Hamlet (1991)

You have to drag your mouse over the text below to see it. I'm working on a way to automate this task for you by clicking a link, but it's still buggy.

I thought the ending was fine. I have the tapes ( before I bought a DVD player) and I always watch the first one, and not the second one...because it's too emotional. You'd have to be made of stone to not react.

because a character says I'm a Savage doesn't mean it. They don't go to far in making him look like a savage saying something doesn't mean it is considering how bad they made the English look they didn't do the same with the scottish. That's all I'm trying to say.

If you don't think they made him look like a hero in the movie then we must have watch different movies or different cuts.

I'm just wondering have you seen anything on the true Wallace like A&E or anything else on him all they did was give it the HOLLYWOOD treatment. they got hold of a great Character in real history and twisted and turned it into something it wasn't.

When has Hollywood NOT done that. That's no reason to not like the movie. What would satisfy you? A total ugly guy to play wallace, cause he's no door prize in real life ya know.

No that's not it they could use the most beautful guy for the part give him a clean shave and not were a wig what I'm trying to say is the fact that they paid little attention to the real history they made it all about Wallace's character and basically put a Spartacus storyline like free my people instead of free the slaves it wasn't his people that's just silly there were some many more people invloved that were just as important as him.
________
Wellbutrin problems

What you said doesn't even make sense! What are you driving at?

Could you tell me what doesn't make sense about it the whole or some parts cause I just read it and it made sense to me I thought.

You ask me what would satisfy me and I told you that the way a person looks didn't matter and then I preceided to tell you what matter to me the fact that they didn't pay attention to the real history and they made him look like this gaint of a man which I don't think he was.

I'm just frustrated with your sense of false history. Hollywood will never produce an accurate representation of the facts. Know why? Because sometimes, the facts are boring.

You know your right to some extent with what you said but there was so much brutality and war blood shed and all that other good syuff that really happened I thought it would make for a more intresting story.

I didn't like it you did that's appeartent your defending it rightfully so but that's really what it comes down too I'm not trying to get you not to like it I'm glad that you love it.

I hope that made sense I'm not that greatest of writer's I tend to say a lot but put it into a couple of sentances sorry about that.
________
Paxil attorney

LBJ: nope, no A&E...I read a bit of G.A. Henty, a now-deceased historian and writer who is famous for doing EXHAUSTIVE research, and then writing fictional books by inserting a young man into the plotline somehow. Wallace was indeed a hero...I'm not denying that. What I'm denying is that they made up all kinds of things to make him look better. It annoyed me that they didn't beat Gibson up more (Wallace was not a pretty boy)...but Gibson, admittedly, gave, IMO, a very good performance.

The facts, in this case, aren't really boring. Wallace was provoked and sparked and uprising. Yes, there were others involved, but this is the story of Wallace...that's what the movie is about. William Wallace...that's why, even though the war went on after his dead in real life, in the movie, they end it shortly afterwards.

Wallace WAS a hero...a very brave man who did much to free his people. I see no problem with Breaveheart's portrayal of him. And yes, they were "his people;" they were his countrymen.

There's no need to apologize, LBJ, we all have our own tastes in movies, that's why this place is so fun.
There are two movies I get insanely passionate about. Braveheart and American Beauty. I've lost friends in debates over these two films. Sorry if I got a little grouchy...

you might laugh at me but I haven't seen American Beauty yet I don't get around to seeing a lot of the newer stuff that comes out but know that it's in the older movies section, so I think I'll pick it up a tell you what I thought of it. I was renting some stuff on tuesday and I almost picked it up.
________
Bong Pictures

I would love to hear what you thought of it...just so long as it's positive.

Is this thread about Hamlet or Braveheart?

Good question. All I know is I really, really want to rename this thread "Hamheart."

This is old one. Wow.

"People who don't read Shakespeare" implies that there's a type of "people who do read Shakespeare". The problem is, Shakespeare was always for the layman, and the layman never read Shakespeare. I think the great "use" of this version is precisely how drab and minimal it is, which really forces us, the layman, to the focus on the literary content for once. Not only this, but I think there is a certain amount of historical accuracy, or at least some facsimilous aura of it, in how things are depicted, such as the severely underlit night scenes or the unflattering costumes. I think the play within a play scene for this version stands out quite a lot because of its sparsity. Zeffirelli's alterations of the scene order were never apparent and might actually improve the flow of the story as a whole, and if only for the layman's delight, I think this is most true with the ending, but this is not unique to Zeffirelli. As for Gibson's performance, I think its subdued, patient style fit better with the minimalism of this film than it might have with others, and he does add some unique, humorous flourishes that really bring out the ambiguity of Hamlet's "insanity".

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

Zeferelli's version was okay. Not particularly adventurous, except for the unsubtle Freudian undertones.
Have only seen clips of the 1996 Hamlet but the cinematography/art direction is horrible. All gaudy and...urgh. I also agree with the comment about Kenneth Branagh's hair.

__________________
You cannot have it both ways. A dancer who relies upon the doubtful comforts of human love can never be a great dancer. Never. (The Red Shoes, 1948)

Zeffirelli's not really the most adventurous Shakespeare guy in general, but that's why people like him, no? Yeah, I'm not sure what there is in particular about the play that suggests garish art design, but it was done again with David Tennant. I did like that version a lot though...

The Tennant one didn't have garish art design. In fact, I thought the art direction for that was well-judged. It was modern but not ridiculously so. It was a great version.

Doesn't garish design become inevitable when a story is told again and again? There'd be no reason to make yet another version of Hamlet, the thinking probably goes, unless you're going to bring something new to the table.