Watch it at Amazon
28 out of 34 people found the following comment useful :- That Legendary Melancholy Dane, 8 October 2005 Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York
With this film, Sir Laurence Olivier set the standard as to how Shakespeare should be done on screen. His direction of his handpicked cast was flawless and his own straightforward interpretation of Hamlet is the one everyone else's is measured by.It was a straightforward interpretation because Shakespeare himself in the introduction says that Hamlet's tragedy is one in which his problem is that he couldn't make up his mind. Olivier opts for that and doesn't try to give any deeper meaning to Hamlet's indecision.For those who've never read the play or have seen it or studied in school, Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark. He's Hamlet Junior. His father Hamlet Senior was the king and the king has died. But at the beginning of the play, Hamlet is visited by the ghost of his father and the father tells him he was murdered by his brother Claudius. Claudius took the title and married Hamlet's mother Gertrude. All this was done while Hamlet was away at school in Wittemberg.The ghost wants his son to revenge him, understandable enough. But the story is Hamlet deciding one thing and then another, moderating his course. His actions have everyone believing he's lost his mind. In the end it's tragedy all around.I've always thought that the key thing to remember is that Hamlet is the only one who heard the ghost. Some other palace personnel told him about some apparition making an appearance on one of the battlements of Elsinore Castle, but Hamlet's the only one who's been told the tale. Therefore he's the only one who heard the story and he can't prove anything. The device of spirits visiting Shakespearean protagonists is one the Bard used with great effect. Here, in MacBeth, in Julius Caesar, all of those visits meant someone was meeting their doom. But in Hamlet the ghost makes his appearance at the beginning of the play. Maybe if the ghost had revealed himself to Horatio, to Polonius, the Queen even, Hamlet's duty would have been clear.In the supporting cast I liked Eileen Herlie as the Queen, Jean Simmons as Ophelia, Felix Aylmer as Polonius, and most of all Terrence Morgan as Laertes. Laertes is an important character here. He's the son of the chief counselor in the court, Polonius and brother of Ophelia who has a yen for Hamlet. In the beginning of the play Laertes takes off for France. Later towards the end he finds out the tragedy Hamlet has wrought upon both his father and his sister and Laertes has no trouble making up his mind what he's going to do. Quite a contrast to Hamlet's behavior.The film is moodily photographed in black and white. Olivier wanted to use color, but J. Arthur Rank wouldn't spring for it. So he made due with black and white and the lights and shadows of Elsinore castle as shown almost make this version a kind of Shakespeare noir.I don't think subsequent versions with Nicol Williamson and Mel Gibson hold a candle to this one.
21 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :- Memorable Acting by Olivier in Somewhat Slow-Paced Adaptation, 23 May 2001 Author: Snow Leopard from Ohio
This adaptation of "Hamlet" by Laurence Olivier (he both starred and directed) is a brooding, somewhat slow-moving, but also memorable version of Shakespeare's great play. Olivier's personal performance as the Danish prince is by far the strongest aspect of the picture.Hamlet is one of the most complex and fascinating characters ever created, and no two great actors ever play him quite the same way. Olivier portrays him primarily as "a man who could not make up his mind", and his fine and often subtle acting brings to his role a deep understanding of his character's inner struggles and dilemmas, both moral and practical. He renders Hamlet's most famous lines in a distinctive way that reveal the many possible paths in Hamlet's future. It is a performance not to be forgotten.If Olivier the actor is masterful, Olivier the director is good but not perfect. A great deal of Shakespeare's text was eliminated, getting the running time down to 2 1/2 hours, but even so there are times when the movie seems rather slow-moving, especially in the first hour or so. Most of the cuts involve interactions with the minor characters, and some of the original play's minor roles are cut completely out of the film. The result is to concentrate the emphasis even further on Hamlet himself and on his pessimistic meditations. While this enables Olivier's fine acting to become even more prominent, it does eliminate some very interesting portions of the story whose absence will be regretted by those viewers who love the play.Olivier does add some good touches, though. He emphasizes the somber tone with numerous tracking shots of the castle's gloomy corridors and staircases. The filming of the famous sequence of events at the end is very good, and is much livelier than the rest.While this is probably not the very best interpretation of the play "Hamlet", it is as good an interpretation of the character Hamlet as you will ever see. For that reason alone it is must viewing for any fan of Shakespeare or of Olivier.
19 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :- Murder Most Foul..., 14 January 2003 Author: J. Wellington Peevis from Malltown
The amount of lines taken from this play and used in our everyday conversation is staggering. Like all of the Bard's works, his endurance is not only the mastery of language, but really in storylines that just never get old. Above, everything else, Hamlet is an interesting tale. Olivier's interpretation however, is very dark. Very deliberate. He shies away from the humor completely, and instead takes a slow, purposeful tack. To that, it might not appeal to some. In such a long play and movie, the humor is sorta needed to jostle you a bit, and break the overall bleakness of the tragedy. You don't catch a break here I'm afraid. Id classify this therefore as for more advanced taste, and not for the average moviegoer. Olivier's other two attempts, Henry V and Richard III, specifically the latter, will garner more mainstream appeal.
13 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :- The DEFINITIVE Version Of "A Tragedy Of A Man Who Could Not Make Up His Mind.", 8 March 2005 Author: hamletmusketeersbond (hamletmusketeersbond@yahoo.com) from North Miami, Florida
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
Sir Laurence Olivier's excellent Oscar-winning 1948 adaptation of one of William Shakespeare's most famous plays is arguably the best one, although Kenneth Branagh's star-studded, uncut version, made 48 years later (see my review on it) is also very good. Olivier, already an international star and fresh off "Henry V" (for which he was presented with an honorary Oscar in 1945), directed, produced, text-edited (though he remained uncredited) and starred in his own version of "Hamlet." The effort won him Oscars for Best Picture and Best Actor, in addition to the film's other two nominations. This movie also holds the record for being the only adaptation of Shakespeare to win Best Picture AND Best Actor. MILD SPOILER AHEAD!! Some may complain about Olivier's decision to cut the text in half, choosing instead to concentrate on the central element of the play, which is Hamlet himself and his dilemma. SPOILER AHEAD!! Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are absent from this version (MILD PLAY SPOILER AHEAD!!; they end up dead at the end of the play anyway; MILD PLAY SPOILER OVER!!) and the entire Norwegian subplot has been eliminated from the film, as Olivier thought it would end up extending the movie's running time to over 3 hours. Rounding out the cast are Jean Simmons (who was nominated for Best Actress for her terrific performance and would reappear with Sir Olivier in 1960's "Spartacus") as Ophelia, Felix Aylmer as Polonius, John Gielgud (who would appear in Branagh's version 48 years later) as the Ghost, Eileen Herile as Gertrude, Basil Sydney as Claudius, Terence Morgan as Laertes and Norman Wooland (who would reappear with Olivier in "Richard III" seven years later) as Horatio. Horror icons Christopher Lee (Count Dooku in "STAR WARS Episode II" and the upcoming "Episode III") and Peter Cushing (Grand Moff Tarkin in "STAR WARS Episode IV"), fellow horror film actors, appear in small roles, as does Desmond L. (better known as Q from the James Bond series). Desmond Dickinson's flawless camera work, William Walton's haunting score, Olivier's impeccable acting, directing, producing and uncredited text-editing (as well as everyone else, but he was the star of the film, so it's his performance that carried the movie) and the dark atmosphere (it was filmed in black and white), all combined, make this the definitive "Hamlet," although some may consider Kenneth Branagh's version better. Read the play and see THIS VERSION FIRST before seeing any other (for hardcore Shakespeare fans, preferably Branagh's, which some may prefer on the grounds that Branagh's version features the play IN IT'S ENTIRETY, but if you're an aspiring actor or fan of The Bard, I would STRONGLY RECOMMEND that you see The Master's (Sir Laurence Olivier's; you can also see him in Shakespeare in 1934's "As You Like It," 1944's "Henry V," 1955's "Richard III,"; the latter of which he directed, produced, text-edited, though he would never take credit for that, and starred in, 1965's "Othello," 1973's "The Merchant Of Venice" and 1984's made-for-TV version of "King Lear," made five years before his death) version first. This version is Not Rated.
14 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :- the great moody Dane, 17 August 2003 Author: didi-5 from United Kingdom
It stands to reason that Larry Olivier's version of Hamlet is one of the best, and even if he was a little old for the role (in his forties by this time) it really is the perfect role for him.One or two things to note - the camera angles and shots are often stunning, from above, using angles and shadows, extreme close-ups, and so on. This gives the sometimes ponderous adaptation atmosphere and the black and white photography is gorgeous. Amongst the supporting cast Jean Simmons is a childish, doting Ophelia but this works well. Not working so well are the soliloquies largely within Hamlet's head (and therefore, voiceover). This seems a little gimmicky and only really makes sense with 'To be or not to be'.That aside, this really is Larry's show and he is brilliant. Despite a few cuts it does the original play proud and is, like Welles' Macbeth and Othello, a truly cinematic reading.
12 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :- My favourite Hamlet, for sure!, 1 November 2001 Author: Olga Levina from Moscow, Russia
For years I've considered the classical soviet screen-version of Hamlet directed by Kozintsev (1964) as the best adaptation of the play. I still think it's a masterpiece, however now it fills the second place in my preferences and the first one belongs to Lord Laurence Olivier. To begin with, I was astonished to find out that scenery, costumes and make-up in Kozintsev's film clearly resemble those from Olivier's version. No doubts, our producer knew and appreciated earlier English movie and deliberately copied the settings. Well, I don't blame him: he used it successfully, but the lack of originality is somehow disappointing. The scenery is really wonderful: cold, gloomy, dark, gothic, haunting and even more impressive for being black-and-white. And then… LORD LAURENCE OLIVIER IS THE BEST SHAKESPEAREAN ACTOR EVER. No one else can make the 16th century Bard's text sound modern, natural, alive, expressive, exciting, clear and full of hidden before meaning. Indeed, soviet actors pronounce the text fantastically well, but in Russian: I mean in translation by talented Russian poet Pasternak. And recently I've become interested in reading and watching Shakespeare in original. And here Olivier is an unparalleled performer. He portraits his hero wonderfully. His Hamlet is dignified and noble, reserved and mistrustful, emotional and ruthless (when he knows it is justified), and deeply frustrated (for he is disappointed in everyone except the foreigner Horatio). He is willing to act and yet waits to understand what's happening better. However events take an unexpected course and lead to the final tragedy. At the beginning Hamlet is called `a man who couldn't make up his mind'. Well, I would choose other words: `a man who changed his mind too often', but it wasn't his fault – so were circumstances. And Olivier presents these changes very vividly and truthfully. He makes `To be or not to be' an unusually powerful scene showing Hamlet just a man who sees so much evil all around that he nearly commits suicide. He is stopped only by sudden understanding that death is unremediable and too frightening – natural thought for any sensible man, brave as he is. Such simple variant pleases me better than more sophisticated ones. Somebody may disagree with Olivier's conception of the character but everyone has to admit that while Larry acts he creates complete, convincing, living image of his hero (and very sympathetic, by the way). I also would like to mention Jean Simmons. She seems to be severely misjudged by most reviewers. Simmons is an excellent Ophelia – a simple, naive young girl, merely a child, affectionate, light-hearted, playful, flirting and exceptionally sensitive. An absolutely charming scene is that of Laertes' departure. Polonius makes his solemn speech and Ophelia all the time mischievously distracts attention of her brother. I like all Olivier's films for such amusing trifles. Gertrude is well chosen too, quite believable. Eileen Herlie clear shows that at the end Gertrude understands her husband's wicked game and takes the poison consciously. However, Claudius is not impressive enough, to my mind. To see a perfect thrilling Shakespearean villain you have to watch Kozintsev's film. Of course the play is noticeably cut. I confess I miss Hamlet's passionate soliloquy `Is not this monstrous that this player here…', and also Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (they are important, for Hamlet faces the treachery of friends in their part). On the other hand more complete versions are rather overlong. I am not sure that Branagh's four hours movie gains anything from using the full text. This film is dynamic and worth seeing not only for the sake of Lord Laurence's outstanding performance, but because it is extraordinary interesting version of the familiar play.
15 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :- Dust Up on Your Shakespeare., 1 December 2003 Author: tfrizzell from United States
The titled melancholy Danish prince (Oscar-winner Laurence Olivier) seeks to avenge those involved with his father's death. It seems that Olivier's father (voiced by John Gielgud) still roams the Earth as a spirit that walks around aimlessly, unable to find Heaven or Hell (Purgatory for the most part). Gielgud makes it clear that his brother (Basil Sydney) was the culprit in his death and Olivier becomes enraged. The fact that Sydney has become king by marrying the titled character's mother (Eileen Herlie) just makes the tension build. Herlie and Olivier's relationship pushes the envelope hard on a typical mother-son bond (there are incestuous tones abound here). Oscar-nominee Jean Simmons appears to be Olivier's one true love, but after a terrible tragedy she falls down a path of mental anguish. It appears that the only logical conclusion for Shakespeare's famed character is to have that famous sword fight dual with Simmons' brother (Terence Morgan). Of course you know that not everything is the way it seems, right? "Hamlet" was a surprising success in 1948. Produced in Britain (and strictly a British project for all intensive purposes), the film became a runaway hit with most all audiences and critics (becoming the year's Best Picture Oscar winner). Shakespeare's plays have never really warranted excellence on the silver screen, but this adaptation (also by Olivier) is about as close as we have seen thus far. The movie runs nearly three hours and I was about to fall asleep after the first 60 minutes (the film is almost dragging to a crawl by that point), but after the set-up the movie soars very high. Lots of data that is somewhat confusing hogs up a little too much time when the pacing could have been much crisper. Olivier's spin on the timeless classic is truly uncanny nonetheless. His direction (he was Oscar-nominated in the category) and vision are something to behold. The production values are strong and I ended up enjoying the movie for what it is and what it ultimately wanted to be. Olivier became the first of only two people presently to direct himself to an Oscar victory (Roberto Benigni duplicated the feat with 1998's "Life Is Beautiful"). 4.5 out of 5 stars.
9 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :- The film that set the standard for cinema Shakespeare, 13 June 1999 Author: Jonathan Boswell (jboswell@sinosa.com) from Sierra Vista, Arizona
This version has been topped now, but it's still not to be missed if only for nostalgic purposes. The setting, lighting, and cinematography are wondrous; the acting is superb (though by today's standards Olivier perhaps chews the scenery a bit much); the tone is somber and Gothic. And, I feel the tragedy every time I see it. I personally feel too much was cut, and I find fault with Olivier's interpretation: but then again, it's everybody's part now. Ambitious, effective, and just good theater.
7 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :- The best Hamlet ever -- so far., 14 December 2005 Author: Robert J. Maxwell (rmax304823@yahoo.com) from Deming, New Mexico
I think it's safe to say this is the best Hamlet so far. Not that I've seen them all but it's hard to imagine how anything in this production could be much improved upon.The story, admittedly, is kind of dumb. Everybody since Samuel Johnson has been trying to figure out why Hamlet just didn't go ahead and kill Claudius. Ernest Jones psychoanalyzed Hamlet to uncover his hidden motives. But the answer is a simple one. If Hamlet had obeyed his father's ghost, marched down the steps, and killed Claudius on the spot, that would have been the end of the play, as well as the end of Act I or whatever it was. You might as well ask, when the Indians are chasing the stagecoach, why don't they just shoot the horses? But the dialog never goes wrong, even though Olivier has deleted some unnecessary files and defragged the rest. As one lady said after viewing the film, "I don't know what's supposed to be so great about it. It's all made up out of old quotations." Some of the old quotations, usually corrupted, have entered the English lexicon without our awareness. "Every dog has his day." "Neither a borrower nor a lender be." "The play's the thing." "There's method in his madness." "To be or not to be." "Alas, poor Yorick." "In my mind's eye." The production design in this black and white film is spare. Hardly any superfluous furniture. And it's obviously bound to the studio, and yet it's extremely effective. It has the kind of fog you never see in real life. The last scene, of Hamlet's body being born up the stairway to the tower, takes us on a leisurely tour of previous settings -- the bed chamber, the king's prayer room -- like Welles' camera in the climactic shot of Citizen Kane, moving over the expensive worthless material goods left over from Kane's life.The performances and direction themselves would turn this into a memorable movie. First of all, what a cast! Christopher Lee (Dracula) as a spear carrier. Peter Cushing, another Hammer veteran, as a gay servant. Anthony Quayle. Stanley Holloway (Liza Doolittle's garbageman father in My Fair Lady) as a quick-witted gravedigger. And Olivier himself, brooding and animated by turns, and doing a splendid job of mock fencing, a truly physical presence.It won several Academy Awards, including best picture and best actor. I wonder if it would win anything today. Awards seem to have become hardly more than glitzy settings in which Oscars are given to the biggest pictures that bring in the most money.Well, no sense being too cynical. Let's just say that Olivier's Hamlet is worth about two or three dozen Pearl Harbors and Titanics. If you get a chance to see this, or rent it, don't let the fact that Shakespeare wrote it keep you from watching it. The old guy had a way with words. And, after all, you have incest, five murders and one suicide, and some sneakily bawdy lingo. ("Did you think I meant country matters"?)
14 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :- Almost a great movie..., 31 August 2005 Author: du_man
Hamlet (Laurence Olivier), son of the murdered king of Denmark, contemplates whether or not to take vengeance on the murderer and now king, Claudius (Basil Sydney), Hamlet's uncle. Hamlet must also decide what to do about his mother, Gertrude (Eileen Herlie), who is now married (quite happily, it seems) to Claudius, and Claudius' chief adviser, Polonius (Felix Aymer). In the middle of all this is Hamlet's love Ophelia (Jean Simmons), who is completely confused --- and hurt --- by Hamlet's increasingly bizarre behavior.Like the Zeffrilli/Gibson and Branaugh versions of Shakespeare's classic that followed, Olivier's adaptation is a mostly excellent film with several annoying flaws keeping it just out of reach of greatness.Olivier is superb as Hamlet --- especially when delivering the soliloquies, several of which are genuinely powerful. The rest of the cast, however, is a mixed bag. Herlie is very good, managing to completely overcome that fact that she is really 13 years younger than Olivier. Sydney has his moments and does a decent job, but never really gets across who Claudius really is. Aymer is amusing but nothing more. Simmons makes a good Ophelia, albeit not a great one. Norman Wooland is excellent as Horatio (which is a tough role to actually be memorable in). Stanley Holloway is good as the Gravedigger, but somehow he doesn't nail the part the way Billy Crystal did in the 1996 version. Finally, Peter Cushing is… odd as Osric. The rest of the cast is either stiff or completely uninteresting.However, other than some weak performances, Olivier does a superb job directing everything. The atmosphere during the ghost scenes is absolutely suffocating and starts the film off well. And right from that scene, it's obvious that the camera work is going to be awesome. The camera moves and sweeps everywhere --- but not just for the sake of moving and sweeping like many movies (coughMichaelBaycoughcough). It creates extraordinary images and energy that make many scenes unforgettable --- without calling too much attention to itself.William Walton's creepy music adds a lot.Finally, the climactic fencing scenes are genuinely great – easily the best fencing scenes in a version of Hamlet and possibly among the best in film history.However, despite many great scenes, the movie never creates the emotions it needs to really make the blows come. Yes, some scenes are truly compelling, but on the whole, it misses the mark in that department.However, the scenes that work are brilliant, and despite the lack of emotional power, it is an entertaining and superbly made film that's just as worthwhile as its 90's successors (although it is marginally inferior to them, which is odd --- the 40's version inferior to the 90's remakes!).
Add another comment
