Hamlet (1996) User Reviews

Not What I was Expecting...

[annoying_goit · 7/10 · 6 October 2004]

Still 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

Its virtues outweigh its defects

[shrikeangel · 8/10 · 12 September 2005]

First, what I didn't like. The acting was not really up to the Hamlet standard. Branagh was really over-the-top, doing a lot of yelling mostly. In my opinion, those actors who were not big-name celebrities generally did a better job; though I would except Billy Crystal and Robin Williams. (And Charlton Heston, too, but I wasn't sure if he was playing at being a hack.) A lot of the ambiguities in the play were clearly resolved one way in the flashbacks.

What I think speaks very much in this play's favor is that it is accessible. Shakespeare is hard to understand for the vast majority of people nowadays; many people are not even inclined to try, because of its reputation as Serious Literature and its archaic English. If they see this film they will understand clearly at least one man's interpretation of the play. They will be seeing it more as Shakespeare's audiences saw it: a play with sword fights and battles, and mighty kings and nobles, murder and incest and evil schemes and ghosts--and great art, if one cares to look for it, but in Shakespeare's day most didn't, any more than most people do now. Branagh's overacting, and his forcing of his interpretation of the story on the viewer, may detract from Shakespeare's art somewhat, but it is better that modern audiences get a piece of it, rather than nothing.

I've got to say one more thing though. Some people are complaining that "it's set in the 19th century and that wasn't Shakespeare's time". Well, in Shakespeare's time their costume and scenery was that of their own day for all of their plays. Shakespeare may have SAID it's in the days of ancient Rome or medieval Denmark or whatever, but he didn't dress his characters up like they were, he used the costumes of his own time. For the same reason his plays are full of anachronisms. For example, in King John the English and French have cannons--in Robin Hood's day. In Julius Caesar they talk of chimneys, which wouldn't be invented for another thousand years, and in Henry IV they talk about Machiavelli, who wasn't even born yet then. So I think this objection is silly--you might as well complain that the play isn't in Danish (after all they live in Denmark don't they?).

4 Hours Later...

[thegreatshonen · 9/10 · 9 April 2013]

This was long. 4 hours of uncondensed Shakespeare and I must say I enjoyed it. Kenneth Branagh is perhaps the Laurence Oliver of our times. A great actor obsessed with the work of Shakespeare. And this is his masterpiece, Hamlet (1996), a free uncondensed version with every line of what Shakespeare has written, on the last movie ,besides The Master, filmed on 70mm film.

If you've graduated high school, you probably know the story of Hamlet. Hamlet is visited by the ghost of his father, who request the he kills his uncle, the new king of Denmark, because he murdered Hamlet's father. What I love about this adaptation is the things Kenneth Branagh does because he's using the medium of film. The use of Flashbacks in events is a great use that the stage adaptations could never do, same with the scenery. Elsinore Castle comes alive. It was genius for him to set the story in the 19th century. It gives a beautiful touch to the movie and costumes and set design were appropriate. THe final thing he does great is how he plays Hamlet. My English teacher taught him more as a mopey Dane, but he plays him as a cunning but indecisive genius which I believe is more interesting. His soliloquies have great touch to them, using visual elements and artful expression to make them interesting instead if Rambling.

The cast is great too. No weak link in the acting, and everyone holds their own. The guest appearances of famous actors, Charlton Heston, Robin Williams and Billy Crystal add moments of freshness to secondary characters. The Cinematography shows off the world well and fits most scenes, same with the music.

The problem is the length. It drags in places and with trimming could've been a masterful movie.

Overall great adaptation (better than the Mel Gibson one) and shows off to a new generation the beauty and power of something written 400 years ago. If you have the time, check it out.

8/10

Not to be missed

[DennisLittrell · 10/10 · 26 February 2003]

Part of the genius of Branagh's interpretation of Hamlet is in the use of the techniques of the cinema to enhance the production. Branagh has not condensed the acts like some mass market soup, as was done in Olivier's 1948 Oscar-winning production, or in, say, Zeffirelli's 1989 Hamlet lite starring Mel Gibson (both excellent, though, within their scope), but has kept every word while directing our understanding so that even those only casually familiar with the play might follow the intent and purpose with discernment. Recall that for Shakespeare--the ultimate actor's playwright who wrote with precious few stage directions--interpretation was left to the direction and the actors, an open invitation that Branagh rightly accepts.

The use of flashback scenes of things implied, such as the amorous union of Ophelia and her Lord Hamlet abed, or of a vast expanse of snow darkened with distant soldiers to represent the threat of Fortinbras' army from without, and especially the vivid remembrance in the mind's eye of the new king's dastardly deed of murder most foul, helps us all to more keenly appreciate just what it is that torments Hamlet's soul. I also liked the intense closeups. How they would have bemused and delighted an Elizabethan audience.

Branagh's ambitious Hamlet is also one of the most accessible and entertaining, yet without the faintest hint of any dumbing down or abbreviation. A play is to divert, to entertain, to allow us to identify with others who trials and tribulations are so like our own. And so first the playwright seeks to engage his audience, and only then, by happenstance and indirection, to inspire and to inform. Shakespeare did this unconsciously, we might say. He wrote for the popular audience of his time, a broad audience, it should be noted, that included kings and queens as well as knaves and beggars, and he reached them, one and all. We are much removed from those times, and yet, this play, this singular achievement in theatre, still has the power to transcend mere entertainment, to fuse poetry and story, as well as the high and the low, and speak once again to a new audience twenty generations removed.

Branagh himself is a wonderful Hamlet, perhaps a bit of a ham at times (as I think was Shakespeare's intent), a prince who is the friend of itinerant players. He also lacks somewhat in statute (as we conceive our great heroes); nonetheless his interpretation of the great prince's torment and his singular obsession to avenge his father's murder speaks strongly to us all. Branagh, more than any other Hamlet, makes us understand the distracted, anguished and tortured prince, and guides us to not only an appreciation of his actions, wild and crazy as they sometimes are, but to an identification and an understanding of why (the eternal query) Hamlet is so long in assuming the name of action. In Branagh's production, this old quibble with Hamlet's character dissolves itself into a dew, and we realize that he was acting strongly, purposely all the while. He had to know the truth without doubt so that he might act in concert with it.

I was also very much impressed with Derek Jacobi's Claudius. One recalls that Jacobi played Hamlet in the only other full cinematic production of the play that I know of, produced in 1980 by the BBC with Claire Bloom as Gertrude; and he was an excellent Hamlet, although perhaps like Branagh something less than a massive presence. His Claudius combines second son ambition with a Machiavellian heart, whose words go up but whose thoughts remind below, as is the way of villains everywhere.

Kate Winslet is a remarkable Ophelia, lending an unusual strength to the role (strength of character is part of what Kate Winslet brings to any role), but with the poor, sweet girl's vulnerability intact. She does the mad scene with Claudius as well as I have seen it done, and of course her personal charisma and beauty embellish the production.

Richard Briers as Polonius, proves that that officious fool is indeed that, and yet something more so that we can see why he was a counselor to the king. The famous speech he gives to Laertes as his son departs for France, is really ancient wisdom even though it comes from a fool.

Julie Christie was a delight as the besmirched and wretched queen. In the bedroom scene with Hamlet she becomes transparent to not only her son, but to us all, and we feel that the camera is reaching into her soul. She is outstanding.

The bit players had their time upon the stage and did middling well to very good. I liked Charlton Heston's player king (although I think he and John Gielgud might have switched roles to good effect) and Billy Crystal's gravedigger was finely etched. Only Jack Lemon's Marcellus really disappointed, but I think that was mainly because he was so poorly cast in such a role. Not once was he able to flash the Jack Lemon grin that we have come to know so well.

The idea of doing a Shakespearean play with nineteenth century dress in the late twentieth century worked wonderfully well, but I know not why. Perhaps the place and dress are just enough removed from our lives that they are somewhat strange but recognizable in a pleasing way. And perhaps it is just another tribute to the timeless nature of Shakespeare's play.

There is so much more to say about this wonderful cinematic production. It is, all things considered, one of the best Hamlets ever done. Perhaps it is the best. See it, by all means, see it for yourself.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

Brilliant version

[tbone_4ever · 10/10 · 5 February 2005]

I must say that, looking at Hamlet from the perspective of a student, Brannagh's version of Hamlet is by far the best. His dedication to stay true to the original text should be applauded. It helps the play come to life on screen, and makes it easier for people holding the text while watching, as we did while studying it, to follow and analyze the text.

One of the things I have heard criticized many times is the casting of major Hollywood names in the play. I find that this helps viewers recognize the characters easier, as opposed to having actors that all look and sound the same that aid in the confusion normally associated with Shakespeare.

Also, his flashbacks help to clear up many ambiguities in the text. Such as how far the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia really went and why Fortinbras just happened to be at the castle at the end. All in all, not only does this version contain some brilliant performances by actors both familiar and not familiar with Shakespeare. It is presented in a way that one does not have to be an English Literature Ph.D to understand and enjoy it.

moderately cloying

[MrsRainbow · 16 March 1999]

I enjoyed this film immensely when it came out, going to it five times while it was still in theatres. A much better way to spend an evening than watching the retread scifi thriller material out at the time.

I have to admit though that after seeing it again a few times on video it doesn't have the same attraction for me that it originally did. As film, it's solid. The settings are wonderful, and I admire the desire to produce the entire play unedited.

I don't enjoy the acting as much as I first did. In the case of Branagh, that may be merely a matter of personal taste. I would prefer a less garrulous Hamlet. Obviously, since all actors of Hamlet are working from the same script, unless edited, this is dependent entirely on the manner in which they portray the character. I find Branagh's performance a bit cloying, and far too over the top in some cases.

In addition, some of the cameos are distracting. Heston and Crystal I enjoy, but Williams, and particularly Lemmon, are annoying. The others, Attenborough et al, are fine.

While I can't give Hamlet a whole-hearted recommendation, I have to say that it far surpasses the trite commercialism of all the new "greatest films of all time" which have come out over the last few years. That's a phrase being used far too often now, revealing a lack of familiarity with the great films of the past. In that sense, I admire Mr. Branagh's desire to bring great drama to the screen, and hope that he meets with continued success in the future.

One of Branagh's best

[espenshade55 · 10/10 · 22 September 2004]

Olivier, 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.

Branagh triumphant.

[Hermit C-2 · 10/10 · 4 June 1999]

What an ambitious project Kenneth Branagh undertook here and how well it was realized! This is the first filmed version of 'Hamlet' to use the full text of Shakespeare's play, but Branagh didn't do it just because "it was there." His intention, I believe, was to make the play accessible and understandable to the general viewer without dumbing it down, so to speak. In return he asks viewers to put in a little work themselves, a fair enough proposition and one that's a bargain.

The setting is a generic 19th century European one and this does more than work well, it keeps a modern or ancient look from possibly distracting from the work itself. The production design and cinematography and both outstanding, which helps immensely when you're watching a four-hour movie. Branagh's casting once again is inspired and the acting is likewise. The direction accomplishes the heavy task of making this a movie rather than a deluxe version of a play. Since so much of 'Hamlet' is based on interior monologue and there are relatively few duels, battles, etc., this can be a daunting task. But everything Branagh tries to do seems to work.

Branagh has always been one of the most interesting actor/writer/directors, if not always the best, since he made his big splash with 'Henry V.' One quibble I had with him was what I saw as a tendency to ham it up at times. In his portrayal of Hamlet here he might be accused of that again, but there is a method at work. Let's face it, 'Hamlet' is not an easy work for the average person to understand and if one has never seen it performed before, he or she needs help even if they've read the play. Hamlet has the most lines of any Shakespearian character and Branagh makes sure that his viewers know what this man is thinking and feeling throughout the film, even if you don't know the literal meaning of every arcane word. This performance by Branagh was at the very least worthy of an Oscar nomination.

There are so many other outstanding performances here they're almost too numerous to mention, but some of them must be acknowledged. Derek Jacobi as Claudius is superb but even he takes a back seat to Kate Winslet when it comes to handing out praise. Her portrayal of Ophelia is awesome in its depth of feeling, made only more outstanding by the knowledge that she was only about 20 years old at the time! She looks to me like the finest young actress around. Other super performers in no particular order are Richard Briers, Nicholas Farrell, Michael Maloney, and Reece Dinsdale and Timothy Spall as Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, respectively. Honorable mention goes to Julie Christie, Charlton Heston, and Robin Williams, who manages to do his thing here successfully. Even Billy Crystal as a gravedigger works. The one cast member who doesn't, inexplicably, is Jack Lemmon. In the very opening scene he appears, and while the other three actors do a great job at setting the tense mood, Lemmon sounds like he is just running lines in rehearsal as a favor. You know this must have been a real dilemma for Branagh, since everything else about the movies screams out that it's the work of a perfectionist.

Not to be facetious when speaking of a four-hour movie, but it does seem just a tad too long. Some monologues and conversations do tend to go on a bit, if I may be so bold, and a little bit of judicious pruning would be welcome.

Did I forget anything, other than Patrick Doyle's score? No doubt I did. I'll just sum up by saying that Kenneth Branagh may have made the definitive film version of 'Hamlet,' and it will be a truly monumental production that tops this one.

Prince of Denmark

[Prismark10 · 7/10 · 20 December 2015]

Kenneth Branagh's epic Hamlet which was a full adaptation of the whole text and clocks in at 4 hours. It is not for the faint hearted and it took me 17 years to finally unwrap my video of Hamlet and put in on the solitary video player I still have in the house.

As a viewer you need stamina for one of Shakespeare's most popular tragedy. Branagh as director and adapter has brought the play forward to the 19th century and got a cast of American and British actors with cameos from Jack Lemmon, Charlton Heston, Robin Williams and Billy Crystal.

He brings together the cream of British acting with Richard Attenborough, John Gielgud, Julie Christie, Derek Jacobi and some Branagh regulars.

Branagh himself gives a muscular performance in the background of a baroque set design. He imbues a sense of rawness but maybe overdo's the moments when he is humorous when he should had a nifty lightness of touch.

Kate Winslet as Ophelia brings a moving portrayal as a young woman in love with the brooding Hamlet and who has engaged in a full physical relationship with him.

The text can be fast and furious and as your hear it those many familiar lines zip by but that is how Shakespeare is. Language that is natural of its time and has to be natural to the actors reciting it now.

The film has flaws. There are stylistic clashes from its cosmopolitan cast. The full play is not always easy to follow and the great fortitude is required to watch the whole film.

Ambitious disappointment

[Oriel · 6/10 · 3 August 1999]

Branagh's Hamlet--both character and film--suffers from the same tendency that destroyed his Frankenstein: he simply goes overboard. When he's reined in, Branagh can turn in a fine performance, but too often he overacts, overdirects, overdoes generally, as here. I eagerly anticipated this Hamlet both as a reader and as a teacher, but discovered an overblown spectacle full of Hollywood-style excess, souped-up sex and violence, overpowering (and distracting) music, and performances that substitute volume for emotion.

Branagh himself is the worst offender here, bellowing his "how all occasions do inform against me" soliloquy as if in competition with the soundtrack, hardly even pausing for breath, let alone for a glimpse of feeling. The most crushing disappointment is the crucial "to be or not to be" speech, again devoid of any sense of reflection or self-awareness, delivered in a hasty monotone for all the world as if Branagh was trying to spit it out quickly before he forgot it. This is not the world-class acting the text deserves; if not for the sheer spectacle and the impressive (i.e. famous) cast, this film would surely not be ranked as highly.

Even the purportedly authentic screenplay makes several crucial interpretive choices for the viewer and completely rewrites the nature of Fortinbras's final entrance into Elsinore. The only bright points are Derek Jacobi, who offers some emotional complexity as Claudius, and a Gertrude who finally seems to have a backbone. The absence of the Oedipal interpretation is welcome, but this alone cannot place this disastrous film above the Mel Gibson version, which remains its superior. The volume of laudatory reviews for this foolish film depresses me--but at least it may bring some new readers to the play itself, which _does_ deserve this kind of admiration.

An ambitious but imperfect adaptation

[DarthVoorhees · 9/10 · 9 October 2010]

'Hamlet' has never looked finer. Bragnagh has brought the most out of Shakespeare's most beloved play. We truly get the complete story brought out in grand scale. The cast is probably the finest a Shakesparean film has ever received. The sets and camera work are epic in every sense of the word. However I feel Bragnagh's 'Hamlet' falls short of truly being a masterpiece. I really truly wonder if 'Hamlet' cries out to be an epic. It is a psychological drama and a character study. At the worst moments of Bragnagh's opus this is forgotten.

I really don't know if I consider 'Hamlet' to be the greatest Shakespearean play. In terms of plot it is somewhat anti-climatic. I do however think that Hamlet is the greatest character I've ever read. To read Hamlet is like dissecting the psyche. Shakespeare's monologues and soliloquies in 'Hamlet' are brilliant dissections of the soul. If anything I want 'Hamlet' to be smaller and more intimate for a greater appreciation of this brilliant character and Shakespeare's language. Bragnagh's film sometimes looses sight of this. While I respect Bragnagh's ambition I somewhat don't understand why the epic scope is so necessary. There are brilliant shots of the Mountains, and charges of soldiers but really what have they to do with Hamlet's inner turmoil? The film is at it's best when it is smaller. I was nearly breathless when Hamlet listens to Claudius' confession, or the classic 'To Be Or Not to Be' soliloquy. Those moments are golden but Hamlet's epic duel with Laertes or the over done build up to the production seem muffled.

Bragnagh is a fine Hamlet. Oddly though I feel that he doesn't savor the language. There are moments in the film where Bragnagh rushes through the speeches and dialogue as if it were some sort of race. I love Shakespeare and one of the great pleasures of acting in Shakespearean piece is savoring the language. How often will you utter words of such brilliance and poignancy? Taking your time also allows more clarity for the audience.

Again, I respect every choice Bragnagh made and applaud him for it. My only question is are these appropriate for 'Hamlet'? I think the film looks wonderful and has tremendously passionate performances. I love the entire ensemble including Robin Williams, Jack Lemmon, and Billy Crystal. I just think that some of the choices don't allow for the greatest understanding and appreciation of Hamlet. On the contrary Bragnagh's Henry V married epics and intimacy perfectly.

Branagh

[winner55 · 6/10 · 16 July 2006]

The internet has made digging up real information virtually impossible. When it first appeared, I remember that many people believed that all our library books would be scanned onto microchip (and then quietly destroyed as no longer necessary).

Well, a lot of them have been destroyed, but unfortunately somebody forgot to scan them first.

Hamlet has been a fascinating subject for female actors since the beginning of film itself (Sarah Benhardt is apparently the first to have the play recorded on film). Sometime before the second World War, a female actress in England decided to make a complete film of the (then) accepted authoritative copy of the whole of Shakespeare's play. The film ran some 5 hours.

I have searched and searched for information about this woman and her film, and have come up with naught. I mention this at all because Branagh earned a reputation for his version of Hamlet even before the film's release with his promise of the "complete version of the whole play" (according to currently accepted authoritative texts).

Well, as it turns out, having a complete version of a play doesn't actually mean one has a good performance of it.

Branagh clearly wants us to forget the Olivier version - but unfortunately makes all of Olivier's mistakes without any of Olivier's delicious Gothicism (which is really what makes the Olivier play special). So Branagh is loud, ego-centric, pretentious, neurotic - all the worst aspects of Olivier's Hamlet - but never brooding, mysterious, or ethereal - many of Olivier's best qualities. Olivier's Hamlet appears to be visiting from another world - and none too happy about his short stay in Denmark. Branagh's Hamlet is visiting a Kenneth Branagh film festival, and got lost at the wine-and-cheese buffet.

Understand that I really admire Branagh's previous Shakespeare efforts, and believe him to be an excellent actor. But Mary Shelley's Frankenstein showed us a side of Branagh - loud and egotistical - that we didn't really need, and then he pours that all into this film - which unfortunately we have to suffer with for four whole hours, if we choose.

Will some internet computer wiz please remember not to preserve this film?

Great Moments With Mr. Hamlet

[madbeast · 2/10 · 21 December 2004]

This ludicrous and inept film is certainly the most misguided version of "Hamlet" to ever reach the screen. Branagh's approach to the material can only be described as vulgar; going to such lengths as depicting Ophelia in a straight jacket, having Fortinbras' army appear suddenly on the horizon (looking very much like the climax of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail") when the palace is apparently guarded only by Francisco (who shouts the very un-Shakespearean cry of "ataaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack" before being gunned down), and multitudes of star cameos that harken back to the days of Jimmy Cagney's Bottom and Mary Pickford's Kate.

Branagh chose to set his film in an Edwardian setting but at the same time decided to employ an almost uncut text, so that frequently the dialogue that is firmly rooted in Elizabethan mentality makes no sense in the context that it is being performed. And Branagh does not concern himself with such textural subtleties as the ambiguous nature of Hamlet and Olphelia's relationship, treating the audience to a vulgar nude sex scene between the couple that tosses any ambiguity right out the stained glass window.

The uncut text does allow Branagh to indulge in his favorite cinematic pastime: more footage of Kenneth Branagh. This is never so apparent as in the "How All Occasions Inform Against Me" speech that ends the first half of the nineteen hour film (at least that's how it feels), which attempts to play to a dramatic crescendo along the lines of Gone With The Wind's "I'll never be hungry again." This may serve Branagh's ego, but it does not serve Shakespeare or the speech: when I saw the film in the theater, I leaned over to my companion and snickered "Great Moments With Mr. Hamlet." Branagh saves the funniest and most tasteless moment for last, when he attempts to out-do the Olivier film and its justly celebrated death of Claudius by having Hamlet jump from off a high tower onto the monarch, impaling him with a sword. Branagh's Dane does in the king by heroically throwing an apparently magic rapier from across the palace to run through Claudius' heart with a super hero's bulls eye. The only thing that saved the moment from being unbearably maddening was that it was so off-the-wall funny.

While this film has been praised in some quarters as a serious depiction of the tragedy, it is in fact nothing but a star-studded display of a once-talented filmmaker being overtaken by his own narcissism. The Emperor has no clothes, and this Hamlet has nothing to offer but a few unintended laughs and the appalling sight of one man's ego out of control.

Branagh really raised the bar with this version

[widescreenguy · 3 February 2008]

seen one you've seen them all, right? wrong! I still like the sombre Olivier version and Gibson did well, but this is in a class of its own.

I finally realized with this expanded production set 200 years closer to the present the full message that Shakespeare cleverly concealed with the more prominent aspect of Hamlet's quandary, and that is he, Hamlet, is driven to distraction by the awareness its the insidiousness of human nature that created the conditions that saw his father murdered.

looking at the play with this insight you can see numerous scenes where this notion is there in the background. and by changing the era, Branagh shows yet again the astonishing applicability of that truth. all you need is to read a newspaper, something 'included' in this production.

thank god for British stage actors raised on Shakespeare.

a very rewarding viewing.

My favorite movie; at last a Hamlet that "CAN make his mind" :)

[pass6 · 10/10 · 20 October 2004]

The actors play wonderfully, especially Kenneth Branagh himself. It's good that Robin Williams got the comedy role of Osiric, otherwise it could be a bit strange to see him in such a production. It is really great that Kenneth decided to use the fullest version of the text, this happens definitely not too often... Thanks to that the viewers can see the whole, not the chosen - by the director - parts. Also - thank God that the film is in a classical form; NO to surrealistic fanfaberies ! Although "Tytus Andronicus" was impressive nevertheless, but still Hamlet is a different story, at least that's my point of view.

A great adaption to a great show!

[samuraifa451 · 8/10 · 3 December 2007]

I admit I've only seen about three of Shakespeare's plays (Romeo & Juliet, Macbeth, & of course Hamlet) one I liked, the other I found so-so (Macbeth), and Hamlet I just found a masterpiece. I'm pleased to tell you that this adaptation is every bit as good as the intense and dramatic play. The acting is extremely strong (With a cast that features Kenneth Branagh, Robin Williams, and Billy Crystal how can you lose?) and the change in time period (Looks like somewhere between the 17 and 1800's) plays off beautifully as the characters move about and say their infamous lines straight from the script itself that any fan of the Shakespearean play will get chills from. If you're into this popular drama I highly urge you to watch this powerful 1996 adaptation from Shakespearean admirer Kenneth Branagh.

Great Adaptation of a Shakespearean Classic

[mckennachurchill · 10/10 · 27 February 2018]

In the movie, Hamlet, directed by Kenneth Branagh, Prince Hamlet recently has returned from England only to discover that his father was mysteriously murdered and his mother remarrying his uncle, Claudius. One night, Hamlet comes face to face with the ghost of his deceased father, King Hamlet, who reveals that Claudius is the man who murdered him and asks Hamlet one thing, to seek revenge. Throughout this literary adaptation of one of Shakespeare's most well known plays, Kenneth Branagh leaves everyone on the edge of their seats as they follow Hamlet and his plot to seek revenge. The play itself is one to watch for, but the big screen adaptation is right there with it. The characters, emotions and actions were flawlessly shown throughout the film, leaving no complaints from myself. Though this may not be a movie recommended for those under the age of 13, Hamlet is acceptable to show to freshman in highschool and adults of any age. To conclude, the silver screen adaptation of Hamlet, is an exceptional movie and highly recommended for those who are fans of Shakespeare's work or for those who just want to enjoy a movie.

To thine own source material be true

[pyrocitor · 8/10 · 3 December 2007]

Out of all of William Shakespeare's most beloved and well known plays, few works have been adapted, either for the stage or, more recently, in cinematic form. The majority of such productions are known for taking significant liberties with the work, mainly in terms of length and editing. And such is the main selling point for director/star Kenneth Branagh's incarnation of the tragic prince of Denmark: the work is presented unabridged and unashamed of it, and as such, is one of the most unquestionably faithful Shakespearian cinematic adaptations as of yet. Considered by many to be the definitive film version of the play, Branagh's Hamlet is by no means a flawless film, but a powerful and faithful enough work to merit a viewing.

Branagh's passion and keep grasp on his source material is evident, as is the astute evidence paid to even the most minute details of the sprawling work. To take a four hour long (the sheer length in itself will unquestionably be enough to deter some viewers either from taking in the film or watching it in a single sitting) Shakespearian play and infuse it with enough zest and energy to keep it interesting for a contemporary audience is no small feat indeed, but to his credit, Branagh performs such a task admirably. The film's mostly strong, but somewhat uneven pacing, including some quintessential contextual flashback sequences, intriguing cinematography and Patrick Doyle's rousing (if slightly overdone) musical score are engaging, and benefit the film immensely. The period adaptation, to 1890s civil war era works surprisingly well, considering the many less than favourable attempts to adapt Shakespearian dramas into a contemporary time period, (Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet comes disconcertingly to mind...) and the vibrant and expansive period sets and costumes are visually delightful, adding a sense of epic splendour to the production.

However, considering Branagh's considerable talent and directorial attentiveness, it is a shame indeed that the production still feels like it is missing something, or falling tantalisingly short of the emotional depth and breadth one might hope for in one of Shakespeare's more emotional works. A disappointing number of the film's key emotional moments either come across as disappointingly flat or toeing the line of melodramatic hysteria, though for the most part, Branagh keeps the emotional tension to an appropriate simmer. Also, for such a dialogue intensive work, many of the actors' delivery feels overly "stagey", frequently drawing the audience out of the emotional intensity of the moment. However, despite such complaints, on the whole the film performs admirably - it is only a slight disappointment that there is a consistent feel of the full (admittably vast) potential not quite being filled.

In such a dramatic work as Hamlet, the performances are key, and thankfully, Branagh has played his cards right by assembling a stellar cast to bring his vision to life. As the title character himself, Branagh manages a precisely poised balance between the brooding, flamboyant and lethal aspects of the character. His careful research and preparation show through his deliberately crafted performance (even his forays into the melodramatic tend to infuse the often imbalanced character with a fitting unusual edge) - it would be difficult to imagine an overall more satisfying Hamlet. Kate Winslet is easily one of the film's strongest points, typically powerful, charismatic and tremendously impressive as the harried Ophelia, Hamlet's love interest. Derek Jacobi gives a strong performance as the Machiavellian King Claudius, infusing the role with the necessary depth to make Claudius a troubled and lamenting character rather than a one dimensional antagonist.

As Hamlet's troubled mother Gertrude, Julie Christie, years after her initial call to fame, demonstrates her ability to still craft elegant, credible and tremendously powerful performances. Richard Briers makes for an excellent Polonius, but unfortunately Nicholas Farrell and Michael Maloney prove miscast with little charisma and tendencies to overact as Horatio and Laertes respectively. Branagh also makes use of a supporting cast chock full of famous faces to both keep viewers interested and instill intrinsic value into characters that might otherwise be considered inconsequential. Billy Crystal is perfectly cast as the comic relief Gravedigger, and Robin Williams and Jack Lemmon are put to good use in minuscule yet nonetheless amusing roles as Osric and Marcellus. Brian Blessed is a formidable presence as the Ghost of Hamlet's father, and Charlton Heston and Rosemary Harris are endearing in the "Player" interlude. Also, unseen in the abridged cut of the production are entertaining cameos from Gerard Dépardieu, Richard Attenborough and Judi Dench.

Shakespeare aficionados will have much to appreciate, as Branagh's passion for his source material and distinct directorial touch help carry the film through its regrettable weaker moments and occasional lapses in emotional poignancy and acting. While the staggering running time and period dialogue will doubtlessly prove too daunting for those unaccustomed to the works of Shakespeare, those willing to make the investment will find Branagh's work to be among the most faithful and entertaining film adaptations of the Bard's works. Considering the tremendous ambition of the task, Branagh's film, while by no means perfect, should still be considered nothing less than a laudable success.

-8/10

Purposeful, impacting film is an epic and a half

[gcd70 · 7/10 · 3 June 2009]

Grand epic as it is, Kenneth Branagh's monumental rendering of what is perhaps William Shakespeare's most popular tragedy suffers under the weight of its four hour playing time and certainly takes some real staying power. Two entirely separate sittings would most likely be better in order to fully appreciate what is certainly high class film making. While I absolutely acknowledge this masterpiece as such, I must confess to a lack of enthusiasm for the old bards flamboyance, his rhetoric (and he sends himself up so well) and his many flourishes. Thus "Hamlet" loses its impact as it loses its grip.

From Patrick Doyle's music to Alex Thomson's cinematography to Tim Harvey's exquisite sets, the movie is a feast of visual and aural delights, which compliments a fine cast. Branagh has taken on three huge mantels, adapting, directing and playing. His adaptation is superb, his direction strong, but by the time he got to the role of Hamlet, the strain seemed to be showing; yet still he does a fine job in what is an incredibly taxing role. Derek Jacobi gobbles up the sinister Claudius with glee, and Julie Christie is most dramatic as his queen, Gertrude. Richard Briers is marvellous as Polonius, and Charlton Heston is once again a strong screen influence as the player King. Many others drop by, including Jack Lemmon (superb in a very small role), Billy Crystal, Dame Judi Dench, Sir John Mills, Sir John Gielgud, Sir Richard Attenborough and Gerard Depardieu. The acting prize though must go to one of the great thespian discoveries of recent years, Kate Winslet. Hers is a moving portrayal of the most tragic figure in this whole affair, Ophelia.

To finish (before this review goes on longer than the film), I must say it is the length that really tests the viewer in this movie. Branagh has directed with purpose, giving many important, impacting scenes. Too many of them outstay their welcome. Watching this film holds a fantastic reminder of the many pearls of wisdom we have garnered from it. "Neither a lender nor a borrower be" or "Be true to thyself". And of course: "To be or not to be".

The opening two hours does take some perseverance, but if you do manage to stay tuned you are sure to be treated to a rousing finale which gathers momentum from the tragic funeral onward.

Monday, June 8, 1998 - Hoyts Croydon

What a piece of work is "Hamlet".

[colonel_green · 10/10 · 2 July 2005]

Sir Richard Burbage; Sir John Gielgud; Sir Laurence Olivier; Orson Welles; Sir Derek Jacobi; Mel Gibson; these famous actors all share a common role: Hamlet, melancholy Prince of Denmark, the creation of William Shakespeare, the English language's greatest writer. To those names we can Kenneth Branagh, the icon of filmic Shakespeare.

In 1996, fresh of the success of his own "Henry V" and "Much Ado About Nothing", Branagh set out to adapt what is generally thought to be Shakespeare's magnum opus, "Hamlet". "Hamlet" is Shakespeare's longest play, and Prince Hamlet his biggest role, and thus had never made it on screen fully intact. Every previous version, from Sir Laurence's to Mel's, had pared the story down to its essence, which could still be brilliant, but just wasn't the same. Branagh vowed not to sacrifice a word, while he brought the story out of Medieval times in the 19th century.

Branagh assembled a truly astonishing cast, especially considering that many of them play totally throwaway parts; Sir John Gielgud and Dame Judi Dench, for example, have no lines at all, while Robin Williams, Lord Richard Attenborough, Billy Crystal, and Gerard Depardieu all have only a handful of lines. The main roles in the film are handled by a pre-"Titanic" Kate Winslet (Ophelia), Julie Christie (Gertrude), Sir Derek Jacobi (Claudius), Richard Briers (Polonius), Nicholas Farrell (Horatio), and Branagh himself (as the title character). Farrell, in particular, is a standout. His Horatio attains a depth of character that is absent in the pared-down versions of this story; the same can be said for other characters, especially Claudius.

"Hamlet" is directed with real showmanship, and has first-rate art direction and scoring. That Kenneth is soon to return to the world of filmed Shakespeare with an adaptation of "As You Like It" pleases me to no end. A 10/10 for "Hamlet", and let's see more.

To watch or not to watch

[alyssaslaight · 7/10 · 25 February 2018]

In the movie Hamlet, a Shakespearean tragedy, written by William Shakespeare and directed by Kenneth Branagh, the actors portrayed many parts with excellence and followed the play's write to the fullest. The movie Hamlet, shows young Prince Hamlet, a conflicted Dane, battling with his emotions while dealing with the death of his father. He begins to suspect foul play in King Hamlet's death and vows to avenge his death. Hamlet depicts very dramatic and tragic scenes throughout the movie, keeping the watchers very attentive as the plot progresses. The director and screenwriters kept the script very close to the original play, making only a few slight changes in dialogue. This kept the movie very similar in comparison to the play, making it less confusing and easier to understand. Although there are many great aspects of the movie, I felt that it lacked in certain areas. For example, actors with a smaller or less important role seemed to be disconnected and distant from the scenes in the movie. I also feel that during some of the soliloquies, it was difficult to understand what was being said, due to how fast they were speaking. This play would most likely be directed towards people in their mid-teens years since some scenes and dialogue would be hard for anyone younger than that to comprehend. In summary, Hamlet is a well-written movie that keeps to the original play. This makes it easy to understand and watch. The movie keeps with the storyline and has a very dramatic plot that keeps the watches attentive. It is definitely worth watching.

A fine film

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 9 March 2011]

As far as Branagh's Shakespeare film adaptations go, this is one of the better ones. I personally preferred Much Ado About Nothing(1993), but Hamlet is one fine film.

My only gripes are some of the cameos. Charlton Heston is good, but while it was nice to see Jack Lemmon he was too old I agree and Billy Crystal and Robin Williams come across as too modern and silly. Michael Maloney is okay but doesn't quite work appearance wise.

Gripes aside, visually it is very striking. The settings are gorgeous, the costumes are equally exquisite and the cinematography is very skillful. The music score is a score of haunting, rousing and melancholic beauty, and enhances the film so well. The dialogue is still wonderful, and the story still has its emotional punch.

The cast do a great job together. Kenneth Branagh directs with real vigour and does a fine job as Hamlet. Julie Christie is very good as Gertrude, Richard Briers is a good Polonious and Kate Winslet is a beautiful and poignant Orphelia. As the scheming villainous Claudius though, Derek Jacobi comes off best, his performance is brilliant.

In conclusion, a fine adaptation and one of Branagh's better overall films. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Shakespeare by Branagh

[gbx06 · 7/10 · 22 July 2008]

Of all the adaptations that Branagh has done of Shakespeare novels, including all the films in which he has been director, Hamlet meets the best of all and it's for many elements the most beautiful. This not only because it achieved a faithful adaptation of this English classic drama, but also gives a majesty and elegance that make up the more stylized version of this tragedy. Here photography but especially the art design make up the strongest pillars to recreate a superb Danish castle that turns out to be another cast member. It is also interesting the casting that Branagh chose to interpret secondary roles, then we see a gallery of big players that have small roles and give a freshness to the density of a film that lasts more than four hours. Robin Williams, Richard Attenborough, Billy Crrystal, Judy Dench and even Charlton Heston make up characters that strengthen the good interpretations of Julie Christie, Kate Winslet and Derek Jacobi, not that well for Branagh that for my taste is a very over acting Hamlet. Yet the result is for me one of the best adaptations of this English playwright and a good film that brings us closer to knowing more about the most beautiful drama of history.

Kenneth Puts the Ham in Hamlet

[actcoach605 · 3/10 · 18 February 2007]

I saw this film on its release, and have watched it 3 or 4 more times, including last week. I regret I have to be a voice of dissension with regard to Mr. Branagh's performance.

This is really a glorious, sumptuous film, to say nothing of ambitious at over 4 hours long - beautifully shot and designed. Derek Jacobi, Julie Christie, Kate Winslet, Richard Briers, and many others do fine jobs. Then there's Kenneth Branagh. If ever there was a vanity project for an actor, this is it, and Mr. Branagh spares nothing in putting the "ham" in Hamlet. From the stunt casting (which gives us the worst performance ever by the woefully miscast Jack Lemmon), to the bits of distracting business thrown in to infuse a sense of "naturalness," to his own performance which runs the gamut from throwing away the single most famous soliloquy in all of literature to screaming every line of others. His performance confirms that, while he may come across better on stage where bigger is necessary, he has never been a great film actor. The scenery budget could be charged to catering, Mr. Branagh eats so much of it. His performance is a perfect example of why people don't go to see Shakespeare - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." And if there is fault to his direction, it is that he keeps the camera firmly glued on his overblown performance.

No matter what theories people may posit on the Bard, he was, after all is said and done, a playwright. The brilliance of his plays rest in the fact that his themes are universal and timeless. Although there is no "right" way to play his plays, there is most certainly great acting, good acting and bad acting. Shakespeare himself gives instructions to the players in the text of "Hamlet" itself. It amazes me how Mr. Branagh "mouthed" it, but did not hear it. It was an example of spending too much time working out how he's going to say something, and too little figuring out WHAT he's saying.

While Mr. Branagh has certainly done a wonderful job in mounting some entertaining productions, he would be wise to stay behind the camera and allow those who know the art of acting to practice it. His direction has always been better than his acting. I still give him immense credit for resurrecting interest in filming Shakespeare. He set a great template for other productions. And, it would be interesting to see him onstage, from about 20 rows back. But, I do hope he chooses to direct more and act less.

Is it worth seeing? Certainly. There are many little joys to be found in the film. But, it's a long, long movie and, by the end, one may feel less that they enjoyed than survived it.