Hamlet
|
List Price: Our Price: $4.29 You Save: $10.67 (71%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $3.23 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Hamlet
Movie Review: WHAT A PIECE OF WORK
Summary: 5 Stars
It was about twenty years ago that I turned on my television idly one evening to find that a showing of Hamlet had just started. I was instantly transfixed and not just because this is my favourite play of all plays, but because I was looking at my absolute idea of what a Prince Hamlet should look like. It was another two hours before I found who was in the title role, but throughout that two hours I watched the action and listened to the dialogue and monologues acted and spoken by as perfect a piece of casting as I think I have ever yet seen.
Let me say that I have seen Olivier's Hamlet and I have seen Branagh's Hamlet and that I hugely enjoyed them both. I am not greatly concerned in this notice to weigh up niceties of interpretation and direction, because there are enough subtleties and possibilities in this great play to allow full scope for the individual style of every great actor for another thousand years. The literary criticism trade, profession or industry, though it has not yet talked Hamlet to death, has been trying hard to do that, and I would not like to be, without intending it, the straw that broke that camel's back. What puts this production in a class of its own for me is simply that for me Gibson IS Hamlet whereas Olivier and Branagh are acting Hamlet, albeit superbly. The blond fringe and the smallish physique are right for a start, in my mind. Then there is the understated style, the diction quiet, the mood brooding and smouldering. That is my idea of how to do the great soliloquies, not declaiming them, and when the repressed tension is abruptly released as, say, when Hamlet runs his sword through the arras, the contrast is all the more effective and does not require histrionics. Does Olivier perhaps over-act a bit? To my way of thinking he nearly always does, and in Hamlet his final `then venom to thy weh-eh-eh-eh-eh-rk!' definitely goes over the top even if nothing else does.
The supporting cast have won high praise, and I shall join in that too. Perhaps no other play by Shakespeare, unless maybe Coriolanus, is quite so dominated by its lead role as is Hamlet. Nevertheless the best Hamlet in the world could be undone if Claudius or Gertrude or Polonius or Ophelia or Laertes were not up to scratch, whereas if he has the kind of `support' provided here a performance that is already superb seems better than ever. One feature of the production, attributable to both the acting and the directing, struck me forcibly this time in a way it had not struck me before, and it relates to the character of Claudius. Up until the play-within-the-play his sang-froid is remarkable considering the primal crime he has committed, and even though his guilty conscience comes to the surface in the chapel, he carries his burden lightly, to all appearances. The play-within drives him to further desperate stratagems, but what came across to me was just how cool and inventive he remained. He tries to have Hamlet executed in England, and when that fails he arranges for not one but two types of poison to ensure the outcome of Hamlet's duel. Most strikingly of all, when Gertrude drinks the poisoned goblet he still controls his reaction to avoid giving himself away. Iago impressed Goethe enough to serve as the prototype of Goethe's Mephistopheles, but Iago's actions were small beer compared with this, and his planning was nowhere near as clever. Iago has had more attention from the commentators because he shares more of the limelight, but at the end of Othello he runs away as if Shakespeare did not even think him worth killing. Claudius may have deserved everything that Hamlet called him, but his defects did not include lack of quick thinking or want of nerve.
The production, but for the fact that this is a slightly abridged Hamlet, suits me admirably. The camera work and lighting are superb, and there are some excellent little vignettes, such as the terror of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern being brought to their executioner. In keeping with Gibson's reading of the title role, the `effects' are less highlighted here than from Branagh, and much less than from Olivier. The ghost is not melodramatic, and significantly the background music is kept within bounds of tolerance. It is a sad pity that William Walton, whose music accompanies the Olivier production, had on the one hand exceptional talent for such music but lacked the experience to know when he was overdoing things. I did not manage to spot what castle was used. It may have been in Scotland, and certainly the scene at the graveside could almost have been from Braveheart. As some will know, the real castle of the real Amled does not beetle o'er any crags, and the Bard's Elsinore is much more imposing than real-life Helsingor, but the Bard's is the concept that we need, and it is what we are offered.
Right at the start we are told that what we are about to see is `based on the play by William Shakespeare'. There are no major liberties, and what we are given is a bit of an abridgement. Hamlet is not a tightly-plotted drama, and I am not unduly upset by what Zeffirelli has done. The opening scene with the night-watchmen is skipped, and at the end Fortinbras is dispensed with. Neither of these acts of pruning bothered me, although I regretted the loss of occasional bits of dialogue from this most quotation-replete of plays. Of all plays that I have ever seen or read it remains my favourite, indeed this production reinforces its primacy. I can't say, as Mr Clive James has said, that it is the best play in the world because I don't know all the plays in the world, but surely it must be a candidate for that honour.
Movie Review: First, Sir Laurence Olivier. Then, Franco Zeffirelli.
Summary: 5 Stars
When Director Franco Zeffirelli is at the director's helm, the results are nothing short of phenomenal. Along with the Sir Laurence Oliver version, this is the one I watch the most. As usual, Franco Zeffirelli adds his phenomenal, but dignified scenery, his music that flatters the content, and a great cast that actually become the characters. For those of you who don't know the story, it revolves around Hamlet. I really don't like Mel Gibson, but there is no denying the fact that he handles the role of Hamlet very well. (His sorrow, his contemplation, his sudden rages, his seeming madness, etc.) He suspects his uncle Claudius murdered his brother (Hamlet's father) to steal the crown and the elder Hamlet's widow. His beliefs are confirmed when he meets the ghost of his father who tells that story. (The ghost by the way is portrayed phenomenally by Paul Scofield who portrays human sorrow and dignity.) However, Hamlet can not just kill Claudius. (He has no evidence, and Claudius is an EFFECTIVE AND LIKABLE king. The murder of Claudius will not be accepted on some ghost story.) We also meet the bumbling, but good hearted Polonius played well by Ian Holm. His son Laertes is played well by Parker. (Parker has Laertes's love for his father and sister down as well as his sudden rages.) Helena Boham Carter gives beauty and dignity to Ophelia. Glenn Close does a fairly good job as Hamlet's mother. A big extra kudos goes to Alan Bates for his phenomenal portrayal of Claudius. This is a complex character that many people don't fully understand. He is the villain who murdered his brother and stole the crown. But like Macbeth, he DOES have a conscience, and he does feel sorrow and regret. (Richard III could have easily sat through a play of what he had done without even flinching! Claudius IS NOT that sort of person!) He is also a good king except for what he did to get the crown. (He is especially likable when he quells Laertes's raid with pure courage and intelligence. And he IS being honest when he says he was guiltless of Polonius's death!) As Hamlet begins plotting his moves, even at the point of appearing mad, Claudius is NOT fooled. He sees the madness exactly for what it is. (An element in a plot against him.) Except for Hamlet, Claudius is by far the most intelligent character in the story, and just as Hamlet is waiting for his chance, Claudius is waiting for his chance. (But he can't just kill Hamlet either. Like himself, Hamlet is too well liked.) So, it is a race as to whether Hamlet can prove that Claudius killed the elder Hamlet or if Claudius can prove that Hamlet is plotting treason first. To be sure, this movie cuts a little under 2 hours from this 4 hour play. But Director Franco Zeffirelli was really careful about what he deleted. (Even the Sir Laurence Olivier version was 2 hours and change.) But despite the missing material, nothing is obviously missing. In fact, it would seem that rather than trying to memorize 4 hours of script, the actors concentrated on what was essential, and they BECAME the characters for 2 hours. Whether it is Hamlet, Claudius, The Ghost of Hamlet's Father, Gertrude, Polonius, Laertes, Ophelia, Horatio, Guildenstern, Rosencratz, the players, or even the grave digger, can any one person be accused of not having the role down? In all honesty, there is not a dull moment in this production. Finally, to Director Franco Zeffirelli's credit, he juggled the scenes around to make more sense. (One example is that he deletes the first scene with the ghost of Hamlet's father. We just see his funeral. This makes it all the more frightening when Hamlet's friends tell him that they have seen his father.) Overall, this follows Sir Laurence Olivier's "Hamlet" very well. The dvd has 2 nice extras. (A brief interview with Mel Gibson and his role as Hamlet, and a series of photo journals while the movie was being made.)Movie Review: College Student
Summary: 5 Stars
I both read the play as well as watched the movie version of it with Mel Gibson. I found that the movie was easier to follow yet the book covered more detail. I noticed this especially during the part where Ophelia has lost her father at her lover's hand and has now gone mad from the pain of it all. My 16 year old son watched it with me and found this part to be extremely humorous. While it is a revenge tragedy, the way they showed it had a comical effect during different parts. While finding it sad that she had lost her mind, he couldn't help but giggle when Ophelia runs her hand down the front of the guard and he does little to protest what she is doing. It's good that another guard comes along to escort the "Lady" inside the castle where she confronts the Queen next. Helen Bonham-Carter did a very good job playing Ophelia in all her nuances.
Hamlet returns to find Ophelia too late to save her from her madness and finds himself in a duel with her brother Laertes because of having killed their father Polonius by accident. During the course of time that he tried to find a way to deal with his promise to his ghostly father, he makes some bad choices in his life. Perhaps if he had dealt with his Uncle when he first learns he killed his father, it would have saved a lot of other people's lives, including his own mother's life. However, he didn't have any proof to be able to do that in the beginning.
The scene where Claudius was praying and Hamlet refrained...Hamlet knew his father was in torment because he was killed with "all his sins on his head" he was spending time in hell during the day and walking through the castle "for a time" during the nights. He wasn't allowed to say any details of his torment but we can tell it must be horriffic.
With Claudius praying at the time that Hamlet had an opportunity to kill him, he stopped because he knew it would serve no justice as Claudius would not be dying with his sins on his head as his father had. The more I understand this story, the more I see the intelligence Hamlet had in the choices and actions he portrayed.
His idea to use the players to re-enact the scene was inspiring to say the least. If he held any doubts that he had imagined the entire scene with his father talking to him after his death, they were put to rest after seeing his uncle's reaction to the play. After Hamlet's hesitation in taking action against his uncle, he had no trouble taking his life after his mother Gertrude died from the poison his uncle had meant for him. The final scene is truly tragic when it doesn't end with the "bad guy" losing and the "good guy" winning. In this revenge tragedy, not only does the uncle die in the end, but also Hamlet, his mother, and Ophelia's brother Laertes.
Where the movie ends, the book continues. Hamlet's last words to Horatio in the movie, "the rest is silence" yet the book show the rest that was written where the English Ambassadors arrived too late. Hamlet is seen as royalty in all its colors and the word is to spread for all to know. I wondered at the end, who took over once the family was all dead?
I actually watched this movie three times. The first time it was catch as catch can as far as understanding everything, the second time was easier with the sub-titles, the third time was pure enjoyment since I really understood it and could sit back and enjoy the full impact. I always shyed away from these types of movies before but after this one I have now ordered a few more. Mel Gibson did an excellent job here, it was no easy task, but he did it with flying colors.
Movie Review: Once and Future Hamlet
Summary: 5 Stars
Brilliant is an often overworked phrase, but in the case of *Hamlet* starring Mel Gibson, the word cannot be used enough. For brevity's sake, I will save Zeffirelli's cudos for another time and place except to say that he has done a good thing. This review is for Chris Devore and his beautiful working and dramturgy of the more than difficult Shakespeare script. Devore somehow makes it better. Were he in London, late 1500's, he would have been a collaborator, making Will's work the pearl it is today. My only plea is that, at some date, we will get to see Gibson give the advice to the players which was omitted so that other pieces could be spared.
This may have been Glenn Close's best work. This is not a complaint, but rather a sign that anyting else she may have or has done cannot be any better than this wonderful, small role. Ophelia (Close) has an important commentary that must be heard in order for the play to work - Will was no fool - and it needs a Close to do it.
Alan Bates has been a staple of English theatre and screen and has delivered many fine parts (such as Gabriel Oaks in *Far From the Madding Crowd*, 1967). As Claudius, the regicide and brother of Hamlet, Senior, Bates makes you believe that his reign could have been noble except for that one small cancer, that flaw in his character - very clintonian and very believable.
I have wanted to kick Ian Holm's ever since Ash hurt Ripley in *Alien*, 1979. I have to keep reminding myself that he really is that believable and that I really don't hate him, It's the character he has created so well. His body of work is repleat with characters of such believability that you forget his name - IAN HOLM - until he does it again, the next time, in the next movie. If films were strictly Hasidic, Holm's version of Polonius would be Kosher. There is not one piece of ham in his entire performance. It is worth the purchase of the DVD just to see him act.
Everyone is good in the movie and there is not time to talk about all of them. But a note to those whose noses are airbourne and won't tolerate anyone but Olivier as Hamlet. There are several uneven performances in his excellent movie. There are no uneven performances in this piece.
Finally, we come to the mad prince of Denmark. It is most astonishing that I watched this epic again after Mel's dark night of the troll, thrashing about in complete insanity, arguably brought on by hard likker, frustration, and stupidity. Yet with all said, Gibson IS the essential Hamlet. You will find no other actor who delivers the goods the way the Cruiser from the Boozer does.
You know this is true, not just by watching the exquisite performance on the DVD, but by Gibson's own marvelling at what was accomplished, not because of some actor's raison d'etre, but rather by the actor's very ability to understand that he is dealing with things that go beyond the ken of normal humans. IS Hamlet crazy, or crazy like a fox? And when is he crazy we get to hear Mel say in the devastating interview he made for the DVD release many years gone by.
So, enough from me.
If you want to see the best Hamlet ever, buy this DVD and feast.
- Dick Anderson
Movie Review: A worthy depiction
Summary: 5 Stars
Throughout cinematic history many gifted people have made many splendid versions of what is one of Shakespear's most spirited and acclaimed stories of all time. They have come and gone, but this is one that should remain for all times never to be forgotten. Definitely my favorite, it seems so much more alive than other versions and lets face it, with an actor so live as Mel Gibson at the helm, its bound to be.
Gibson slips immaculately, if not effortlessly into the shoes of this hard-to-fill character previously portrayed by so many other fine actors. But in doing so, he brings something new to the theatrical table set forth here by Franco Zeffirelli (The Taming of the Shrew). It is practicalism. Gibson does not selfishly attempt to play Hamlet in his own way as some have, but instead prefers to keep things deeply theatrical and classic as well as practical for all those watching. In the 'actor's journey' included in the special features leaf, we witness Gibson's painstaking and dedicated efforts to keep the character accurately real through constant research and repetition of the lines. We get to see a master at work. Mel Gibson sacrifices nothing and yet adds everything to the renowned character, and does it with a truly wonderful supporting cast.
Glenn Close is Hamlet's mother, Gertrude, while Alan Bates portrayes Hamlet's Uncle Claudius. Both are superb in their skills and fill their respective roles wonderfully, but the two roles that really captured my attention were Ian Holm as the meddlesome Polonius, and Helena Bonham-Carter as our frail and lovely Ophelia. As a viewer I have always been partial to Holm in any role. To me he seems to be one of the lesser known geniuses of his craft, and that evaluation is in no way lessened by his work here (for those of you unfamiliar with his name you might remember him from his most recent role as 'Bilbo' in Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy). He's been around for ages and seems to be at the peak of his acting abilities in this work, moving effortlessly over the unceasing and complicated structure of Shakespear's lines and phrases. As for Helena Bonham-Carter, no one could have been better to portray the ill-fated Ophelia in saneness or madness. She also posesses one of those unique, other-worldly kind of faces that just seems to gel for this role. Paul Scofield returns to familiar work in William Shakespear's plays as the dead ghost of Hamlet's father. Top all of this off with music scored by the legendary Ennio Morricone (who was recently honored with lifetime achievement at the Academy Awards) and you've got yourself a depiction of a story that can't go wrong!
The movie runs 135 minutes long and is accompanied by a making-of documentary by Mel Gibson, "To Be or Not to Be". It also comes with the original theatrical trailer and the movie itself is viewable through English, French or Spanish subtitles. And be sure to buy the widescreen version for better viewing.
This movie is produced with the upmost dilligence, and most superb effort from actors, writers, designers, musicians and director alike. The most wonderful and practical version of "Hamlet" on the market. You'll see what I mean.