Yar, you be here: Hamlet > Customer Reviews

Hamlet Customer Reviews (13 - 15 of 46 Reviews)

Suprisingly excellent
With casting Mel Gibson as lead, this film was always going to attract a type of movie goer that would probably not normally see a Shakespeare production. Hence it's no suprise that we don't have 100% theatrical authenticity here, it is perhaps (or was at the time) a suprise to see just how good Gibson's performance is. Intense and broody, it manages to convey the confusion of a mind being torn apart by fate in a way that is more convincing and watchable than Branagh's. The whole film is entertaining while still managing to bring something new to the much feasted upon Shakespearean table, just what every film adaptation of the bard's works should try to do.

Shakespeare badly served
First, let me clarify that I like Mel Gibson as an actor, even sometimes as a director. Also, let me say that Franco Zefferelli has a very fine eye for color and composition, fine enough to make all his films interesting to look at. However, the problems of this film are many-fold, so many that in spite of its being pleasant to look at, it is unpleasant to watch and hear. The biggest problem is the director's lack of depth. Viewing this movie, I have the distinct impression that Zefferilli's first thoughts were about the length of the picture (keeping it from exceeding "two hours traffic") and making interesting-looking pictures. This surface-oriented approach to Shakespeare indicates that the director placed little emphasis or mad nearly no effort at what constitutes the heart of his work: Making the most of the language.

Among other errors, Zefferelli makes unfortunate cuts and emendations. For example, he guts much of Claudius's soliloquy in the prayre scene, leaving the character almost a stock villain (this in spite of an excellent actor, Alan Bates, in the role). He also seems to be unconcerned with temporal logic: Hamlet and Laertes cannot duel properly with bated or unbated rapiers because of the medieval setting. It is absurd that they use broad swords in the dual scene, which are meant to hack, rather than stab, leaving the whole point of the unbaited and poisoned tip of the foil. The medieval story always, in Shakespeare, has to be consistent with the Elizabethan context in which it was composed.

Finally, Mel Gibson, ordinarily a fine film actor, is hung out to dry and unable to negotiate this, the most challenging male role in English theatre, alone. He needs a director who is both a deep thinker and who knows how to challenge his actors to find the spine of their character and bring it to the surface (remember that actors spend a lot of time "emoting" and that the word 'emotion'literally means 'out-motion'). Zefferelli just didn't (or couldn't) make his actors dive deeply enough into the characters to move them out - especially not THIS character. And Mel Gibson is an actor who needs a very different type of director for this kind of role.

I give the film its two stars, however, for a couple of reasons: First, the supporting cast has two gems in it -- Helena Bonham-Carter is, in spite of some very odd choices from her director, a wonderful Ophelia, and Ian Holm is one of the very best Poloniuses I have ever seen. Second, as bad as this film is, it is far less painful than Kenneth Brannagh's so-called "uncut" Hamlet.

Perfectly dreadful
I give this film version of Hamlet one star only, and that is for the Paul Scofield's terrific ghost, which is perhaps emblematic of the several smaller roles taken in this production by superb Shakespearean actors of British backgrounds.

Such performances notwithstanding, the film is, quite simply, dreadful, and more in the vein of high melodrama than high tragedy. Gibson is altogether unable to convey anything of Hamlet's complexity. Why are mediocre actors applauded for their "vitality", when the results are this, well, mediocre? And given her abundant gifts as an actor, Close is especially disappointing as Gertrude. The problem here may be partly interpretation, and hence the responsibility of Zeffirelli.

In fact, it is Zeffirelli who surprises me most of all with this mess, as he has been responsible for several fine renditions of the Bard's plays, not the least of which was his Romeo and Juliet.

One is much better off going to any of number of other cinematic Hamlets, begining with Olivier's magnificent 1948 assumption. And if the objective is to appeal to a mainstream audience, why not turn to Almereyda's 2000 film, set in New York City? For all of its eccentricity, that film, contains some interesting performances, and on the whole, possesses the tragic quality that a good Hamlet should.

Previous Page

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

Next Page