KnotMissPriceless
Why so much hype?
Keeley Coleman
The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;
Ella-May O'Brien
Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.
SnoopyStyle
Sir Laurence Olivier takes a stab at the brooding Danish prince in William Shakespeare's Hamlet. He's really too old to play the prince realistically. At most, he looks like the same age as his mother Gertrude. Even that is a great feat since Eileen Herlie is in actual life 11 years younger than Olivier. Olivier makes his version concentrate more on Hamlet's self doubt. "This is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind." He also plays up the Oedipus complex aspect of Hamlet. This may not be the definitive theatrical version of Hamlet. It is an interesting one made by a master. He has obviously thought it through and made the necessary cuts in his own ways. Olivier is obviously comfortable with the material. It is classically made with enough cinematic flourishes to keep it interesting.
Lee Eisenberg
I understand that Laurence Olivier called his adaptation of William Shakespeare's masterpiece more of a study of "Hamlet" than a direct adaptation. Nonetheless, the result was a marvelous film. At heart, the movie is a look at base impulses. In fact, I see a connection to another 1948 movie: "Treasure of the Sierra Madre". The latter focuses on the horrific actions to which greed drives people, much like how "Hamlet" looks at vindictiveness. Neither offers a rosy view of humanity.The cold, Gothic sets frame the story perfectly. Elsinore's dreary look does as much to emphasize the characters' futile existence as any of the actors do. I should note that I've never seen a stage production of "Hamlet", so I'm not the best person to offer a comparison to a live version. I understand that Olivier cut much of the story to condense the movie so that he could emphasize the psychological aspect. Even so, he turned out a masterpiece, becoming the first person to direct himself to an acting Oscar, and giving us the first Best Picture winner not from the US. As for whether it was the year's best movie, I'd rank it as equal to "Treasure of the Sierra Madre", with both offering devastating focuses on the human condition. Definitely see it.
jacobjohntaylor1
This is a great movie. It is a true classic. Great acting. Great story line. Great special effects. This movie is very scary. It is a masterpiece. See it. It is mush more fun to watch then reality TV. This one of best movie ever. Shakespeare was one of the best writers of his time. There a lot of people who like Shakespeare that are story snobs. But will say Shakespeare was as good at writing as Steven King. This is better then Godzilla (1954) and almost as good as Godzilla (1998). Godzilla (1954) is great movie. And so is this. It is nothing like. But good like Godzilla and a story just like Godzilla is a story. Great movie. It is a most see.
sashank_kini-1
Reading Shakespeare is not an easy job. Not only do many readers get confused with the Old English, paranoid with the mythological references and cryptic metaphors and at times, tired with the flowery style, but also get bogged down by the lack of sympathy with the characters. I feel that Shakespeare is not one of my favorite writers, even though I do admire his Midsummer Night's Dream, Hamlet and The Tempest. I would rather read the Oedipus trilogy by Sophocles because there is an imminent tension in the play. Shakespeare relies more on grand and sometimes arcane soliloquies – there is so much he is telling but he deliberately wraps it so that interpretations may differ. I revere this quality, it makes him a genius and gives great pleasure to analyze his play but to read his plays for leisure is something I wouldn't really be interested.I read Hamlet first when I was 16; it was a magnum opus but I couldn't grasp its immense power. On viewing this film after almost 3 years, I noticed one thing about the play. The character of Hamlet is purposely given less characterization so that the reader/the actor may interpret him in his own way. In Oedipus the King, one can get a clear picture of Oedipus' torment not only by his dialogs but also by the singular focus of the play. Hamlet, however leaves up to the readers to decide how Hamlet really is or can be. Therefore, he is given such monologues and scenes that reveal the physical and part psychological element of the play but not in entirety. Even now, a writer/director can twist Hamlet's tale by putting in new conditions – that's one special virtue of the play.I still am puzzled about the ghost in the play. How is it that the guards, Horatio and Hamlet are able to see it while Gertrude cannot? This is the apparition of Hamlet's dead father, who wanders the castle at night and vanishes with the crowing of the cock. Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark mourns his father's untimely demise and scorns his mother's incestuous marriage with his uncle. After an encounter with the spirit who informs Hamlet about Claudio, his uncle's spineless deed, the prince feigns madness to extract vengeance.Acting wise, Laurence Olivier gives the most unaffected performance that works most of the times, except when Hamlet has to feign madness. Olivier seemed too calm to look or sound mad. Eileen Herlie is very convincing as Hamlet's mother, generating the right passion and perplexity for her character. Her scene with Hamlet in her room is very well acted by both the actors. Basil Sydney as Claudius was good but his character's motives remained unclear on a deeper level. Jean Simmons played her part well, but again, I didn't care much for her Ophelia. Here is where I am confused whether the actors are not truly reaching the depth of their characters or am I not yet floored by Shakespeare? Terence Morgan was the bad apple here.The film has a theatrical feel throughout; I could see many stage techniques applied, especially 'emphasis'. But Olivier brings a great camera technique during the ghost encounters where the sound of drum beat / heart beat is heard and the camera zooms in menacingly. But I was unimpressed with a few aspects in the film. For example, the somewhat forgettable 'Be not too tame but let your discretion….' soliloquy. The scene with the actors where Claudius guiltily storms off was rushed and should have been shot in an elaborate, more Hitchcockian style. And the "man who cannot make up his mind" is vague. On a positive note, the scenes between Hamlet and ghost, Hamlet and mother and Ophelia, and the final scenes are shot and acted very well. The best part is that the play is much easier to understand and the script has been well adapted here.Most people consider "To be or Not to be" to be the definitive quote. My personal favorite, the one which can be said for olden tragedies is "Divinity shapes our ends. Rough-hew them how we will" And Olivier says it marvelously.My Rating: 7 out of 10
