I was impressed by the acting and the plot is of course excellent. But as one who has seen a good deal of Shakespeare but never, before now, this one, I was disappointed. This is supposed to be his greatest play? I can't believe that - from this movie anyway. I was frequently bored, irritated with Hamlet's sometimes cryptic behaviour, and felt it was too long. First time I've ever been bored by a Shakespeare play or felt it was too long! I was frankly astonished. But I can see Shakespeare's genius is there so I presume the problem is what's left out has damaged what's left.
Shakespeare's plays are never just one plot theme. There are subplots and variety. Before now he has never disappointed me in any way. Hamlet is so long and an enormous amount of it must have been deleted to make this version. The result is certainly focused, so far as I can tell from not knowing what's missing, on the various murders past and to come and Hamlet's bizarre behaviour and dithering etc.
I discovered he was furious with his mother but it's not clear to me whether his mother married the new king willingly, or was coerced, or it was purely political or a sensible move for her protection. Instead of flying off the handle, Hamlet needs to discover her motives and whether she could have refused the marriage. Presumably the complete play fills in these details but this version doesn't that I can see. So I was frequently mystified by Hamlet's bad temper with his mother and worse, with his girl friend whom he treated so disgracefully I was simply furious. Am I meant to feel any kind of sympathy for this guy when he insults a young and seemingly innocent, indeed quite naive (if the acting was portraying the text properly) young woman persistently in lewd language that although it seems normal in those days, clearly was blaming her for faults she didn't possess. One must assume Hamlet was an ignorant, ill-bred and rather stupid youth who saw women as sex objects, no more!
I think the best part is undoubtedly the ghost's appearance and Hamlet's reactions. The Yorick scene disappointed me a bit. After seeing David Bowie's classic and superb Hamlet song in his amazing Serious Moonlight Concert, I really did expect something better from the play. Was that part cut too?
This version drags in the middle - I was simply fed up with Hamlet ranting about insulting people and killing his girlfriend's father. Doubtless I'm meant to be angry with him for dithering about but I needed some more of the text to show me this is not a boring play.
I suppose I'll have to read the play. I don't much want to watch the Branagh version - I've been disappointed in all his Shakespeare movies and him in them with the possible exception of Benedick which suits him so I can't believe his Hamlet will impress me, so I'd rather avoid it. I loathe Mel Gibson and won't ever again watch him in anything after the one time I quickly regretted as he pranced about being heroically pathetic and wallowing in being tortured - urk. Torture happens. Wallowing in depicting it is sick.
There are actors who've done Hamlet that I'd like a lot to see but they aren't on film that I know of. I'll be watching the BBC version in due course - I missed it first time around on TV.
All that said, I think Olivier looked the part and what he had of text to act he acts well. He's too old though. Surely Hamlet is meant to be a very young man who hasn't yet found the strength to know how to carry through revenge, who hasn't learned how to talk to or respect women nor to understand they are constrained by being chattels of men in those days (clearly Shakespeare in this play is indicating how women suffer and Hamlet's a bigoted fool). This version needed to keep up the tension but too often nothing much happens and ranting and raving can be a real turn off.
Where were Rosencrantz and Gildenstein? Not that I know yet what they do in the play but surely it would help to have them and some others to galvanise this movie.
Shakespeare's plays are never just one plot theme. There are subplots and variety. Before now he has never disappointed me in any way. Hamlet is so long and an enormous amount of it must have been deleted to make this version. The result is certainly focused, so far as I can tell from not knowing what's missing, on the various murders past and to come and Hamlet's bizarre behaviour and dithering etc.
I discovered he was furious with his mother but it's not clear to me whether his mother married the new king willingly, or was coerced, or it was purely political or a sensible move for her protection. Instead of flying off the handle, Hamlet needs to discover her motives and whether she could have refused the marriage. Presumably the complete play fills in these details but this version doesn't that I can see. So I was frequently mystified by Hamlet's bad temper with his mother and worse, with his girl friend whom he treated so disgracefully I was simply furious. Am I meant to feel any kind of sympathy for this guy when he insults a young and seemingly innocent, indeed quite naive (if the acting was portraying the text properly) young woman persistently in lewd language that although it seems normal in those days, clearly was blaming her for faults she didn't possess. One must assume Hamlet was an ignorant, ill-bred and rather stupid youth who saw women as sex objects, no more!
I think the best part is undoubtedly the ghost's appearance and Hamlet's reactions. The Yorick scene disappointed me a bit. After seeing David Bowie's classic and superb Hamlet song in his amazing Serious Moonlight Concert, I really did expect something better from the play. Was that part cut too?
This version drags in the middle - I was simply fed up with Hamlet ranting about insulting people and killing his girlfriend's father. Doubtless I'm meant to be angry with him for dithering about but I needed some more of the text to show me this is not a boring play.
I suppose I'll have to read the play. I don't much want to watch the Branagh version - I've been disappointed in all his Shakespeare movies and him in them with the possible exception of Benedick which suits him so I can't believe his Hamlet will impress me, so I'd rather avoid it. I loathe Mel Gibson and won't ever again watch him in anything after the one time I quickly regretted as he pranced about being heroically pathetic and wallowing in being tortured - urk. Torture happens. Wallowing in depicting it is sick.
There are actors who've done Hamlet that I'd like a lot to see but they aren't on film that I know of. I'll be watching the BBC version in due course - I missed it first time around on TV.
All that said, I think Olivier looked the part and what he had of text to act he acts well. He's too old though. Surely Hamlet is meant to be a very young man who hasn't yet found the strength to know how to carry through revenge, who hasn't learned how to talk to or respect women nor to understand they are constrained by being chattels of men in those days (clearly Shakespeare in this play is indicating how women suffer and Hamlet's a bigoted fool). This version needed to keep up the tension but too often nothing much happens and ranting and raving can be a real turn off.
Where were Rosencrantz and Gildenstein? Not that I know yet what they do in the play but surely it would help to have them and some others to galvanise this movie.