Yar, you be here: Hamlet > Customer Reviews

Hamlet Customer Reviews (34 - 36 of 46 Reviews)

Hamlet Lite, perhaps, still, a fine film
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.

Hamlet Cliff Notes
On the positive side, Mel Gibson looks and moves like a soldier, which of course is Hamlet's profession. This is probably the most athletic Hamlet you are likely to see. The film is also very good in it's setting; a genuinely dark, brooding, primitive castle. Quite accurate, given the historical setting of the Hamlet legend.
Unfortunely, the editors cut so much from the play that whole, important themes, themes that speak towards the very nature of a given character (especially Hamlet himself), are absent. Even a very important solliliquiy (sp?) of Hamlet's is cut("My thoughts be bloody, or none else").
Now, I realize that most productions of Hamlet have cuts; this was true even in Shakespeare's time. However, the slash-and-burn type cuts in this Hamlet leave out far too much that contributes to a good understanding of both the main character and important secondary characters.That's why this is not a good Hamlet. Try Kenneth Branagh's version.

"Madness in great ones must not unwatched go."
4.5 stars. First off, the look of this version is superb. The costumes are excellent and the set design is oftentimes awesome. There are also location shots that have stunning scenery with gorgeous landscapes. This is a tightened version of the famous play, clocking in at a mere 2hr.15min., but it still holds the heart of the play intact. This is "Hamlet" for the masses, lean and hungry, and without the bloated length of the entire play. As for the acting, there are some notable performances and there are some question marks. Mel Gibson portrays the title character. This was a great surprise back in 1990 to see an Action Film hero challenge himself as an actor. His performance may not be altogether perfect, but it is heartfelt, energetic, and loaded with enthusiasm. Alan Bates plays the King, and while he has no standout scenes, his performance is solid overall: subtle and villainous. Paul Scofield plays the ghost of Hamlet's father, and while he looks a little too lifelike to be considered an "apparition," his scenes are portrayed admirably. Glenn Close is Gertrude, the Queen of Denmark. She has two incredible scenes and holds her own throughout. One of her best and chilling scenes is when she realizes she has been poisoned and looks wide-eyed toward the King with disbelief and horror. What a moment! While many citics wrote that she was too young to be the mother of Hamlet, this minor note is easy to forget once the play is under way. The single greatest performance here belongs to Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia. This is quite possibly the perfect portrayal of the character ever brought to the screen. I won't point out scenes here because her entire performance is outstanding. One of my question marks in the film has to do with the character of Laertes played by Nathaniel Parker. He just doesn't make me believe at any point that he is out for vengeance for either his father's murder or the madness and eventual demise of his sister Ophelia. He instead comes across more like a grinning villain than a son on the edge of exploding with rage. This disappointment comes late in the film, and while it is a key element to the strength of the plot, it doesn't ruin the movie; the movie ends before the plot has a chance to unravel. Another questionable scene is at Ophelia's funeral where the Queen(Glenn Close) is the only one weeping? I was wondering after the scene if anyone really missed Ophelia. Both Hamlet(Mel Gibson) and Laertes(Nathaniel Parker) say as much, but their lack of visceral emotion left me unconvinced. The last criticism is that the final sword fight between Laertes and Hamlet "looks" choreographed: turn, steel-on-steel, duck, turn, repeat, etc. I just waited for the inevitable to happen after all their sword-play was overwith. All these criticsms aside, this is still a worthy rendition of the heralded tragedy. There are many fine moments to be seen and heard here, not the least of which is Mel Gibson pushing himself to become a great actor as well as an international movie-star. All in all, this film is recommended viewing for any who enjoy Shakespear's beloved play.

Previous Page

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Next Page