Yar, you be here: Hamlet > Customer Reviews

Hamlet Customer Reviews (40 - 42 of 46 Reviews)

Mel IS Hamlet!
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).

Pure cinema
Alfred Hitchcock believed in the power of pure cinema: "Pictures without words." This is opposed to what he called "pictures of people talking." Now the theatre is the theatre, and film should be film. And this is what I like about Director Zeffirelli's film. It is still overwhelmingly Shakespeare, but as an artist, Zeffirelli takes some liscense. He makes the work his own, knowing what is better for the theatre and what is better for film. The other major film of "Hamlet," in contrast, is too long. It is, I think, a word-for-word adaptation, something that belongs in the theatre.

Mel Gibson's interpretation of the character Hamlet is absolutely brilliant. He spares us a cliché performance of a meek, painfully-introverted Hamlet. In a revisionist interpretaion, Gibson shows that he is more than just a blood-and-guts "Lethal Weapon" junkie. There is lots of forward motion to the characterization. Gibson swings between the quiet thinker and the manic warrior, but with a personality that is unique. The scenes that are especially notable are: Chasing his father's ghost, the explosive and hypnotic bedroom scene with his mother (not to be missed!), the play, Ophelia's funeral, and the closing scene.

Glenn Close is excellent as Hamlet's mother and the queen, and Helena Bonham-Carter does a great job portraying Ophelia, from innocence to madness. It has been suggested that Ophelia's decent into madness is too sudden. I disagree. I think that Director Zeffirelli's purpose for this was precisely to give the plot a certain unevenness that generates aesthetic tension in the film. Any other cuts or switches made were minor or unnoticable, to me at least. The poetry, music, and filmic lyricism of the powerful closing shots are unforgettable.

For the record, the film is 135 minutes long and was shot entirely on location in the beautiful countryside and castles of rural Britain (Wales, I think).

A Very Respectable Version
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, 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 father, 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.

Previous Page

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

Next Page