Hamlet (1991)

→ in
Tools    





This was my first time ever to see the movie Hamlet. I had just finished reading the play in my senior english class and for 1 of our projects we had to write a movie review and post it on a website..I enjoyed the movie more than I did the play.I believe that everyone should see the movie too.The rating is PG and it is 135 min. long.
Franco Ziffirelli was the director for this great film. The role of Hamlet was played by the famous Mel Gibson who is known for his many other star roles. The movie begins as the Court and Hamlet attends his fathers funeral. Shortly after the funeral a ghost comes to give Hamlet very inmportant information on how his father died. For what this ghost would tell him would change the way he lived his life until the end.
The movie was taped in a old world setting that fit the script. Here sets a gigantic castle high above the sea. The characters blended in well with the perfect setting.
A few alterations were done in this movie. In the movie Hamlet said " To be or not to be that is the question" before he became angry at Ophelia. In the play he said it after.In the end of the play Fortinbras was there to become king, but in the movie he was not in the cast.
The cast of the movie was great. Each one of them played their role as if they were that person. They had every thing down like the voices,actions and mood.
Hamlet is a wonderful play but a better film. The film shows how one thing can change the way you live your life until you die. It is a film you can watch over and over again and you will learn something new everytime.
__________________
Christopher Waugh



This is like, what, the worst movie ever made?? Jesus, what the hell were these people thinking?

Ok, so Hamlet's all about making a decision, right? In this version, we don't even see it happen! F this movie!



Worst movie ever made? I wouldn't go quite so far. I saw it when I was much younger, and despite the extreme boredom someone that age would be apt to feel, I still enjoyed it. I wasn't comparing it to the play, however...I was letting it stand on it's own.



The Zeffirelli Hamlet (1990) with Mel Gibson is a pretty horrid little turd. It's Shakespeare for people who don't read Shakespeare. I have absolutely no use for it.

Now Ken Branagh's version in '96, THAT is fu*kin' brilliant.
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



Now With Moveable Parts
Yeah...it WAS great. Holden, did you see his, Much Ado About Nothing?



Now With Moveable Parts
Originally posted by TWTCommish
I'd hope so...it was a LOT of fun. The '96 one bugged me, though. Kenny looked RIDICULOUS.
Well, ridiculous or not, the man does GREAT Shakespere.



Commish, you didn't like Kenneth Branagh with blonde hair so it bugged you and lessened your enjoyment of the best Shakespeare adaptation ever mounted for the screen?

That makes perfect sense.


Hamlet was downright AMAZING on the big screen, especially if you lived near a theater outfitted with a 70mm projector. Breathtaking stuff.



Oh, the ever-present sarcasm rears it's head again. Yes, it bugged me. An interesting story with a ridiculous looking lead character bugs me...it bugs me that they thought enough to adapt such a story to film, yet didn't seem to care if the titular character looked like a moron. Damn straight it makes perfect sense.



I didn't think he looked at all ridiculous or moronic.

But then, you obviously didn't think that huge wig looked ridiculous on Mel Gibson in Braveheart, and I get a chuckle just thinking about it. Didn't ruin the movie for me, as I found it to be a rather weak epic anyway.

I can't think of any movie I thought was excellent other than one wardrobe or hairstyle decision that distracted me, but different strokes! As I said before, it makes perfect sense.



Now With Moveable Parts
Originally posted by Holden Pike
But then, you obviously didn't think that huge wig looked ridiculous on Mel Gibson in Braveheart, and I get a chuckle just thinking about it. Didn't ruin the movie for me, as I found it to be a rather weak epic anyway.

Oh my dear God...forgive him, as he knows not what he says...



I'm with Holden on this one with his Braveheart comment sorry sadesdrk but I didn't like it and for Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet I thought it rock Alex Thomson is one of those great lighting cinematographer that came out of England with so many other great cinematographer's (Nick Roeg , David Watkin , Geoffrey Unsworth ) these guys were all extreme lighting cameraman there's no wonder why they call themself's that in England instead of Director of Photography like they do in America plus there's ton's more greats.



Now With Moveable Parts
Originally posted by L .B . Jeffries
I'm with Holden on this one with his Braveheart comment sorry sadesdrk but I didn't like it
That's not telling me anything. You got a bag of "why's" somewhere you can pull out and enlighten me with ?



I don't know what Jeffries' reasons are, but I'm perfectly happy to share some of mine (ain't you all a quiver in anticipation?)...


Compared to a real epic made by a brilliant, visionary filmmaker, Braveheart looks like kindergarten time. If you can watch Lawrence of Arabia and Braveheart and honestly say Mel Gibson's pic is the better movie, more power to you. Me, I'll take David Lean every single time.

I found the characters in Braveheart to be cardboard, the love story was soap-operatic cheese, the ending was laughable, and even the battle sequences were nothing new. The battle stuff is good enough by itself, but Orson Welles achieved as much in the '60s on zero budget in Chimes at Midnight (aka Falstaff).

Considering Braveheart was released the same year as SE7EN, 12 Monkeys, The Usual Suspects, The City of Lost Children, Casino, Get Shorty, To Die For, Smoke, Blue in the Face, Heat, and Apollo 13, I didn't think it was even one of the twenty best films of the year.


But I accept I'm in the minority on this one. I know this is a beloved movie by many. Big frippin' deal. I happen to find it terribly overrated. As always, you are perfectly free to disagree. But I feel I need no forgiveness from God for my opinion (what with Free Will and all). Thanks for the thought, though.



O.K. for one it doesn't pay any attention to the really history they make him out to be this [email protected] hero which he wasn't he was a bad guy just like the english but they make them look like there the good guys there was no good guys there were all asses it's P.C. ( politically correct ) at it's worst also the acting was very corny dramatic and another think at over 3 hours it's a bit over done and the not so swift script acts like a weapon against itself and brings down anything else the movie had that was good especially the production design & costume design.



I'm sorry LBJ, but that's just not true. Wallace was, as he says in the movie, "a savage," but he did nothing more than fight back against oppression. I for one think some brutal techniques are warranted when you're trying to free your country from such things. Compared to what we usually see out of Hollywood, this movie is AMAZINGLY true to what actually happened. One of the main reasons I admire it so much...it's an amazing story that, despite some flaws in the translation, simply makes for a fantastic, emotional story...especially if you remind yourself that it pretty much did happen.

I can't think of any movie I thought was excellent other than one wardrobe or hairstyle decision that distracted me, but different strokes! As I said before, it makes perfect sense.
See, I didn't say I thought it was excellent. I saw it years ago, and never since, so I'm not comfortable declaring it as excellent yet.

Cardboard? I'm shocked sh*tless that someone can listen to those rousing speeches, or that cry at the end, and try to tell me it's cardboard. I also don't understand how a mildly fluffy wig (which looked completely believable) can be considered ridiculously, yet Eminem's cousin with a stereotypical villainous mustache playing Hamlet is a-okay. Mind if I borrow a line? Makes perfect sense (you'll really have to clarify whether or not you're being sarcastic. If you repeat such a phrase enough times, it gets confusing).

Sometimes real life is cornier than fiction, LBJ.



Now With Moveable Parts
Originally posted by Holden Pike


I found the characters in Braveheart to be cardboard, the love story was soap-operatic cheese, the ending was laughable, and even the battle sequences were nothing new. The battle stuff is good enough by itself, but Orson Welles achieved as much in the '60s on zero budget in Chimes at Midnight (aka Falstaff).

Considering Braveheart was released the same year as SE7EN, 12 Monkeys, The Usual Suspects, The City of Lost Children, Casino, Get Shorty, To Die For, Smoke, Blue in the Face, Heat, and Apollo 13, I didn't think it was even one of the twenty best films of the year.


Holden, you're one of those people that are so steeped in old movie tradition, that you can't see the greatness of newer movies by comparison.
If you thought Smoke, Apollo 13 and 12 Monkeys, were better movies than Braveheart, then that's your sad and lonely opinion.
The ending was laughable eh? I can assure you that you were the only one laughing in a theater full of weeping, emotional people.
I'm not going to waste a lot of breath on this...because you already sold my point when you said it was beloved by most people. That's because it's a brilliant piece of work.



Concerning the ending: it depends on what Mr. Pike is referring to.

WARNING: "Braveheart" spoilers below
If he's referring to Mel Gibson's death, then I must completely disagree. I thought it was very well done. If he's referring to the "they won their freedom" line at the end, then I partially agree: it could've been better. They could've cut down on certain parts of the movie early on, and giving us a proper ending battle, or something with more closure. I wouldn't call the ending a bad one, though.



Now With Moveable Parts
how come when someone posts those spoiler tags...I don't see anything but the warning?