Not by a long shot. Unless you like Shakespeare's prose delivered at the speed of light. I recommend the 1980 BBC version with Derek Jacobi as Hamlet and Patrick Stewart as Claudius. Also of course Olivier's version is amazing as well.
This is the worst performance I have ever seen of Charlton Heston, who was a very talented actor. He was better in Planet of the Apes than in this thankless role.
This is the worst performance I have ever seen of Charlton Heston, who was a very talented actor. He was better in Planet of the Apes than in this thankless role.
Are you kidding???? This is very close to the greatest performance Charlton Heston ever gave! It's almost as if he had finally learned to tone down all the hammy overacting he did in most of his other films (and yes, I'm including "Planet of the Apes" and "Ben-Hur", the film for which Heston won the Oscar - instead of Jimmy Stewart for "Anatomy of a Murder"). After the premiere of "Ben-Hur" in 1959, actor Aldo Ray commented that he liked the film, but also said "That Chuck Heston - what a hammola!"
I don't know how much Branagh's directing had to do with Heston's performance, but if that's the reason Heston's so good in this, then Branagh's an even better director than I thought.
Heston was anything but hammy when he played Cardinal Richelieu in RIchard Lester's very over-the-top (and excellent!) Three Musketeers. An overlooked performance
shareThis is the second best filmed "Hamlet". Nothing can beat Derek Jacobi's version that was done for "The Shakespeare Plays". (This is the "Hamlet" that got Branagh wanting to act in the first place.
shareThis is very close to the greatest performance Charlton Heston ever gave!
I think it is THE one.
I couldn't believe my eyes and ears. It was the first time that I realised he really DID have acting talent.
Yes, this is the only Heston performance I ever really liked.
share"Shakespeare's prose /and poetry/ delivered at the speed of light" was just my thought while watching it. They're declamating the blank verse as if it had all been memorized like a calculation, with bland but unconvincing eloquence and monotonously obvious line patterns. Badly overdone mannerisms too, and unimaginative camera work despite a splendid location.
We don't really get close to these people. I much prefer Olivier, or even Kaurismäki's adaptation Hamlet Goes Business (with an outrageously funny climactic murder scene but also genuine understanding of Shakespeare).
You are a lunatic, Sir, and you're going to end up on the Russian front. I have a car waiting.
I agree that the acting and directing were not everything they could have been, but it would be hard for me to prefer a different version that does not include the full text.
shareGood lord! Olivier's Hamlet is unbearable. His take on Hamlet is mopey, dull, and takes ALL the joy and humour and thrill out of Shakespeare.
Thank heavens for Branagh and thank heavens for people like him, who understand Shakespeare and don't attempt to reduce his work to dull pseudo-academic, Freud-glossed excrement.
This film is grand spectacle, and presents many legitimate, reasonable interpretations of the material that fly in the face of the unsupported nonsense that Shakespeare was subjected to in the early 20th century's obsessive quest to take the fun out of everything.
"mopey, dull, and takes ALL the joy and humour and thrill out of Shakespeare. "
except that there was no joy & humour in Hamlet to begin with.
Yeah, "Hamlet" ain't exactly "Much Ado About Nothing." If you're watching it for "joy and humor," you've been badly misled about the nature of the material.
shareAy-MEN.
I am waiting for "the next Kenneth Branagh" to displace this one. Shouting every line of dialogue whilst clambering o'er the scenery is not intensity, insight, passion, or intelligence.
His directing was choppy, gimmicky, and overly dramatic. Ophelia lying in the middle of the floor all bound up and shorn? What, was she supposed to have been lowered there by a crane? Julie Christie sounded as though she was reading her lines off the back of an envelope. Hey, I know! Let's get a real comic familiar to play Osric! Someone who'll make faces so clownish that they belong in some Dr. Seuss movie.
It's some sort of blasphemy, but I think Mel Gibson's and Ethan Hawke's Hamlets were better.
Laurence Olivier brought great insights. His melancholy Hamlet wandering around the castle to William Walton's score is a touching figure. The performance he got out of Basil Sydney as Claudius opened my eyes to a proud, stiff figure who actually treasured his ill-gotten gains and broke in a moment of high tragedy when he realized he was losing them.
~~~~~~~
Think cynical thoughts.
Charlton Heston was not a stranger to Shakespeare's work. He had periodically done the Bard's plays on stage and screen from very early in his career. He was the best thing about the 1970 film version of "Julius Caesar." He could also give subtle performances when it was called for, as in "Will Penny." Being colorful in a role doesn't mean you're a bad actor. His Long John Silver in the 1990 TV movie "Treasure Island" (with future Oscar-winner Christian Bale) is terrific. Dismissing an actor's ability based on the kind of roles they play is unwise. He liked to play larger-than-life characters, and he did that very well, but he reminded people in this "Hamlet" that he also was very capable of doing Shakespeare. The people who are most surprised by this are those that only know of his work in "Airport 1975" and "Planet of the Apes."
shareI only had one major complaint and its kind of the opposite of what you guys have been unhappy with.
In all other iterations on film and in all the interpretations of the play I've seen, Polonius is supposed to be a goof, the comic-relief. His whole "to thine own self be true" speech is to make him seem like a silly old man and its supposed to be funny. In this version, that speech and his speech to the King & Queen was taken much too seriously. I think to give Richard Briers a more serious role, which isnt sensible since Richard Briers is a well-known comedian.
Most film and stage interpretations are edited down versions of the complete play. Polonius as a hapless comic relief might be a popular interpretation, but it isn't exactly right one when one reads the full unedited play.
The "to thine own self be true" speech contains loads of wise advice a father is giving to his son before he moves out from home. I would hardly call that silly.
I read it in high school and just recently in college. Both teachers were of the opinion Polonius was supposed to be a goof, even though some of his advice makes sense.
sharePolonius is a goof! His advice to his son is almost entirely about etiquette and little to do with ethics (and much of it is contradictory to itself). Polonius is concerned with his own self image (as further evidenced by his advice to Ophelia "Tender yourself more dearly,/ Or.../you'll tender me a fool" (I.iii.107-109).
Polionius gives Laertes advice that will simply make him appear to be a good dude, rather than make him one. We know Polonius is concerned with Laertes' behavior because he sends Reynaldo to spy on Laertes (and even to make up rumors about him to see if they're true) because he doesn't want Laertes doing things to hurt his (Polonius) reputation. The stupid thing is if Reynaldo starts these rumors of "drinking, fencing, swearing, quarrelling, drabbing" then he'll get a reputation even if he's not doing them.
Polonius is a fool and should be used for comic relief.
The 1948 version of Hamlet (with Laurence Olivier) is the best of the film adaptations of Hamlet. Also won the Academy Award for Best Picture.
shareI very much want to disagree with you but I'd have to have seen every version of Hamlet to do so, and I haven't. It's definitely the best of the handful of versions I have seen though, and yes that includes Olivier.
share