WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Btexxamar I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

FrogGlace In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

Cissy Évelyne It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

David Foley Portrayals of Hamlet always seem to provoke a personal response that stimulates vocabulary and reflection, without addressing the central dilemma of the tragedy; a reflection perhaps of the powerful influence of the central character who imposes his contemplative posturing on his reviewers as he does on stage and in film.Widely regarded as the greatest play of the greatest writer in the English language, it is easy to understand why Hollywood stars turn to Hamlet for proof of their status as serious actors. Yet, to be a success in a film or television version requires so much more than the boyish good looks of a Richard Chamberlain (1970), the Max Max certainty of Mel Gibson (1990) or even the studied intensity of Laurence Olivier (1948).In Nicol Williamson we find a temperamental, anti-establishment, questioning actor who is at his very best in Hamlet (1969). Perhaps he understood more than any other actor of the modern era why Hamlet says what he says, doesn't do what he doesn't do and finally does what he does.No English play has produced so many commentaries or provoked so much analysis as Hamlet. Like the Mona Lisa's smile, there is an essential attraction in the enigma which defies casual analysis. As a child, it took me a long time to appreciate my father's gentle humour in passing the twin verdicts that "It wasn't written by Shakespeare but by someone else with the same name" and "Hamlet is alright, but it is full of quotes".Nicol Williamson's genius is evident not only in the set-piece soliloquies that illustrate countless anthologies, but in the minor gestures and less-well-known asides that give such depth and perspective on Hamlet. Just as you might check a new dictionary to see if the definition of "rant" is superior to Dr Johnson's "high sounding language unsupported by dignity of thought" (1755), you might see a performance of Hamlet and note how the actor handles the intonation of "except my life, except my life, except my life". Not even the sweet steam radio voice of John Gielgud (1948) or the majestic splendour of Richard Burton (1964) can match the intoned pathos of Nicol Williamson.Team GB's recent successes in achieving 7 of the 10 gold medals available for track cycling at the London 2012 Olympics have been ascribed to coach Dave Brailsford's obsession with successive minor improvements in what has become known as a "doctrine of marginal gains". When comparing Nicol Williamson's performance to his predecessors, we find that our Scottish-born actor from Birmingham demonstrates a marked marginal gain in almost every scene.If Tony Richardson's direction is unduly restrictive in putting Nicol Williamson in sharp close up lying down in bed for most of the "To be or not to be" speech, he surely cannot be faulted further for bringing out fine performances from Gordon Jackson, Anthony Hopkins, Roger Liversy and Marianne Faithful.The reviews expressed on this website vary from the "Absolutely Horrific" of 20 March 2000 from "Movie Fan from Tennessee" to "highly recommend this movie" of 2 September 2001 from "Denise from Ohio". Every viewer will have a personal response and quite rightly so; but for me, this is the best ever film version of Hamlet. It preserves the mystery, illustrates the history, vivifies the comedy and reveals magnificently the Tragedy of Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark.

david-sarkies I must admit that I wasn't really all that impressed with this version of Hamlet, though a gut feeling tells me that it is probably the version that most high school students watch, though these days there is probably a much wider collection. The main reason that I wasn't impressed was not so much that they left some things out of the play (such as the very important scene were Hamlet is in the confessional and hears Claudius spill his guts) but that the person playing Hamlet simply seemed too old. Granted, we are given no clues as to Hamlet's age in the play though he appears to be old enough to assume the throne.Stoppard suggests that Hamlet's problem is that Claudius stole the throne that was rightfully his, but watching this version I noted that Claudius had accepted that the throne was going to be Hamlet's anyway. The issue is not so much that Claudius stole the throne, but that while his father's corpse was still warm, Claudius married his mother. He had no idea that Claudius had killed his father until he was told so by the ghost.When one makes a movie out of one of Shakespeare's plays I generally do not accept the minimalist approach. While I do like the minimalist approach in the theatre, I have tried to watch the BBC productions and I just did not seem to warm to them. When they are made for the silver screen, there are so much more possibilities. This is clear with a number of American productions which work the play to make it more palpable to the big screen. It did not seem to be the case with this version of Hamlet. Granted, it was made in 1969, but so was the Richard Burton version of Taming of the Shrew, and this was a colourful extravaganza.I will always prefer a stage acted Shakespearian play, but the screen does allow much more creativity (such as the version of Richard III set in 1930's England, or the Macbeth set in the Melbourne underworld). It did not seem that this film explored the possibilities that the screen allows all too much, and as such I feel that this movie simply falls flat.

bazdol Although it surely does have its good points, I still think the Branagh rendition of what may be Shakespeare's finest play. is still the best one available; it has great acting not only by Branagh himself but also the supporting players such as Kate Winslet, yes, Billy Crystal, although Jack Lemon is a bit out of his element here.

André-7 Although shot on film with an excellent cast, this film bears too much resemblance to all those dreary 1980's BBC television versions of the Bard's plays. All are well acted and directed with professional British casts, but all lack the necessary budgets (and daring) to make the grade as great cinema. At best they are documents of each cast or director's vision of the material. Here we have Richardson shooting his cast in tight, tight close ups in a darkened studio for lack of sets and decor. It makes for claustrophobic watching. Give me a Polanski or a Zeffirelli any day of the week for cinematic chutzpah.