, Holm and a young Bonham Carter. This is a visual approach(I don't know if that is how this director goes about these, it's the only one I've watched), rather than the "filmed theater" of the half a century old take on it. It is photographed rather nicely, if there aren't really any stand-out images. This does have a solid pace, and the 2 hour, 7 minute running time sans credits is never boring. It is a story dealing with how death causes pain, as the survivors are devastated and the killer is haunted by the deed. There is disturbing content, including sexuality, in this. The DVD comes with a two minute trailer. I recommend this to fans of ol' Will. 7/10

I'd put off viewing this version of "Hamlet" for a long time, because I'd heard that they'd turned this most cerebral of plays into an "action movie", but I ended up quite liking it.

I should begin by saying that I approve of ALL interpretations, because each choice reflects different possibilities all of which are supportable by the text; no one vision can encompass every potentiality inherent in the play. And the text per se, of course, will always exist in absolute form despite the number of hands that manipulate it.

All productions (except Branagh's) cut certain elements as a sacrifice to tighter (though narrower) focus. And the use of film rather than stage allows (even necessitates) different types of dramatic development. Films unfold at a different pace than stage plays. Zefirelli's adaptations WORK as film-making, without detracting from (or unnecessarily supplementing) Shakespeare's language. For instance, the little "prologue" scene showing the internment of the dead king. It is original to the movie, and yet the dialogue is still from the play; it doesn't misrepresent anything about the characters in its new context. And perhaps most importantly, it "works" in the movie that the director is making. But on to the substantive comment...

Mel Gibson was, in my opinion, too old to be Hamlet (making Glenn Close, by extension, too young to be Gertrude), but the issue of Hamlet's age has always been a problem. He's 30 in the text (this version leaves out that calculation), but that makes some of his relationships (with Ophelia, for instance) seem a little... immature. And yet if he's portrayed too young, his depth of thought is almost impossibly precocious. But I thought he was convincing nonetheless, particularly in expressing something that I've found central to my understanding of the play but I all too rarely see dealt with in Hamlet's portrayal, which is this:

Hamlet IS quite mad. 'Tis true: 'tis true 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true. From his first meeting with the ghost onwards, he is profoundly disturbed. It is irony that he then puts an 'antic disposition' on, because he has in actuality gone quite 'round the bend.

Mel Gibson not only gives the first convincing portrayal of Hamlet's "pretended" madness that I've seen, but he also shows us the desperation of the character in his quiet moments. Hamlet is not, as Olivier posited in his 1948 version, merely "a man who could not make up his mind." Gibson's Hamlet spends much of the film alternating between mania-induced impulsiveness and paralyzing inability to act. The Dane is not merely melancholy, he is certifiably manic-depressive. (Claudius, I believe, sees this.)

Over all, I believe that this would be a good introduction to the story of Hamlet for those who otherwise would have had no contact with it, although as I said it can then be supplemented by other adaptations (and of course there's no substitute for, ultimately, reading the text).

Hamlet (1990) stars Mel Gibson. The film was directed by Franco Zeffirelli. Mel Gibson ranks at the top of my list of unlikeable Hollywood stars. However, as as reviewer, I have to give him credit for doing a creditable job in the demanding role of Hamlet. Film Hamlets don't have to be skilled Shakespearean actors. The ability to murmur a soliloquy that can be heard in the back row of an auditorium isn't required in the movies. The director can order numerous takes until one turns out well. He can use close-ups--as Zeffirelli does--to make sure we understand the actor's emotions. I don't think Gibson would have managed the role onstage, but on the screen he carries it off.

Glenn Close, as Gertrude, is excellent. This is especially evident in the bedroom ("closet") scene. She really does portray Gertrude's mixture of fear and shame in a convincing manner.

However, in my opinion, acting honors go to Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia. Bonham Carter's Ophelia is shy and innocent. She is flattered and frightened by Hamlet's professions of love, and she is crushed by his violent rejection. Most impressive is her portrayal of the mad scenes. She acts these so well that you actually are convinced that you are watching a young woman who has had a descent into mental illness.

I've watched several Hamlets as part of a Shakespeare on film honors course. Each movie has it's strengths and weaknesses. This Hamlet deserves to be seen. Zeffirelli Is a brilliant director, Mel Gibson is a satisfactory Hamlet, and Helena Bonham Carter is the perfect Ophelia.

I watched this movie on DVD, but it would do better in a theater. It's worth watching it in whatever format is available.

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

There are a million and one Hamlet's so I will keep this brief as to what are the merits in this one: --Glenn Close is perhaps the best Gertrude I have ever seen. Torn between love for her soon and need for security with Claudius --This version really plays up the sexual undertones between Hamlet and his mother in a way that others dare not --Due to Hollywood-style production and A-list cast it is one of the more accessible versions of Hamlet and in terms of thoroughness ad faithfulness a fairly good place to start perhaps.

This film was my first introduction to the story of Hamlet, and though condensed and simplified it did a magnificent job. I was only 11, but it made me fall madly in love with Hamlet. After reading it, it quickly became my favorite Shakespeare play. I love how clear and defined the film is, while still having the essence of Shakespeare's intent. The acting is so intense, yet believable. I love the interpretation of the era, and how the delivery of the lines made them so easy to grasp without losing the authenticity. The play is really long and repetitive, so I think this movie did a fantastic job of really getting the meat. In some other Shakespeare film adaptations I've seen the lines are stale and rehearsed, and it really shocks me that someone could accuse these actors of being out of touch with the dialog. I found it to be quite the opposite. So many of the scenes are just so juicy. They really capture the story's power and depth. Plus, I'm really into that period, so I found it difficult to get into Branagh's film, no matter how good it was, *and* I really can't stand to watch Kenneth Branaugh. He really irritates me because I feel like he uses this same set of annoying expressions for every couple phrases. Huge apologies to all those out there who worship him. It's just how I feel. This version is just more my cup of tea in so many ways.

I saw this film as I love the play and I do like Franco Zeffirelli(especially for his opera films like La Traviata). While this 1990 film is far from terrible, it is the weakest for me of the three Hamlet films I've seen- I loved Branagh's and especially Olivier's- and possibly Zeffirelli's weakest Shakespeare adaptation also. It does have some undeniably good points, it is very well made with very evocative scenery, beautiful atmospheric lighting, sumptuous costuming and cinematography that is moody yet shimmering. The music is haunting and the sound effects really enhance the mood. The script is condensed, but still is very powerful and moving when needed. Ian Holm is a very effective Polonious, the character is creepier than one would expect but it proved to be an interesting touch. Mel Gibson was better than expected, initially it does scream disaster but actually he is charismatic and delivers his lines with meaning. He is perhaps too old for the role(but understandably as other reviewers have pointed out) and Branagh and Olivier conveyed Hamlet's tragedy more convincingly but coming from a non-fan of Gibson this is not a bad performance at all. The acting honours go to Glenn Close, whose Gertrude is beautifully elegant, expressive and sincere. On the other hand, while it is a long play with much complexity and so forth(therefore a slow unfolding pace is necessary) there are some scenes that do come about as too drawn-out and laborious. Zeffirelli I do like for his sumptuous style and how directs actors(and singers), but he does bring forth ideas that are interesting in hindsight but don't do very well in terms of the motivations of the characters, Orphelia and Claudius in particular really suffer from this, and like his Jane Eyre it does get pedestrian in places. Two performances don't work. Alan Bates did have potential to, he is a great actor and has done creepy and evil very well before in The Shout for example. But, not helped by the fact that the scenes make Claudius the character he is are severely reduced, consequently Bates is never evil enough. The worst offender though is Helena Bonham Carter, she has given very good performances(A Room with a View, Sweeney Tood and Howards End) before and like Bates seemed ideal for the role. The reasons why she wasn't is largely again to do with Zeffirelli, the idea to not have Orphelia poignant and meek and instead have her as the complete opposite, strong-willed and almost headstrong was a big mistake, undermining her lunacy scenes. Whereas they should be moving, this change to the character is partly why Bonham Carter's performance feels wildly overacted. On the whole, didn't really work from my perspective but it is not a bad film. 6/10 Bethany Cox

It is one of the joys of Shakespeare that there can be no definitive performances - no single performance can be ‘right', but some can be wrong, and this one is. There are at least two things about Hamlet which cannot be dispensed with: 1. His indecisiveness and inability to take any kind of action. For God's sake that is what makes the play last as long as it does. If you had Othello there instead of Hamlet, Claudius would be dead by the end of Act One. Any production has to try to explain why Hamlet delays, why he is incapable of action. 2. His sexual disgust. His total revulsion at the thought of what his mother and uncle get up to in bed fill him with an utter disgust for all things sexual and this means that any kind of relationship with Ophelia is impossible. At the slightest hint of sex, Hamlet throws up. So, what does Mel Gibson give us? Lusty action-man. You could not get further from the character of Hamlet if you tried. There are lots of ways Hamlet can be played, but this isn't one of them! What I don't understand is since they managed to get such good actors for the other parts - Claudius, Polonius and so on, why couldn't they find one to play Hamlet as well. Mark Rylance in the part would have made this a great film. This ‘Mel Gibson', whoever he is, completely let down the rest of the cast. And lets face it, Hamlet without the prince really doesn't work.

This is one of those movies that probably every British lit class has seen. I know there were people who fell asleep in my lit class when I took this course ten years ago. And there seems to be a sharp contrast between those who like and those who don't. But the movie is not bad in my opinion - at least compared to reading the actual play.

Mel Gibson played Hamlet wonderfully. And Helena Bonham Carter looked hot. Although it's been ten years since I last watched Hamlet, I remembered the casting, acting, costumes, and background scenes being well done. I'm not a big fan of movies based on old British plays, but if you're going to watch one, this one isn't too bad.

This is by far the worst version of William Shakespeare's tragic masterpiece I have ever seen. It seems the filmmakers didn't actually read Shakespeare's text. No, they just took what they wanted from the Lawerence Olivier movie. The plot is out of order and slimmed down to its bare necessity, yet there is time for the non-canon Olivier created incest hint between Hamlet and Queen Gertrude. Could we have had the "Something rotten in the state of Denmark" bit instead? Casting is another issue. I understand that the far superior Branagh movie had its weak bits (Robin Williams and Charlton Heston come to mind), but this one has very few good moments. I do like Laertes and Polonius, but the rest of the cast is stale. Mel Gibson's creepy stubble is irritating, and one often wonders if he has any idea what he is saying. Many of the actors seem to have just memorized the part--they know less about what is being said than sophomores in high school.

If you want a version of Hamlet, check out Kenneth Branagh's or even Lawerence Olivier. To be frank, even Disney's Hamlet is better.

Zeferelli, although cut some seemingly vital parts to the play, made it his own, and created a beautiful tribute to Shakespeare. I am sure if the Bard had a camera, he would have filmed and wrote the screenplay somewhat the same.

Mel Gibson has portrayed Hamlet in the most true-to-human nature as anyone ever has. His brooding and depressing personality is realistic. Gibson doesn't allow the madness to overcome him. He is passionate, powerful and the epitome of the son who has gone through hell over his father's death and incestuous marriage of his mother. His performance brings tears to my eyes.

Glenn Close is amazing; her motherly attitude and sincerity toward Hamlet is so much that one sometimes cannot feel anger towards her. Close gives life to Gertrude that no one has been able to before or after. She is a real character, with traits both despicable and kind.

The other performances are astounding, especially when it comes to Helena Bonham-Carter's moment of lunacy in Ophelia. Her reaction to her father's death is so convincing and terribly sad that I cry at merely seeing her.

The interpretation of the story is a perfect one that required surely a great amount of thought and reading of the very play. Zeferelli interprets it so well, that it flows like real life. Every aspect comes together to form a very real event.

Zeferelli is a master filmmaker, and I highly suggest this film to anyone who has ever marveled at the human spirit portrayed through film, and literature as well.

Director Franco Zeffirelli gives his version of the famous William Shakespeare play. It's been 3 decades since I read the play and I don't pretend to be an expert in Shakespearean work. Zeffirelli puts the locations to good use although I want better representation of the spirit. It doesn't use cinema to the fullest and leaves the movie locked in as a play. Glenn Close is Queen Gertrude. She's playing it on the flighty side. I like the character more as a harlot. This is a showcase for Mel Gibson and he gives it his all. He comes away with a good performance. I don't think it's a complete performance but he is a compelling big screen movie star. He is able to hold the audience.

Hamlet Movie Review

The movie "Hamlet," released in January 18, 1991, shows director Franco Zeffirelli's selections of Shakespeare's original Hamlet and reflects one intriguing possibility of the text. There are various interpretations of each character and the story; however, no one vision can adequately encompass every perspective of the play. The text, of course, will always exist in permanent form and it is up to the individual's interpretation to make the story their own. Zeffirelli did a terrific job at directing such a complex story into a film easily understood by viewers.

In most translations from books to movies, producers sacrifice certain elements to narrow the focus and make the film unique to his style. The use of film techniques, compared to the Victorian stage plays, allows different dramatic developments in the story. Thus, the movie unfolds at a different pace than stage play, creating a whole new dynamic between scene transitioning. Christopher de Vore's skill as a screenwriter accurately portrays the characters without detracting from Shakespeare's language. For example, the prologue in the beginning of the movie demonstrates the enthrallment of Hamlet Senior as a ghost. Retaining the originality to the dialogue in the text, the movie is still unique to the director's vision. Most importantly, the director's interpretation of the story works well in developing the depth of each character without creating a new twist in the story of "Hamlet." Although he cut some essential parts from the play, Zeffirelli employed his own style and created an amazing tribute to Shakespeare. He edited parts of the movie and rearranged it to create a story that would make sense to contemporary audiences. Through this, he gives in an apparent life to the play which moves well from beginning to end.

Shakespeare's play is not at all about the story. The story is just the outer armor on which some life altering metaphoric structure is built around. For example, Hamlet Junior bellows, "Tis true: 'tis true 'tis pity, and pity 'tis true." From Hamlet Junior's first meeting with Hamlet Senior's ghost, he is profoundly disturbed and begins to question his mentality and judgment of reality. Ironically, he pretends to be crazy to conceal his true plans to kill his uncle Claudius. Zeffirelli has a fine sense of coloring in each scene with movement between light and dark, and good and evil. Zeffirelli focuses on the characters and allows them lead the storyline without compromising the text's originality.

One complaint is that Mel Gibson seemed to be too old for the role of Hamlet, thereby making Glenn Close too young to be Gertrude. The issue of Hamlet's age has always been a problem. According to the text, he is supposed to be in his thirties; however, that makes some of his relationships with Ophelia, for instance, seem pedophiliac. Yet, if Hamlet is portrayed too young, the depth of his thought is almost impossible to imagine. I thought he was a good actor; particularly in reciting the Shakespearean lines is something I have found most important to my understanding of the story. His passion clearly portrays a son who has gone through madness over his father's death, contemplation of murdering his uncle, and the incestuous marriage of his mother. Gibson not only gives a convincing depiction of Hamlet's cloak of madness, but also shows us the desperation of the character in his quiet moments as Hamlet is not a man who could not make up his mind, but rather, one who riddled with uncertainty. Thus, Gibson spends much of the film alternating between mania-induced impulsiveness and paralyzing inability to function with sanity. Glenn Close is amazing as she portrays Gertrude as a real character, with traits both shameful and empathetic. Helena Bonham-Carter's performance is astounding as well, especially her moment of lunacy as Ophelia in reacting to the death of her father, Polonius. The cast of characters in this version of Hamlet was more than enough to bring Shakespeare's stage theater alive on screen.

Overall, I believe that this is a good foundation to understanding the language of Hamlet further, and would be supplemented with the Shakespearean text. I commend Zeferelli as a master filmmaker for his directing skills. I would promote this acclaimed film to anyone who has ever marveled at Shakespearean language and would like to watch a film literature as well.

Hamlet is of course one fine piece of a drama written by the great maestro Shakespeare, and belongs for sure to his most known works. I like this very dark and reduced to the bone movie adaption. Settings are fine and Mel Gibson and the rest of the cast, including Glenn Close and Helena Bonham Carter, do good. Director Franco Zeffirelli directed some movies based on the plays of Shakespeare before he did Hamlet - in 1967 he put a gorgeous The Taming of the Shrew (with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor) on screen and in 1968 a fine Romeo and Juliet movie followed - if you like to watch Shakespeare's plays on screen I would recommend those two movies too. Anyway, back to Hamlet - maybe not a outstanding one but for sure worth your time.

I have not been impressed with most film adaptations off of Shakespeare's work. The only three movies based off of Shakespeare's plays that I would watch are Kurosawa's Ran, the 1970 version of Romeo and Juliet, and this adaptation of Hamlet.

Even though many of the lead cast members are American, they pull off their roles wonderfully. Like many people, I'm used to seeing Mel Gibson as the tough Mad Max and the humorous Sergeant Riggs, but he gives an intense performance as hamlet. He merely doesn't stick to the play's dialog, but his eyes burn with an intensity that makes me think of the depressed, cunning, and vengeful Hamlet that is in the play.

Ian Holm is perfect as the Polonius that I imagined from the play, the mumbling, sneaky, and funny but wise old man that works for the deceitful and treacherous Claudius. Helena Bonham Carter is youthful and pretty as Hamlet's doomed lover Ophelia. I can't help but smile when her character goes insane for her nonsense singing reminds much of her marvelous work as Mrs. Lovett from Sweeney Todd. Paul Schofield as the ghost of Hamlet's father is not only frightening but moving as a lost and doomed soul.

But the thing I liked most about this movie was that it did not retract itself from the Shakespearean language of the play. This not only held true to the play but also made the film itself accurate to the time period.

In addition, the set-decoration by two-time Oscar winner Dante Ferretti and costume design by Maurizio Millenotti is beautiful. The score by Ennio Morricone (as he always does) sets the mood and pulls me into the film's story. However, like the play, the movie was slow and at times tiresome. Nonetheless, this is a great adaptation of Hamlet that should not be forgotten. 9/10

Watching this is kind of like watching a film in a language you're familiar with but not fluent in (perhaps one you studied when you were at school or used as a basis to achieve an impressively large streak on Duolingo): you get the gist of what's going on and there are some words and phrases that you fully understand, but a lot of it goes right over your head and you could really do with some subtitles to make the viewing experience more comfortable. Of course, the comparison isn't exactly one to one, but I think it's a good way to verbalise what it's like to get thrown into the deep end of Shakespearean prose. Verbose soliloquies, dancing dialogue, double entendres, unbearable angst, miserable madness, antiquated meanings and timeless tragedies are all par for the course with the Bard, and they're all here in droves in 'Hamlet (1990)'. This straightforward adaptation, the first version of the source play I've seen (I have seen it on stage before, but I was too young then to remember all the details now), is reportedly a tightened up take on the material, trimmed to just its most potent essentials. Even so, it's somewhat baggy and meanders in its midsection. The filmmaking also feels really old fashioned, not because of the story's period setting or Shakespearean dialogue, but because of its cinematography, score and set and costume design. It genuinely feels like a film from the fifties, a stuffy costume drama that only hikes itself into the nineties thanks to the unmistakable presence of its lead actor. Mel Gibson may seem like a strange choice for the eponymous sweet prince, but it makes perfect sense when you realise that this movie's interpretation of Hamlet really leans into the madness (and the incest???) of the character. Almost as soon as he sees the ambiguously supernatural visage of his dearly departed dad, the guy just dives headfirst off the deep end and spends most of the narrative barking like a rabid dog rather than plotting his revenge. I like the fact that it's never made clear whether he has really seen his father's spirit or if his own grief and rage and doubt takes hold, but I also like the fact that it's never made clear if his uncle really did partake in any sort of foul play. This actually adds a lot of intrigue to the piece and prevents it from feeling like a standard tale of self-destructive vengeance, even though it certainly contains several elements of that. Gibson plays this version of the character well, even with his meekly unconvincing accent and dodgy bleached bowl cut, but you do get a sense that his incessant whining isn't meant to be done at such a high volume. Still, it works nicely for what the filmmakers are trying to achieve and goes hand in hand with the stellar work from the supporting cast. Glenn Close portrays the queen in a regal yet emotional way (I really wish she didn't kiss her son on the mouth so damn much though), Ian Holm is scheming yet playful, and Helena Bonham Carter satisfyingly turns from timid to scene-chewing in the blink of an eye. Generally, it's a really good production of the source material. It's somewhat unremarkable, but it does what it needs to and it does it well. The third act, in particular, is a suspenseful and enjoyable sequence with an underlying sense of dread and a lot of dramatic irony (of course, a lot of its success can be attributed to the source story). Although it is hard to settle into the dialogue at first, you do sort of adjust to it as the piece progresses. I do think that there's a legitimate conversation to be had surrounding the necessity of maintaining ye olde language - or, rather, coveting its use - in every Shakespearean adaptation. Call me crazy, but I don't think you should have to closely study a text just to understand it at its most basic level. There's a reason we tend to tell stories with words that are appropriate for their intended audience. At the same time, though, it's important to preserve art from the past. Plus, the writing is undeniably good, even if it takes quite a bit of effort to understand sometimes. You may not like him, but you can't deny Shakespeare's got style. It's not a debate that has an easy answer, although I'm sure some people would chide me for even entertaining the thought that Shakespeare's texts aren't sacred, and the onus to definitively end that debate (or, even, reinvent the wheel) certainly isn't on one filmic adaptation. Ultimately, this is a solid adaptation of a timeless classic that mostly does what's expected of it. It's fairly enjoyable when it gets going. As an aside, I wonder if 'Hamlet' is the first play to include a play within the play? A play within a film isn't anything special and nowadays a film within a film is somewhat par for the course, but imagine how shockingly meta a play within a play would have been back in the day?

Admittedly, the only reason I watched this film -- since it's been about a decade since it was released -- was because of Ian Holm; I was intrigued to see his portrayal of my second-favorite character in this play. At any rate, this film is as gritty as anything the Old Zeff has produced since "Jesus of Nazareth." But some of the best parts of the play have been left out. I understand the directing/editing choices, but I don't think that it really does justice to the play. Perhaps I'm too much a purist. I would have to direct people (who have read this far) toward Branagh's version, if it weren't that I despise his tendency toward over-dramatization. All the same, he plays a better Hamlet than Gibson. But then, weren't we all waiting for Gibson to prove himself as an actor? Now, all he's done is to prove that he wants to make films in extinct languages.

...Perhaps the only Shakespearean-worthy acting here is Scofield as The Ghost.

I love this movie, Mel Gibson's performance was Oscar worthy by far one of his best next to Braveheart! I haven't seen very many versions of the classic Shakespeare's play, but two. But this one surpassed the other one by far ! This is my daughters take on this movie.I have seen every one of the older versions of this play.And I can honestly say that his performance is just as good,as the men that portrayed this crazy prince in the past.Mel really made me believe that he was a mad man.He me feel sorry for him and mad at the next.If Shakespeare were alive to see him,in this play he would of loved it as much as I did. Glen Close, was great in this movie;she truly made me think that she too had gone mad.

This is a pretty good scaled down version of Hamlet but please don't even mention this version in the same breath as the Kenneth Branagh version. They are really two different animals. The Zeffirelli version is a great example of the pervasiveness of short attention spans and the superfluous need to edit the greatest playwright of all time. Branagh's version tells the whole story in the absolute and exquisite language chosen by the Bard. One note to those out there who think Shakespeare is wordy and tedious: try writing the same situations the Bard wrote, your version won't hold a candle!!

Well, to each his own, but I thought Gibson's Hamlet was the most god-awful rendition I had ever witnessed... as subtly nuanced as a paper bag, and as inspired as a telemarketing call. The only reason I watched the movie through to the end was that I held out hope that either it would get better or become unintentionally funny. No luck.

No disrespect for the supporting cast or for Zefferelli's staging, but nothing can make up for the bungling of the main character. I have seen Hamlet well-portrayed as an African prince, as an animated lion, as a rough-and-tumble warrior, as a romantic poet, etc. etc. etc. . But IMHO this portrayal was just a plentiful lack of wit together with most weak hams.

I have to admit I really like this film. Zefferelli is an unappreciated master: he knows how to stage a crowd (essential to his Romeo and Juliet), and move people; how to frame and light a sequence so it flows. He has a fine sense of color and its movement. Moreover, this Hamlet has the very best set, and also to my mind the best Gertrude.

What he has done is focus on the story. He's chopped and dropped and rearranged to create a story that makes sense. It moves and moves well from beginning to end. But.

But the problem is that Shakespeare's play is not at all about the story. That's just the skeleton on which some life altering metaphoric structure is built. Now all gone. You'll need Branagh for that, but his story doesn't flow effortlessly as this does.

Result: If you want Hamlet, seek him elsewhere. If you want a similar, masterful piece of filmwork, look here. The language is fittingly conversational not stentorian, so that the players can manage it. Just as well.

Ophelia is very pretty, and in her greatly reduced role does well. Her start-double take-astonishment-puzzlement after the play within the play is a moment which will last in your mind. This is an actress to watch.

Trivia: The incidental Osric here is the wonderful Mercutio in Zefferelli's much earlier Romeo and Juliet around whom the whole play revolves. The First Player (incidental in this version) is the excellent Friar in the other (macho thug MTV) Romeo + Juliet around whom that whole version revolves. Curious.