William Shakespeare's Hamlet (Two-Disc Special Edition)

Kenneth Branagh's unabridged version of "Hamlet" is a mixed blessing. The most favorable components of this movie are the opulent sets and costumes, the striking photography, and an attractive cast. (It's especially gratifying to see the gifted and still beautiful Julie Christie in a movie after an absence of too many years.) But Branagh's movie falls way short of the brilliance and verve of Laurence Olivier's moody and exhilarating condensed version of "Hamlet" filmed in 1948. There are too many dull scenes in Branagh's movie where the scenary is more interesting than the characterizations particularly that of Hamlet.

Olivier's intensity and commanding presence, his classical handsomeness, and sex appeal were electrifying in the 1948 version of "Hamlet" which Olivier also directed. By comparison, Branagh often seems to blend into the background or is overpowered by the sets. Olivier's ease and dexterity with Shakespearean verse and his ability to morph into and become anyone of Shakespeare's grand protagonists was legendary and second to none. This is why Olivier is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest actors of all time, a genius at that.

The same cannot be said for Branagh. He seems out of his emotional depth in this movie. Whereas Olivier exuded torment because of Hamlet's knowledge of his father's murder, Branagh comes across as merely annoyed. Olivier's madness as Hamlet was frightening while Branagh's example of insanity seems like flighty goofiness. He's not threatening enough. Olivier transcended acting while Branagh either underacts or overacts the part.

Still, this 1996 version of "Hamlet" is entertaining but it is not the masterpiece that Olivier's "Hamlet" is.

When this Hamlet first came out in the theatre, Ie thought it was great. It's taken years for the DVD to be released, and I couldn't wait. I was badly disappointed. There are some good points: "to be, or not to be" is interesting; Polonius is impressive inlife and in death (lots of blood)--his advice to Laertres is sincere, not caricature. Polonius is very convincing as the scheming two faced character he really is; Derek Jacobi's Claudius is convincing, like the entire play should be, he's a sincere stepfather and a sincere villian. Guildenstern is uncomfortably slackk jawed and brain dead. Jack Lemmon has absolutely no expression as the guard who first sees the Ghost?!! Robin Williams as the page??? Julie Christie as Gertrude goes from helpless to murderous without batting an eyelash. And worst of all, I think Branagh actually chews on some of the scenery at one point. It takes him longer to die than any opera satire would dare.
The last scene in which he's carried Christ-like like after Fortinbras' arrival is to laugh.
Branagh's Henry V was great, as good or better than Olivier's version. HJis Hamlet is a four hour bore bettered by almost any of the other modern film versions. Oh that this too, too, stolid film would melt away!

Sorry, I really didn't like it.

The first and the last DVD of Hamlet you will ever need. (Actually in two discs). I believe that this is by far the best piece I have ever seen. And it is complete. Buy it.

Shakespeare, like every other writer, director, and producer since the beginning of time, was aware of his power to sway public opinion. He was also, like them, up to his eyeballs in politics while pretending to be passive and neutral. Unfortunately for him, Queen Elizabeth the First was no fool. So he found it healthy to write a lot of magnificent, politically correct tripe about previous English kings. However, he was allowed to write a "what if" story about Danish politics that shows us what a truly dangerous man he was.

That story is Hamlet.

If you want to hear the story, you need to hear the whole story. All four hours of it. Unedited, unimproved, unsimplified, cut neither in time nor in content. This is that story. One could discuss Kenneth Branagh versus Mel Gibson or Laurence Olivier. One could wax ecstatic about the all-star cast or the Blenheim Palace setting or the 65mm film format. Or the music. Oh Lord, the music. Placido Domingo's singing during the closing credits is alone worth the price of the disks. But the real issue is the story itself.

Firing up Google Maps and entering "helsingor, denmark" will take us to the modern Danish city that Shakespeare called Elsinore. Clicking on the "satellite" tab and zooming in will take us to the castle itself. This castle overlooks the narrowest point of a body of water called the Oresund Strait. All merchant traffic sailing in and out of the Baltic Sea must sail through one of three straits, this being the one farthest east. The other two straits are firmly in Danish hands, but this one has Sweden on the other side. Any prince that occupies this castle can break the Danish tax monopoly of Baltic Sea commerce, or if he is lucky, grab the monopoly for himself. As England was a seafaring nation, Shakespeare would have known this. So would most of his audience.

The obvious threat is from Sweden, but Shakespeare thought it more interesting to create a threat from Norway. At that time, Norway and Denmark were more or less one nation, as nations were defined back then. They shared allegiance, such as it was, to one King. But there is always an enemy within, something Shakespeare knew all too well. So he created the character Fortinbras of Norway, and gave him a score to settle.

Fortinbras wants to avenge his father's death, and incidentally seize the throne of Denmark. His father was killed by old Hamlet, father of the current Prince Hamlet. Throughout the story, Fortinbras is advancing his army of followers towards Elsinore.

But Fortinbras cannot kill old Hamlet. That's because Claudius, old Hamlet's younger brother, killed old Hamlet first, and incidentally seized the throne of Denmark.

Prince Hamlet, old Hamlet's son, wants to avenge his father's death, and incidentally seize the throne of Denmark. As the throne should rightfully be his anyway, this is seen as a moral act. But in trying to kill his uncle Claudius, he mistakenly kills Polonius. This understandably upsets Laertes, son of Polonius.

So now Laertes wants to avenge his father's death, and incidentally seize the throne of Denmark. But Claudius talks him into murdering Prince Hamlet instead, thereby leaving himself (Claudius) on the throne.

In the upshot, just about everybody kills each other off. Fortinbras walks in and seizes the throne of Denmark by the simple act of sitting upon it.

Briefly, that is the plot. But not the story. The story is about "... how these things came about: So shall you hear of carnal, bloody, and unnatural acts, of accidental judgements, casual slaughters, of deaths put on by cunning and forced cause, and, in this upshot, purposes mistook fallen on the inventor's heads".

This story has lasted four hundred years for good reason, and Branagh's is the definitive production of it.

I plan to go see the play Hamlet in near future and wanted to see the movie to give me some background. Kenneth Branagh directed and starred in this movie. He is well known for his devotion to Shakespeare and Hamlet in particular, having played it several times on stage and screen. I found this movie helpful to introduce me to Shakespeare's Hamlet as it is done with love and thoroughness. Apparently other movies take aspects of the play - but this version brings it all together.