Hamlet

Excellent in its technical aspects, especially Olivier's acting, the set design, and the cinematography. But it attempts to make Hamlet overly solitary, deleting wonderful characters like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, or important ones like Fortinbras. Although it seems to want to make Hamlet's character more noble, I feel that it comes off as a bit stuffy, and detracts a bit from the power and epic scope of the original masterpiece.

Olivier's brilliant interpretation of Shakespeare on all fronts -- as actor and director -- makes this a cinematic masterpiece, beautifully filmed in crisp black & white (colour would have killed it) and served well by an excellent cast, with Sydney especially having a great time as Claudius. Though R&G end up on the cutting room floor, its hard not to be wowed by the overall power of the production. Brooding, atmospheric, grungy and gritty, Shakespeare on film doesn't get much better than this.

We're told and told that this is the high tone, but good heavens I'm tired of this kind of ultrastiff rendering of The Bard

Some of the world's greatest cinematography. The definitive Shakespeare on the silver screen.

I've said before that I'm a moron when it comes to Shakespeare. Although I've gleaned some of "Hamlet" from pop culture references, I've never read it or seen a production of it before now. So I'm not at all qualified to comment on the faithfulness of Olivier's adaptation or any egregious omissions he might have made. Unsurprisingly, I was absorbed by the dramatic quality of the story. I was not at all bothered by the 2.5 hour length, which went by quite easily.

Underwhelming acting from Olivier. His directorial flourishes often work quite well (thumbs way up for the cinematography), though some stylistic choices are odd. Ultimately, there's no particularly good reason for those already familiar with the storyline and dialogue from Shakespeare's tragedy to sit through this version.

I love Shakespeare. I liked the cinematography, the acting was very good, and the changes to the script were not atrocious. That is good enough for me.

Strong adaptation. Source of many a stylistic ripoff.

The direction is the highpoint bringing the world of Hamlet with its intrigue and melancholy to life with great pacing and bursts of wonderful visuals. Olivier's performance, however, wasn't so much to my liking. He changes the focus from Hamlet's existential crisis to one of indecision and madness, recites some key speeches rather stiffly and generally alters the tone of the character and hence the play.

anchor

# 781

A bit heavy at times, but definitely has its merits. Excellent cinematography, acting, writing.

Slowly engages and excites in its third act. Brilliant acting from the leads and spectacular cinematography.

Olivier's film version of Hamlet is so stylized that it ranks up there, visually, with some of the most brilliant looking movies ever created. It's superbly acted due to the cast's theatrical stage roots and from a director's standpoint--both the way the story is configured and arranged from Shakespear's play and the way each shot is composed with such elegance, it's easy to say Hamlet is one of, if not the single best, representation of Shakespear in film form. It's an absolutely super

I have always wanted to be the person who is able to quote Shakespeare. But, I am also a person who doesn't remember the lyrics to a song that I have heard hundreds of times. This is a good adaptation, and Olivier is so good that you don't notice he's actually a decade older than his mother. The way the ghost is filmed still feels creepy.

804

This movie is probably great if you can understand Shakespearean dialogue.

Very enjoyable version with Laurence Olivier.

I'm not an expert on Shakespeare, but this was very good. Between Olivier as Hamlet (from the broody to the downright crazy), the cinematography, and the fog machine, this was a captivating watch. The graveyard scene was a high point.

Superb adaptation. Although quite slow in the beginning the finale makes this way worthwile.

The play is sharply cut, then time is wasted having the camera prowl pointlessly along gloomy corridors... but much of the acting is fine, some scenes compel, and the production has a splendid brooding power.

Pretty stodgy Shakespeare adaptation that doesn't have much life, despite obvious Shakespearean brilliance from Laurence Olivier. Cutting the material doesn't really help, even if it is a four-hour play. This production would have worked better onstage; for me, it just doesn't make for classic filmmaking.

84.50

A decent adaptation of the famous play. Some good acting from everyone involved, but what stands out most to me is the exceptional staging and extensive use of long shots.

84.500

Olivier is that rarity amongst legends, an artist as good as their reputation. Not only is the cinematic skill and text interpretation outstanding, but his own performance as the prince is 100% compelling, even with the wig and leggings. Purists may quibble with the cuts, but man do those two missing hours keep it moving! Moody, exciting, even mirthful, I almost re-started it as soon as it ended. A stellar adaptation of the perfect bloody drama.

It might have been a great movie in its time, but for a modern audience there too many clichees wrapped up in it. However, Oliver acts really fine here and does a good directing job more or less.

This film is made up of empty sets filled out with a fog machine. The actors must deliver a performance without any help from the film maker. Found myself closing my eyes and just listening, because there was nothing to see.

A showcase. This film is riveting, and there are two others which help me to contextualize it. The first is Olivier's previous directorial debut, a stodgy wartime propaganda rendition of Henry V. Hamlet demonstrates tremendous growth as a filmic stylist, which brings me to the second comparable film: Orson Welles's Macbeth, another great Shakespearean adaptation from 1948, with stark, foggy, and stunning black-and-white so similar that it might be considered an aesthetic companion piece.

I like Shakespeare, but I'm not well versed in the intricacies of the text or being able to compare versions of the play. I DO know that this is a gloriously gloomy version, with astonishing production values and a superb Olivier. There was some controversy over cuts to the text but it never really feels like anything is missing, especially considering the formidable length of the thing.

what? Rosencrantz& Guildenstern, two -maybe vague but funny and important characters in the plot- don't exist in this version of the movie, and it made me disappointed. However, I like the players' attitudes, and the director seems to ctach the essence of the play, even though some of the scenes don't exist. It would be much better, I think, if the movie was a bit longer and all the scenes are fully played.

Sou imensamente fã da versão do Branagh, mas a versão do Olivier é até hoje imbatível, não só pelo elevadíssimo trabalho dos atores, mas por conter um trabalho de mise-en-scène deslumbrante, além da escolha de planos de tirar o fôlego. Só não falo que é a melhor adaptação de Shakespeare para as telas por o Kurosawa também fez obras que não são más. Plus: Peter Cushing tem a personagem mais gay a agraciar as telas EVER. Box Versátil Shakespeare no Cinema.

If Murnau and Langs Expressionism and Welles' noir ever mated this would probably be the lovechild that they bore. Olivier's Hamlet i superberb: He is doubting, cunning, insightful and even has a pleasantly dry wit. Definitely worth a watch.

Very finely acted with some compelling performances. Manages to move through the story at a decent clip. The sparse and gloomy scenery provide a feeling of isolation and a deep sense of foreboding. I can't compare it much to the play, as I only have a passing familiarity with the source material.

84.250

Iconic

Olivier's Oscar-winning take on the Bard works best when he is center stage in his own Oscar-winning turn as the Prince of Denmark; his is a chilling, pathetic Hamlet, occasionally too theatrical but always compelling. Unfortunately, his direction is less consistently effective - he tries for effects he can't always pull off. And the supporting cast is uneven, with Felix Aylmer's Polonius and Eileen Herlie's Getrude coming through best. Good production values; excellent score by William Walton.

863

This Elsinore is a deep-focus labyrinth, and a far more satisfying place than might have been achieved in color. What really works is the blond Olivier prowling the dark corridors and delivering most of the essential speeches. Henry V is a bolder film, and truer Shakespeare maybe. But the success of delivering a decent Hamlet was greater still, and this is a landmark in Shakespeare productions onscreen, the proof that anything can be done. The capper on that effort was winning Best Picture.

"WHERE IS THE FUCKING OUTLET FOR MY DEHUMIDIFIER" Me in a scene cut from Hamlet.

I'm not a Shakespearean, nor a fan of the theater, but even I can feel the hype surrounding Laurence Olivier's prestige project of bringing the stage play Hamlet (1948) to the big screen. An exceedingly elegant and undeniable passionate execution of the legendary play. Does exceptionally well of combining the theater acting with the movie art. Probable as essential a Shakespeare production will be for me.

#924