Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

2freensel I saw this movie before reading any reviews, and I thought it was very funny. I was very surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative reviews this film received from critics.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

leethomas-11621 One of the greatest films of all time. Olivier creates a perfect setting, the castle is vast yet intimate. Magnificent score camerawork and lighting. Benefits from discarding minor characters Fortinbras, Rozencratz, etc. Film gives you real sense of Hamlet's confusion. He doesn't want the responsibilities of kingship. Can't agree with Horatio at the end, that Hamlet would have made a great King. Too indecisive. Hamlet or Shakespeare have never been bettered on the screen

Lee Eisenberg I understand that Laurence Olivier called his adaptation of William Shakespeare's masterpiece more of a study of "Hamlet" than a direct adaptation. Nonetheless, the result was a marvelous film. At heart, the movie is a look at base impulses. In fact, I see a connection to another 1948 movie: "Treasure of the Sierra Madre". The latter focuses on the horrific actions to which greed drives people, much like how "Hamlet" looks at vindictiveness. Neither offers a rosy view of humanity.The cold, Gothic sets frame the story perfectly. Elsinore's dreary look does as much to emphasize the characters' futile existence as any of the actors do. I should note that I've never seen a stage production of "Hamlet", so I'm not the best person to offer a comparison to a live version. I understand that Olivier cut much of the story to condense the movie so that he could emphasize the psychological aspect. Even so, he turned out a masterpiece, becoming the first person to direct himself to an acting Oscar, and giving us the first Best Picture winner not from the US. As for whether it was the year's best movie, I'd rank it as equal to "Treasure of the Sierra Madre", with both offering devastating focuses on the human condition. Definitely see it.

GusF Of the three Shakespearean plays adapted for the screen by Laurence Olivier, this is the one with which I am the most familiar. It's been quite some time since I've read it or seen it performed but I would guess that Olivier cut a good third, if not more, of the play for this film version. Most significantly, he entirely cut out the major characters of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and Fortinbras as well as quite a few minor ones. In spite of this, however, the story retains its general thrust - if not all the specifics - and the film is still magnificent as Olivier once again utterly excels as both an actor and a director. This was the first British or non-American film to win the Best Picture Actor and Olivier became the first actor to win the Best Actor Oscar for a film that he directed himself. The only other person to accomplish this feat was Roberto Benigni in "La vita è bella" 49 years later. Although Olivier was nominated for twelve Oscars (nine for Best Actor, one for Best Supporting Actor and two for Best Picture), this film was the only one for which he won any Academy Award.As the melancholy Dane, Olivier is absolutely wonderful. While the cuts to "Henry V" meant that the title character was shown in a very positive light, he did not hesitate - as either actor or director - here to emphasise his character's less desirable qualities such as his egotistical behaviour and his utter callousness when it comes to unintentionally killing Polonius. And yet Olivier's performance also draws attention to the character's psychological vulnerability after the murder of his father, thus eliciting sympathy. His lust for revenge has cut him off from his emotions, something which is also seen in his brutal rejection of Ophelia. Olivier also plays the ghost of Hamlet's father in the film and does a fantastic job in that role too.Speaking of Ophelia, the 18-year-old Jean Simmons is excellent, playing the role with a remarkable level of subtlety for someone of her age and comparatively limited acting experience. In spite of playing Hamlet's mother Gertrude, Eileen Herlie was almost eleven years younger than Olivier. While she unsurprisingly looks much younger than him, her very strong performance and great voice meant that I forgot this rather odd age gap existed almost as soon as she opened her mouth. Felix Aylmer, who played the Archbishop of Canterbury in "Henry V", has a far larger role in this film as Polonius and was certainly up to the task. He's just fantastic. Basil Sydney isn't as strong as I would have liked as Claudius but he is still very good. However, I don't think that there is anyone in the film who gives a bad performance. Olivier had such a great eye for casting that it's a shame that he directed a mere five films. I wish that an artist - not usually a word that I use when referring to actors - of his calibre had been more prolific behind the camera. Aside from those actors that I have already mentioned, I would like to single out Esmond Knight (who unfortunately has a far smaller role than in "Henry V"), John Laurie, Terence Morgan, Anthony Quayle and Stanley Holloway. In his first British film, Peter Cushing - one of my favourite actors who, like Olivier, played Van Helsing years later - is good in the small supporting role of the foppish Osric but his performance isn't on the same level as most of his later ones. I have to say that I have never paid so much attention to the extras in a film as in this one! This is because three actors who became very well known in later years made uncredited appearances in the film: Christopher Lee, Desmond Llewelyn and Patrick Macnee. In only his third film, Lee makes two "blink and you'll miss them" appearances just before the duel between Hamlet and Laertes. In the first instance, he appears behind his future best friend and frequent on screen nemesis Peter Cushing in what was their first of 24 films together. Llewelyn was far easier to spot as he appears quite prominently in the background of several scenes. He actually has slightly more screen time than the credited Patrick Troughton, who portrays the small but pivotal role of the Player King but doesn't have any lines. While I was on a constant lookout for Lee and Macnee (the film's only two surviving cast members), I didn't manage to spot the future John Steed. Acting aside, the film looks fantastic. In contrast to the vibrant Technicolor of "Henry V", the film was shot in black and white. Apparently, this was done more for financial than artistic reasons but the black and white cinematography adds to the sense of foreboding. The use of deep focus - probably inspired by "Citizen Kane" - is superlative. As with Orson Welles, Olivier demonstrated that he was a master of not one but two crafts in a single film. Incidentally, Olivier had hoped to make "Macbeth" after "Henry V" but the fact that Welles was working on his own version put paid to that idea. "Macbeth" has always been my favourite Shakespearean play so the fact that Olivier never got to make his version of it for the big screen is hugely disappointing, particularly since it was considered one of his best roles - and that's really saying something - and it would have starred his then wife Vivien Leigh as Lady Macbeth.Overall, the film is a masterpiece in spite of the fact that it cuts significant portions of the play. One of my Top 30 to 35 films of all time.

powermandan The only major flaw this movie has is how condensed it is. Subplots, characters, and lines are eliminated, to the point where it feels unfinished. Olivier did this for two reasons: time and more focus on Hamlet. Hamlet is Shakespeare's most complex and debated character, so Olivier condensing the movie isn't that bad. It also allows the movie more of a dark, Gothic feeling, much to Hamlet's self. But Olivier cutting out many lines, including all but the last line in the "O what a rogue and peasant slave am I" soliloquy: arguably the best soliloquy in the play, is what I didn't like. It is the most intense we see him, and it is also when he shows his main traits: sadness, anger, confusion, philosophy, wit, happiness and determination, all in the same part. It is also the play's turning point/climax (all of Shakespeare's climax's happen near the middle). Olivier including that soliloquy would has added just a couple more minutes and would have made Olivier's great performance even better. Though I have been bickering at the condensation, that is not enough to say this movie wasn't good or sucked. What makes this so good is the filming and portrayals. Sir Laurence Olivier was the greatest actor of the 20th century. Some similar actors in his time such as Gielgud, Guinness and Richardson became his greatest rivals, but none could surpass him. But on film, Olivier did crappy performances by being completely unconvincing and very robotic. This is one of those times where he would deliver a superb powerhouse performance. Plus, the delivery of the character was very plausible. Hamlet is a character that only the best can play. To do a good Hamlet, one must have strong acting and accuracy. Not just one or the other, or one outweighing the other. There is no correct way of playing Hamlet, only accuracy. The only way to attain that accuracy is by showing every kind of human emotion, all while keeping a basis for the general character (Olivier's was a man who could not make up his mind, which is the most popular and plausible generalization). Olivier's accuracy may very well be how Shakespeare intended on writing Hamlet. His strong accuracy and dazzling performance makes this one of the best portrayals in film history. If you have not studied Hamlet, you won't think so. Other than Olivier, everyone else's portrayals and accuracy were spot on too. Even Gertrude (who was noticeably 10 years younger than Oliver) was great. Kenneth Branagh's 1996 version disgraced all characters except for Horatio. What makes this a great piece of film are the camera tricks and special effects. Although Olivier did not like doing movies, he admired filmmakers and wanted to do an artful movie. For a movie in the 1940s, the ghost, smokes, and lighting were uncanny. His capturing of a dark Gothic feeling is so good and fits the play very well. He also incorporates many camera tricks that adding meaning and pull the viewer in. This is the only artful and skillfully crafted film about a Shakespearean play.