Hamlet Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
Hamlet, son of the king of Denmark, is summoned home for his father's funeral and his mother's wedding to his uncle. In a supernatural episode, he discovers that his uncle, whom he hates anyway, murdered his father. In an incredibly convoluted plot—the most complicated and most interesting in all literature—he manages to (impossible to put this in exact order) feign (or perhaps not to feign) madness, murder the "prime minister," love and then unlove an innocent whom he drives to madness, plot and then unplot against the uncle, direct a play within a play, successfully conspire against the lives of two well-meaning friends, and finally take his revenge on the uncle, but only at the cost of almost every life on stage, including his own and his mother's.
| Peter Bygott | Attendant to Claudius |
| Richard Attenborough | English Ambassador |
| Brian Blessed | Ghost of Hamlet's Father |
| Kenneth Branagh | Hamlet |
| Richard Briers | Polonius |
| Michael Bryant | Priest |
| Julie Christie | Gertrude |
| Billy Crystal | First Gravedigger |
| Charles Daish | Stage Manager |
| Judi Dench | Hecuba |
| Gérard Depardieu | Reynaldo |
| Reece Dinsdale | Guildenstern |
| Ken Dodd | Yorick |
| Kenneth Branagh |
7.70 out of 10 (15777 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Branagh or Shakespeare?
posted on 25 Jun 2009This is one of the greatest performances I ever saw. But is it Shakespeare?Other commentators hint on Shakespeare's intentions. The fact is: there are none. The text (as any Shakespeare text) does not give much more than sparse directions. Most, if not all, is left to the director's fantasy. Is Hamlet a dark brooding character? Shakespeare never said so, nor anything to the contrary. It's all in the performer's mind, the viewer's mind, the reader's mind; in the end, it's all down to interpretation. Over the years, Hamlet has been played as a stubborn ruler-to-be, a worrying youth, a psychological case, and so on. There's no telling what Shakespeare intended, and there's no way, either, to know how he would have it performed.There are no stage directions. Some authors produce more hints than lines, and Shakespeare is not among them. Hamlet is set in Denmark, but it is a Denmark that never existed. It might be a trick, to be able to comment on the actual England, or it might simply be any setting that would do. Again, there's no telling as Shakespeare himself never had anything to write on it (he might have had something to say, but nobody took the trouble to record it). Hence, directors over time were at liberty. And thus, Hamlet was performed at a medieval castle, any contemporary place of power, or simply a stage with nothing more than a few props. Richard Loncraine set Richard III in a would-be pre-war fascist England, and never the worse for the dialogues. We simply don't know what Shakespeare really wanted.What we do know is that Hamlet contains much of everything: philosophy, action, wit, contemplation. So does Branagh's adaptation. There is criticism on the cameos. Actually, it has been suggested that Polonius' line "I did enact Julius Caesar" (act III, scene 2) simply was written for the actor performing as the Roman general in an earlier stage production of the play by that name, as an in-joke for the contemporary public. So much for Shakespeare.Seeing this film, I was never bored, I had laughs, and, actually, was moved at times. Given that the actors kept to the original lines, there are not many plays that could achieve that, in any adaptation. This one did.
One of Branagh's best
posted on 19 Jun 2009Olivier, Kosentsev, Richardson, Coranado, Zefferelli, and Almerayeda have all directed Hamlet but Branagh's the only one who got it right.This is the only film of "Hamlet" that contains the full four hours of William Shakespeare's masterpiece and gives a unique feel to the whole story.Not many directors could pull this off without boring their audience but Branagh's skillful use of bravora film style and stunt casting allows people to see the importance of the scenes that are usually cut out.Examples of this include Gerarde Depardue as Ranyaldo whos entire purpose in the film was to simply say "yes my lord" as Polonius asks him to spy on Leartes. This also included Billy Crystal as the grave digger, Robin Williams as Osric, Jack Lemmon as Marcellous, and Charlton Heston as the actor.Branagh's performance of the Act 4 scene 4 soliloquy (Which again is usually cut out) is nothing short of c cinematic marvel as the camera slowly pulls back as the intensity grows. It is a scene that literally made me want to jump out of my chair and start applauding.Branagh is the only film maker that understood the importance of every scene in this film and knew how to convey that importance to the general audience.This is a must see for everyone who enjoy's good story telling, brilliant acting,and incredible direction. All of these part of William Shakespeares greatest triumph.
Timeless plot, wonderfully executed
posted on 20 May 2009Branagh really pulled out all the stops for this version of Hamlet. Set in what seems to be the mid-19th century, the direction shines through, and the star-studded cast doesn't detract from the intense story. Branagh is by far the best actor here, and overall, the film (despite being extremely long) manages to convey both the plot, and the underlying themes, very clearly and not without sufficient action to give it a feel of continuous movement. Recommended.
Where are the Oscars?
posted on 05 May 2009I went to see Hamlet because I was in between jobs. I figured 4 hours would be great, I've been a fan of Branagh; Dead Again, Henry V. I was completely overwhelmed by the direction, acting, cinematography that this film captured. Like other reviews the 4 hours passes swiftly. Branagh doesn't play Hamlet, he is Hamlet, he was born for this. When I watch this film I'm constantly trying to find faults, I've looked at the goofs and haven't noticed them. How he was able to move the camera in and out of the Hall with all the mirrors is a mystery to me. This movie was shot in 70 mil. It's a shame that Columbia hasn't released a Widescreen version of this on VHS. I own a DVD player, and I'd take this over Titanic any day. So Columbia if you're listening put this film out the way it should be watched! And I don't know what happened at the Oscars. This should have swept Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Direction, best cinematography. What films were they watching? I felt sorry for Branagh at the Oscars when he did a tribute to Shakespeare on the screen. They should have been giving a tribute to Branagh for bringing us one of the greatest films of all time.
"I would have such a fellow whipped for o'erdoing Termagant". Yeah, right!
posted on 20 Apr 2009If Kenneth Branagh were to follow the advice that he himself, in character, so happily proclaims, he'd have no flesh on his back out of self-flagellation. He, overacting as ever, really puts the "Ham" in "Hamlet".His loud, expensive version of the play finds all subtleties and emotions absent from it (with the only exception being uncontrolled wrath), and, while it's true that we must deduce the personality of Shakespeare's characters from the dialogues only, since he left no notes, I suppose we must go for an interpretation that helps the play make sense. Hamlet is and must be, overall, doubtful (or else he'd have killed Claudius at once), and I doubt we'll ever see a more self-confident Hamlet than Branagh. Melancholy Dane? More like "Full-of-himself Dane". Kenneth doesn't declaim, he barks.Also, the update to Edwardian times is rather pointless. The Ghost appearing in a Medieval armor... in the 1900s? Puh-leeze! The very luminous look of the movie doesn't suit with the darkness of the piece, specially if after an ultra-clean luxurious palace you'll have a graveyard that looks straight out of a Z-grade horror movie (I assume, from this version, that the royalty bury their dead in the middle of the forest). The supporting characters not only, for the most part, seem to say their lines without believing them (Branagh was too busy looking at himself in the mirror to bother to direct the rest of the cast), but the overabundance of stars in bit roles makes this one temple fire short of becoming the cousin of "The Greatest Story Ever Told". Gérard Depardieu as Reynaldo? You should not waste a man of his incredible screen presence for a little role you keep expecting to re-appear (he doesn't). Robin Williams? Branagh condemned John Mills, John Gielgud and Judi Dench to non-speaking parts in characters that don't even belong in the play, while giving Robin friggin' Williams a real role? Don't get me started with the unintentionally funny bits like Ophelia in a straitjacket hitting the walls, the very Steven Seagal-ish death of Claudius, and, the worst offender of all, Kenneth's own Scarlett O'Hara moment.Yet for all said, this movie deserves to be watched once for Shakespeare fans. Why? Because, for all its faults, it contains the definitive portrayal of Claudius in the person of the magnificent Derek Jacobi. No one I have seen comes close, even in much superior versions. His Claudius is likable enough to have conquered Gertrud's love (compare this to the versions that play the character as a mustache-twirling stock villain, the worst possible interpretation), while not being overly regal, thus justifying Hamlet's comparison of him and his (Hamlet's) dead father. Jacobi is such a wonderful actor that his Claudius is, by far, the most sympathetic character in the film, while Branagh's overinflated Hamlet made me hate his guts.If you only want to see one Hamlet on screen, skip this one. Yet you're a fan of Shakespeare or Jacobi, give it a try to see Claudius as he should always be. But be warned, it's no good. 4/10(NOTE: This review is of the uncut, almost 4-hour long version).
So good, so long
posted on 05 Apr 2009Brilliantly filmed--a gorgeously opulent fantasy. By and large, the acting is quite good, but guest star turns are extremely variable and ultimately distracting. However, I will insist to my dying day that, when filming Shakespeare, there is no need to capture every single line--even the immortal Bard could've used an editor.
To watch or not to watch
posted on 18 Mar 2009Watch, of course! I always admired Branagh's films but this one is the greatest. We all know the story, we remember the dialogues and we've seen wonderful Laurence Olivier playing Hamlet. But Kenneth's work is brilliant. Now I would like to see his vision of Macbeth. It could be even better than Polanski' Tragedy of Macbeth.
Branagh is brilliant
posted on 16 Feb 2009I thought Olivier's Hamlet was the best. WRONG.. Branagh's portrayal as the doomed prince of Denmark is amazing! Now don't get me wrong, I love Olivier but Branagh was destined to play this part. He is one of the best Shakespearen actors I've ever seen. Also I think that everyone in this movie was wonderfully cast. Kate Winslet, Julie Christie and the rest are just amazing as well. If you're not a big Shakespeare fan, well just give it a try. I didnt think I'd like it either but it was really good!
Greatness doth tread upon weakness
posted on 13 Feb 2009It's one of those rare productions, which I like and dislike almost equally and it goes passionately both ways. The points which go first are most influential.What I like about this movie. 1) The actors' dramatic performances (speech, gestures, emotional response). 2) The unabridged text of the original (of course I did not sit with the text near my TV-set to compare, but it seems to be really without cuts). 3) Costumes and sets.What I do not like. 1) The change of epoch (I consider it to be a terrible mistake). 2) The main actor is a bit too old to play Hamlet and Mrs Kate Winslet is a bit too old for Ophelia - no cosmetics can conceal it and I greatly dislike Hamlet's small beard. 3) Uneven pace (it often looks that the actors are "speeding it all up" or "slowing it all down" intentionally, which does not look natural.Mark me, I have not mentioned the running time in cons. When the production concerns a classic of the greatest literature creations and treats it almost word for word, time does not matter to me. Some more details on the actors' oral talent.quote HAMLET That's a fair thought to lie between maids' legs. OPHELIA What is, my lord? HAMLET Nothing. unquoteThe way Mr Kenneth Branagh pronounces "nothing" opens a new interpretation to the words and a new wicked pun.quote HAMLET Words, words, words. ... HAMLET Slanders, sir: for the satirical rogue says here that old men have grey beards, that their faces are wrinkled, their eyes purging thick amber and plum-tree gum and that they have a plentiful lack of wit, together with most weak hams: all which, sir, though I most powerfully and potently believe, yet I hold it not honesty to have it thus set down, for yourself, sir, should be old as I am, if like a crab you could go backward. ... HAMLET These tedious old fools! unquoteGreatly pronounced and acted. Deserves to be memorized by a foreign student.quote First Player 'Run barefoot up and down, threatening the flames With bisson rheum; a clout upon that head Where late the diadem stood, and for a robe, About her lank and all o'er-teemed loins, A blanket, in the alarm of fear caught up; Who this had seen, with tongue in venom steep'd, 'Gainst Fortune's state would treason have pronounced: But if the gods themselves did see her then When she saw Pyrrhus make malicious sport In mincing with his sword her husband's limbs, The instant burst of clamour that she made, Unless things mortal move them not at all, Would have made milch the burning eyes of heaven, And passion in the gods.' unquoteA feast for ears. Performed by Mr Charlton Heston of course. No wonder that this actor did have all the ability to live Hamlet on stage verbally and emotionally, but alas, not physically.By drawing these examples I am just stressing the fact that the whole production can be listened over the radio and enjoyed in its full flood.Therefore, 5 out of 10. I really hate to give this low mark to this production while it is a very strong performance but the negative sides mentioned above are very menacing. And one more thing: the irony is that our "Hamlet" is the greatest. Thank you for attention.
Not What I was Expecting...
posted on 04 Feb 2009Still being of school age, and having to learn Shakespeare almost constantly for the last four years (which is very off-putting of any writer, no matter how good), I didn't really expect to enjoy this film when my English teacher put it on; I thought it'd be the typical English lesson movie: bad acting, awfully shot, badly edited and the dreaded awful old dialog, so, as you can tell, I was all but ready to go into a coma from the go. However, I watched and, much to my disturbance, found myself not only paying attention, but actually enjoying the movie too. This production of Hamlet is possibly one of the best drama movies I have seen in a long time- and it really brings to life what I expect Shakespeare wanted his plays to be like (well, with the difference that this is cinema) much better than my English teacher harking over the text ever possibly could. The story is good, the dialog seems to flow with an unexpected grace that is far from boring (though a little hard to keep up with if you aren't used to Shakespeare's language) and even the smallest parts are performed with a skill you wouldn't expect; mainly, perhaps, due to the staggering number of cameos this movie has. Brian Blessed and Charlton Heston are as great as you'd expect these two veterans to be, even in such small parts, but it is Robin Williams as Osric and Billy Crystal as the Gravedigger who really stand out, giving such minor parts an unexpected zest, as well as offering some comic relief amidst the tragedy.The main stars, of course, are also wonderful. Kenneth Branagh excels as Hamlet, bringing not only the confusion and pain required to the roll, but also a sort of sardonic air which plays beautifully in the comic scenes, making the movie as a whole much more watchable. The other major players are also good, but it is Kenneth Branagh who stands head and shoulders above the rest in the title role.The set pieces, too, are often quite stunning, giving a refreshing change to the danky old castle corridors we're used to seeing in Shakespeare productions, as well as a real sense of the country around them.Of course, the movie, taken as a movie in its own right, is not without faults, but no major ones (the pacing is the only real problem I can think of offhand, as well as the prose for anyone not used to, as I said, Shakesperean language) and, especially when compared to the sort of Shakespeare productions I'm used to seeing in class, it really is quite brilliant. It's even made me rethink my previous typical teenager stance on Shakespeare, that his plays are boring (I came to the conclusion it's not the plays that are boring, merely the teachers who recite them in class). If only they made all of his plays into movies such as this one, English students in schools everywhere might have a higher opinion of the Bard.Overall 7/10
Best Movie Ever
posted on 29 Jan 2009I saw this film tonight and I must say I am truly impressed with it. I am a big fan of old literature but this filming of this ancient play send shivers down my spine.Especially the graveyard scene, with the dead Ophelia truly got me very emotional. This has never happened to me before...Also, the actors, under whom, Robin Williams (one of my favourites) were very excellent.This definetely worth a 10.
O wonderful, wonderful! And most wonderful wonderful! And yet again wonderful! And after that out of all whooping.
posted on 26 Jan 2009It would require the beauty and eloquence of Shakespeare to do justice to this outstanding cinematic feat. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go.As far as adaptations of Hamlet go this one is already at a better starting point than all other versions since it encompasses the entire play. Still this is no guarantee for a first-rate movie, or even a good one. Usually I'm not much for movies that are overlong and the trend that seems to be prevalent in Hollywood today, namely that movies should be at least two hours long, preferably three, is one that hopefully won't last long. Few stories are strong enough to withstand such extensive exploration and could do with some cutting. Making a four-hour-long movie and keeping it interesting is no small undertaking, but Kenneth Branagh pulls it off with flying colours. He has managed to make a very long movie seem no more than any average movie. I was completely engrossed from start to finish.The cast is excellent with Kenneth Branagh himself as the tormented prince giving a strong and memorable performance. He manages to convey his feelings admirably through his voice and one does not have to be an expert on Shakespearean verse to catch the myriad of emotions that are waging inside him. Kate Winslet was a positive surprise, I must say. I didn't know what to expect really. I've always liked her well enough as an actor, but wasn't sure she could pull off playing Shakespeare. Well, she certainly eradicated all doubts with her performance. She is the best Ophelia I have seen and lent such depth to the character and was simply wonderful. Other brilliant performances are Derek Jacobi as Claudius, Richard Briers as Polonius and Nicholas Farrell as Horatio to name but a few. I liked the fact that Branagh used some internationally more famous stars to play in some of the minor roles; I especially enjoyed the sparring between Hamlet and the gravedigger played by Billy Crystal.The setting of the play in the 19th century gives a welcome change to the usually gloomier Gothic settings. It is overall much lighter than other versions I've seen, more colourful and lavish, but this does not distract from the tragedy of the play. It is exceptional, stylish and aesthetically pleasing, a definite delight to the eye and other senses as well. The music by Patrick Doyle is as always magical and thoroughly in tune with the movie. One can only feel a deep sense of satisfaction after having seen this. I am shocked and appalled that this exquisite work of art did not win an Academy award for best picture, even more so that it wasn't even nominated. There is no way there was a better movie made that year, or any other year for that matter. This is as close to perfection as you can hope to get.To sum up, a stunning work of pure genius and I cannot see how anyone could top this. My hat's off to you Mr. Branagh.
Amazing!
posted on 30 Dec 2008Hamlet is by far my favorite of all of Shakespeare's works. Branaugh is one heck of an actor. His portrayal of this was just amazing. His soliloquies were breathtaking. For as long as it was it is rare for a film to hold my interest, however I was engrossed in this particular piece. I recommend this to anyone both fan of Shakespeare and those not so much. This has everything the modern world looks for in its films: murder, betrayal, and deceit. Not to knock Mel Gibson's version, but Branaughs touches the whole work. This leaves no stone unturned. When you finish the film it will feel as if you read the play yourself. Um how you say "two thumbs up".
a Masterpeice beyond all just word
posted on 27 Dec 2008A shame indeed that this epic film of pure greatness was overshadowed by the half-assed Jerry Maguire when it came to the academy awards. By far the best telling of Shakespear's play since he himself directed it. Kenneth Branagh is now deemed a Genius in my book, this film was all it took.
A bit too over the top
posted on 24 Dec 2008This movie is not bad for a study on the play as the scenes follow the order in the original play. However, I feel that it is too close to the play and too over the top. Branagh put almost every single line that Shakespeare wrote into the film, which makes it difficult to understand. As Hamlet, Branagh tries too much to stick to the pentameter, making his speeches sound unnatural, like he's reciting something instead of talking. I like the way the difficult lines are cut out in the Mel Gibson version.I also find that Hamlet is a bit too emotional (cries too much). I do understand that given his situation, he would be a bit unstable. But Branagh did his emotions a bit too much.The ghost scene is over the top. So is the scene when he's yelling at Ophelia. I like the idea of the one-sided mirror, but he shouldn't have shot the scene from the glass side. The scene is not supposed to be funny, but it's hard to resist laughing at the shot of Ophelia's face squashed against the glass.I think Hamlet is a bit too old. I imagine him to be in his twenties, not thirty to forty. His goatee is a bit unnecessary, so is his white-blonde hair that makes him even older. Claudius looks too nice to be a scheming rat who's always drunk. He looks like he could be a Santa Claus.I do like the fact that they changed the time to more modern style, and the costumes and the set are well done--correct to the time period and eye-pleasing. I also like the fact that they played out the scenes when someone reference to a scene not in the play (like the murder, the love scene), so that it's easier to visualize. As for the love scene, no, Shakespeare never said that there ever was something that close between Hamlet and Ophelia, that's the director's interpretation, which is fine. It makes it that it would be even harder for either of them to accept the "break-up".Overall, it's a good film to watch for studying the play, but not too great as entertainment.
What a "Hamlet" this might have been . . .
posted on 18 Dec 2008You can't exactly BLAME Kenneth Branagh for not being content to only direct what is arguably Shakespeare's best drama. He is an actor, after all, and a good one. His interpretation of Hamlet, however, is, well, not very involving; we know he wants to be king and resents his uncle, but not much else. He's miles ahead of Mel Gibson's "normal" Hamlet, though. Gibson made a "Hamlet" for everyone who went to see "Hamlet" for the ACTION without all that TALK to spoil the fun. Whoever WANTED to SEE a normal Hamlet, anyway? If ever a character deserved to be neurotic and self-obsessed it's Hamlet (in all fairness, however, Gibson was only the 2nd worst Hamlet I ever saw; Nicol Williamson's whiney turn at it in 1968 made me physically ill, and his inexplainable contempt for the material shows in every frame).If only Branagh had cast Daniel Day Lewis in the lead! What a "Hamlet" we might have had. Complex, indulgent, dangerous, romantic AND tragic! Instead, we get a good Hamlet (and a flawed "Hamlet"), but neither is great.The conception of this "Hamlet" is an ice palace motif. For some reason, I kept expecting Jack Nicholson to rush out with an axe. But it works, as do many of the supporting players. Why, though, does it appear Branagh was reluctant to cast good looking men? If we get to bask at the beauty and tremendous talent of Julie Christie (where has she been?) and Kate Winslet (the finest Ophelia I ever saw), why do we have to have such unmemorable faces on the males in the cast?Still, we take well-produced Shakespeare where we get him, and the full four-hours goes by nicely.
A great example of Shakespear for the masses!
posted on 06 Dec 2008Although there has been much criticism of Branagh's "over the top" performance and the mixed performances of the "who's who" list of famous Hollywood personalities, the bottom line is that this Hamlet is the first I've seen that will truly hold the attention of most movie-goers and bring Shakespeare's greatest play to a mass audience particularly the young. That it does it for over 4 hours in the very superior long version, is truly an accomplishment.
Like Branagh's "Much Ado about Nothing", "Henry V.", and Zefferelli's 1968 version of "Romeo and Juliet", modern audiences without a great deal of experience can understand and appreciate the greatest literature in the English language. More, they can relate to it. This, after all, is what Shakespeare himself would have done.
Performances are mixed; Branagh is good, but not great in the title role, Julie Christie, who makes Gertrude a truly interesting character, gives her best performance in years, and Derek Jacobi, who was not great some years ago in his own Hamlet, gives the performance of his life as Claudius. The movie is worth seeing for Jacobi alone.
This is a must see especially for college and high school students who thought they could not understand Shakespeare. Like the young audiences of "Romeo and Juliet", 30 years ago, they will find themselves saying, I've felt like that!
Relax and enjoy...
posted on 03 Dec 2008This uncut version of Hamlet may yield annoying cameos (except Billy Crystal) and pathetic special effects (do we really need the earth shaking when the dead appear?) but it also shows off where it truly counts. Also, keep in mind, no one would finance this, Branagh had to scrape just to pull it together.I saw this twice in two weeks on a 70mm print, and would have gone again had it still been playing!) Branagh's film is at first, visually stunning. Who cares what century it's in, this in not a story about time. It would matter if a WWII story was transposed to Vietnam, but really all you harsh reviewers and purist, lighten up!This play is the epicenter of the Shakespeare world, and unfortunately to sell the play Branagh allowed inferior Hollywood heavyweights slither into minor roles, ignore them there's three hours thirty minutes of film here without them!!!This is one of the most moving and beautiful productions I've ever seen, period. With all the grace and elegance of the Godfather films, this movie sucks you in if you just relax and allow yourself to be absorbed.I'm waiting, patiently for a DVD version (please Kenneth no 4 hour commentary!) hopefully they will fix the crappy effects via CGI, but until then the lousy, cropped, two videocassettes will have to do. If you haven't seen it, see it.This isn't the best Hamlet could be, but it's the best it's been done.
A sealed deal!
posted on 30 Nov 2008Branagh's amazing version of Hamlet has set the standard which in my opinion cannot be matched, at least not during this generation! This is the most complete and intense Hamlet to date. I've seen different adaptations including a stage play as well. This is truly a superior work of art that shouldn't be dismissed by true Shakespeare disciples.
Four Hours Long!!!!
posted on 31 Jul 2009After watching The Green Mile for three hours my attention turned to Hamlet which was FOUR HOURS LONG! i thought no a rubbish lengthy film. 242 minutes later i finished watching the movie with mixed results. Most of them good! Sometimes scenes drag on a bit which will make you bored as hell, and the use of old english used can be annoying at times as you cannot understand it. Overall, a pretty good movie.