Leofwine_draca
Mel Gibson's HAMLET is a perfectly acceptable 1990s retelling of the Shakespeare play, eclipsed only by Kenneth Branagh's lavish 4-hour epic version that was later put out in 1996. I had the pleasure of seeing the Branagh film at the cinema back in the day, and it's still one of my favourite Shakespeare adaptations. By comparison, this version feels a little glum and subdued, although it's still perfectly watchable.One of the things that stands out about this HAMLET is that it has a gloomy and grey look to it; the sort of film that makes you feel the chill while watching. It's set in a forbidding grey stone castle for the most part and feels a lot like both Polanski's MACBETH and IN THE NAME OF THE ROSE. Gibson is a good choice for lead and successfully captures the character's anguish and a descent into madness, while the supporting cast are all very good too with Alan Bates and Ian Holm particularly shining. The film has just the right running time and stages all of the big moments with relish, ending on a high note despite the tragedy of the situation.
Kirpianuscus
What you could expect from an adaptation ? accuracy ? new versions of known performances ? inspired manner of director to translate in images his vision about text ? Hamlet by Zeffireli gives a drop from each of that. in a personal style. and that is far to be surprising. Hamlet by Mel Gibson is a surprise. powerful, impetuous, far by the wall of clichés about the Danish prince who becomes almost Meridional. and, more important, alive. not the best, sure. but useful for discover a new form to give to him strong traces. Glen Close and Alan Bates are the inspired options for the balance. Helena Bonham Carter - the expected Ophelia. condensed story, precise, mix of costumes and rooms, beautiful - and what film by Zeffireli could be ugly ? -, it is a form of introduction to Hamlet for young public. and this represents a real significant virtue.
Red-125
Hamlet (1990) stars Mel Gibson. The film was directed by Franco Zeffirelli. Mel Gibson ranks at the top of my list of unlikeable Hollywood stars. However, as as reviewer, I have to give him credit for doing a creditable job in the demanding role of Hamlet. Film Hamlets don't have to be skilled Shakespearean actors. The ability to murmur a soliloquy that can be heard in the back row of an auditorium isn't required in the movies. The director can order numerous takes until one turns out well. He can use close-ups--as Zeffirelli does--to make sure we understand the actor's emotions. I don't think Gibson would have managed the role onstage, but on the screen he carries it off.Glenn Close, as Gertrude, is excellent. This is especially evident in the bedroom ("closet") scene. She really does portray Gertrude's mixture of fear and shame in a convincing manner.However, in my opinion, acting honors go to Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia. Bonham Carter's Ophelia is shy and innocent. She is flattered and frightened by Hamlet's professions of love, and she is crushed by his violent rejection. Most impressive is her portrayal of the mad scenes. She acts these so well that you actually are convinced that you are watching a young woman who has had a descent into mental illness.I've watched several Hamlets as part of a Shakespeare on film honors course. Each movie has it's strengths and weaknesses. This Hamlet deserves to be seen. Zeffirelli Is a brilliant director, Mel Gibson is a satisfactory Hamlet, and Helena Bonham Carter is the perfect Ophelia.I watched this movie on DVD, but it would do better in a theater. It's worth watching it in whatever format is available.
James Hitchcock
This was the first of two filmed "Hamlets" in the nineties, the other being Kenneth Branagh's from 1996. Franco Zeffirelli had earlier made one of the great Shakespeare films, his "Romeo and Juliet" from 1968. (I have not seen his version of "The Taming of the Shrew"). Whereas his "Romeo and Juliet" was set against the background of the sunny Italian countryside, his "Hamlet", in keeping with the play's Scandinavian setting, is appropriately cool and northern, although it was actually filmed in Scotland.Branagh's "Hamlet" was also filmed in Britain, but the two films are very different in terms of their visual style. Branagh shot his film in the depths of an icy winter against the formal grandeur of Blenheim Palace. The interior scenes, by contrast, are opulent and palatial; all the leading characters wear splendid costumes. (The film is updated to the nineteenth century, so that means crinolines for the women and military uniforms for the men). Branagh's aim seems to have been to contrast outward pomp and splendour with inner corruption and decay. Zeffirelli's film is set in spring against a castle on the cliffs above the sea. The exterior scenes are often sunny; the predominant tone is the bright green of the grass. In this case, however, the interior scenes are dull and claustrophobic; the predominant colour is the grey of the castle walls. The film is set in mediaeval times; not the high Middle Ages, which might have made for greater visual colour, but earlier, in the eleventh or twelfth century. (This period may have been chosen as this was the time when the Danish chronicler Saxo Grammaticus wrote the first version of the Hamlet story). The costumes, even of the royal or aristocratic characters, are dull and subdued; Zeffirelli seems to have intended them to reflect the mood of the characters in the play. I first saw this film in the cinema on the recommendation of my then girlfriend, but I did not hold out any great hopes for it, as Jill tended to judge every film solely on the looks of its leading man, a sort of female equivalent of those lust-stricken males who will solemnly insist, against all the evidence, that Pamela Anderson or Bo Derek really are great actresses. Mel Gibson was one of her particular heart-throbs, but at that time I regarded him principally as Mad Max and just could not envisage him as Hamlet. Well, Jill was right and I was wrong. Talk about coming to jeer and staying to cheer. Gibson is actually very good. He is not as polished as Branagh as a speaker of Shakespearean verse, but he brings his own rough honesty to the part. Like Branagh, however, he has little time for the traditional concept of Hamlet as indecisive, passive and melancholy. His Hamlet is vigorous and robust; his low spirits and disgust with the world are not the result of some innate character flaw but rather a natural reaction to the tragedies of his father's death, his mother's betrayal and the revelation that his uncle is a murderer. Of the other major characters, I liked Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia (indeed, I preferred her to Kate Winslet). I also liked Alan Bates as Claudius. His performance is rather different to Derek Jacobi's in Branagh's film, but equally persuasive. Jacobi suggests that Claudius could have been a good man under different circumstances, before he allowed himself to be led astray by ambition and lust. Bates' character is a more straightforward villain, but one who is adept at hiding his villainy beneath an outward show of jovial good fellowship. Paul Scofield's Ghost is less frightening than Brian Blessed's, but perhaps more moving. The one major character I did not like was Glenn Close's Gertrude. In 1990 I still thought of her mainly as the bunny-boiler in "Fatal Attraction", and her performance here did little to dispel that impression. To start with, she is nowhere near old enough to be Mel Gibson's mother. More importantly, Gertrude seemed to be fatally attracted not only towards her brother-in-law but also towards her son, embracing both with vigour and kissing them warmly on the lips. Close and Zeffirelli seem to have been heavily influenced by the idea that there is an incestuous attraction between Gertrude and Hamlet, something which has always seemed to me to owe less to Shakespeare than to Freud (or possibly to a misunderstanding of Freud), and which I think works to the play's detriment. The big difference between this version and Branagh's is length. Branagh's version is based on the full uncut text of the play and runs to over four hours, nearly twice the length of Zeffirelli's which, like Olivier's, is based on an abridged version. (The Fortinbras subplot, for example, is omitted altogether). Doubtless abridging the play in this manner makes commercial sense; three hours or thereabouts ("Titanic", "Lord of the Rings", etc) seems to be the outer limit of the modern cinema-goer's patience and Branagh's film did not do well at the box-office. Nevertheless, it is in my view the better of the two films, bringing out not only the full complexity but also the full emotional power of the play. Zeffirelli's version works well as a film in its own right, but it is little more than half of what Shakespeare actually wrote. 8/10
