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

Hamlet is a classic, but due to it's age it's very difficult to understand. I read and watched the play for a school assignment and I was getting really frustrated in the beginning because I couldn't fully understand everything that was being said and I felt like I was missing information. After while I stopped worrying about that and just absorbed what I could. I thought it was decent. I imagine it would take several views and/or reads to really appreciate the quality of writing that is so highly thought of.

The way this is directed shows sooo many alternate interpretations of the original play. Kenneth does an amazing job at deciding when Hamlet should “flip the crazy switch”. My students love it. There are two scenes that I don’t show in class.

There are many film interpretations of Shakespeare's best-known plays, and you should never depend on seeing a single one to get a good interpretation of the play. Based on watching six different film versions of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" I heartily agree with the reviewer who says versions made for film bring the special talents of the cinematographer and editor to bear, which are absent when the film is a record of a stage performance, or directed as if it were being done on the stage.And, since this is Shakespeare's best known play, and perhaps the finest play written in any language, the more versions you see the better. I already mentioned one reason, the added depth achieved by camera close ups and long range views, for recommending this version. A second reason is that this production makes a point of adding every word Shakespeare wrote, even to the point of reconciling different editions to get the best lines. Almost all versions of Shakespeare's plays, and especially Hamlet, are cut down, with one or more sup-plots shrunk or deleted. This does not, which is why it runs to over 4 hours. Added to Shakespeare's words are a number of flashbacks and "interpretation" scenes which imagine what meaning is lurking behind some of the words spoken on stage.The cast is stupendous. It is the kind of cast usually assembled for such epics as "The Longest Day" where most characters may be on the screen for about 5 minutes, so they need a familiar face in order for you to remember who that pilot was after he was shot down (Oh yes, that's Richard Burton. He was in the pub scene 90 minutes ago.) Most of the key roles are played by well known Shakespearian specialists, such as Branagh, Derek Jacobi, and Richard Briers. Several of the minor characters are Shakespearean regulars too, like Brian Blessed as the ghost. I especially liked to see Jacobi in a solid, major role, and not as window dressing in the first episodes of costume dramas, to lend weight to the cast.There are also lots of good non-Shakespearean actors in the main rank, especially Julie Christie and Kate Winslet. Among the incidental characters, talent is used with such abandon that one is almost inclined to refer to casting pearls before swine, bot so many of them work to perfection. My favorite is Charlton Heston as the leader of the traveling company of players who performs for the court of Denmark. He plays the role to perfection, and he seems perfectly cast. The other extreme is Jack Lemmon as Marcellus, one of the guards who first spots the ghost during the night watch at Elsinore Castle. It is not a comic role, and you have to look twice to recognize him. He only has two or three short scenes.Speaking of comedy roles (and Shakespeare always manages to include one or two, even in tragedies, there are Billy Crystal as the first gravedigger and Robin Williams as a courtier, who scores the fencing match between Hamlet and Laertes in the last act. Williams seems wasted, but Crystal is pitch perfect.For the first time, I get the sense that Shakespeare's main interest in this play was not justice or revenge, but madness, as two of the main characters either feign madness or actually become mad. And, dare I say it that it seems the most sane character, Polonius, is belittled by all the other characters, then killed, from madness. But an analysis like that is above my Shakespearean pay grade...Which makes me think that almost all actors in this production worked for scale (that is, peanuts).I have seen at least two other productions which are done in bright light, for the camera, and neither can hold a candle to this one. And for all the lights and cinematic expanses, the key speeches come off perfectly.Highly recommended.

This product was exactly as described. I’ve looked for years trying to find Hamlet on blu-ray and finally got lucky. Shipping was much faster than expected and the product arrived in perfect condition. And yes, it works flawlessly in Notth American devices.

I am, like Claudius, to "double business bound" in that while I feel this is the best realization on film of this play, it has certain glaring faults that diminish its otherwise superb interpretation. There is, first, Branagh's portrayal of the Dane himself. He is at times overly mannered to the point that we see him reaching for an emotion he doesn't seem to feel - witness his "O that this too too solid (sullied) flesh. ." soliloquy. One gets the distinct impression that he is focused not on the emotions of his character but rather on where the camera is placed. Too, his talk with Polonius in 2.1 is thoroughly misguided. He comes across not as mad, much less as crafty, but rather as smarmy and adolescent. Gibson does a much finer job with this scene as his Hamlet is more bewildered than juvenile. Overall, his portrayal lacks subtlety as well as range. His death scene could be a primer on what actors must never do - show that they are acting. Both Burton and Finnes are more exciting Hamlets. Of course there are times when Branagh excels, such as when he drags the hapless Ophelia (played magnificently by Winslet, who, for perhaps the first time in her career keeps most of her clothes on - one indeed sometimes gets the feeling she will only accept roles which allow her to disrobe)around a mirrored room (also a fine directorial flourish - where is the camera?). As for the other actors - Jacobi as a Claudius who engages our sympathy is, as always, superb. Richard Briers, who was a disasterous Malvolio in Branagh's first foray into directing Shakespeare (his Malvolio was much too florid, too angry by half) is competent here; Hume Cronyn (in Burton/Gielgud's production) remains, for me, the definitive Polonius. Now we come to Branagh as director and interpreter of the text. Having Ophelia read the love letter she received from Hamlet is an injudicious misstep, as is the intercut bedroom scene between she and Hamlet - it serves no purpose. Along the same lines, when Hamlet first spies Ophelia seemingly praying, Branagh plays it as a spurned lover - precisely what he must not do, for if he does Claudius would certainly have to agree with Polonius' assertion that Hamlet's madness is due to Ophelia's not reciprocating his love. The biggest, most unforgivable mistake Branagh makes is in the last scene. Just when all of our attention should be focused squarely on Hamlet, Laertes, Claudius, and Gertrude, it is diverted to Fortinbras' attack. This attack is at odds with the text. If Fortinbras were attacking Denmark why in the name of all that is holy, would he seems genuinely sorrowful over the many dead bodies he encounters on entering the castle? It is much more satisfying (and textually accurate) to have Fortinbras simply walk in and take the crown without having lifted a finger - the irony of the situation is delicious - here Hamlet has brooded and brooded and finally after he exacts his revenge and dies Fortinbras, who is a man of action who at first wanted revenge against Denmark for his father's death at the hands of Hamlet's father, gets his revenge by doing precisely nothing. Branagh, however, botches it. Not only that, as though there are not enough dead bodies littering the stage, he kills off Osric who, judging by his final words, is killed by a 21 gun salute given by the Norweigians to the British. I teach this play so I have to carefully explain that the attck on Elsinore Castle makes no sense textually or otherwise. I am not such a puritst that I believe that a Shakepearean text never be touched. In Patrick Stewart's Macbeth certain liberties are taken, but they work. Too, what is that business of Hamlet becoming Errol Flynn bounding down to Claudius on a chandelier? In short, the final scene is dramatic enough without Branagh inventing drama of his own. All that said however, the film has great merit. And any fans of the play would be doing themselves a disservice were they to miss it.

This is a very well-directed film. The great joy of watching a Branagh-directed Shakespeare is the effort put into ensuring that the diction is as clear and natural as possible without losing the strength of the text. The cast is excellent, Derek Jacobi and Kate Winslet in particular; even cameos for which you would perhaps have doubts - such as Robin Williams, who impresses with his characterisation of Osric, and Billy Crystal as the gravedigger - work. Indeed, the repartee between Billy Crystal and Simon Russell-Beale in the graveyard scene is the funniest I have ever witnessed.The colour and sets are spectacular, all filmed in 70mm, allowing for great richness and definition. Branagh says he wanted to escape the Gothic look of previous Hamlets, "away from the clichés of doublet and hose", so instead Elsinore becomes Blenheim in the nineteenth century. Almost everyone wears glitteringly smart military dress, for it is, after all, a time of war. It's also winter, although the effect is somewhat undermined by the lack of cold air on the breaths of the protagonists. Branagh wanted the look to be sexy and glamorous. He says he wanted, rather than a portrayal of an exact period, more an impression of period. He mentions the Austro-Hungarian Empire and claims the films "The Prisoner of Zenda" and "Mayerling" as influences.The interior shots were made at Shepperton Studios. Here all is light and brightness, with a focus on the mirrored hall. There are some very long and impressive takes, but you become so engrossed in the action that you barely notice these. I only became aware of them when listening to the interesting commentary by Branagh and Shakespearian scholar and collaborator, Russell Jackson. It is well worth listening to, commenting as it does on both the philosophy and the practicalities behind both the original play and on the filmed production.This film is long because it includes, more or less, the whole play. There have been some shavings; as mentioned in the commentary, Branagh has kept to the first folio and second quarto editions, so we do not see the scene of Gertrude being informed of Hamlet's return from England that is in the first quarto. The play itself, despite its length, is to some extent made worse by missing scenes, for example where Laertes is told of his father's murder and sister's madness, and draws together his mob to attack the palace. It would have been nice too to have seen how Hamlet returns to Denmark. Branagh tries to provide a detailed backdrop by, for instance, showing him making love to Ophelia, and by the use of cameos such as those of John Gielgud and Judi Dench, so perhaps I should not be too complaining.It has an intermission between discs but the time passes quite unnoticed as you become involved in the drama, as when Laertes and Claudius conspire Hamlet's death. Indeed, I would say that Claudius is the key to this performance, and Jacobi (for once) is formidable in the role. Claudius now has time to be seen as a more well-rounded character. He is not a purely evil man, and Branagh in his commentary describes him as a "good man gone bad". This means that Hamlet is not so much the solution, but he is the problem to the play, for when he kills Polonius does not he become just as much the murderer as Claudius?But what of Branagh's portrayal of Hamlet itself? It feels mean of me to criticise a man who has seemingly devoted half his life to the Shakespearian cause, but Branagh's Hamlet in his ravings and rantings in his soliloquies goes over the top. For me, Branagh's rages are seen as overacting, as not true. (Laertes too - played by Michael Moloney - tends to overplay his wrath, but, in a sense, he is Hamlet's mirrored self.) The worst scene in the entire play - just before the intermission - sees Hamlet raging against the universe, and set falsely against a vast winter landscape where Fortinbras's soldiers march across a plain. It is too full of hubris. If Hamlet is the Renaissance man that Branagh claims him to be, then where is his self-control, his healthy scepticism, his calm reasoning? I prefer him not to rage but to be more introverted; more moody; more in touch with his true self; cooler, calmer and more collected. Rage does not suit Hamlet, and it most certainly does not suit Branagh's hamlet.Having said that, when Hamlet is in company, Branagh is excellent, almost faultless. He is suave, he is playful, he is comic, and he mad. But in all these scenes he is credible. His relationship with Kate Winslet as Ophelia is electric, and the interaction with his mother and uncle profoundly realistic. By the way, in this film Branagh has assumed that Gertrude does not know that the drink intended for Hamlet has been poisoned.Some things do not work, such as Patrick Doyle's too-sweet score. The ghostly statue of Hamlet's father that is seen to move at the commencement of the play is also lacking, for he is just not scary at all. It is a wooden performance (literally?), for the camerawork here clearly does not portray the statue as great or as frightening as the film pretends him to be; the result is that the awed speeches surrounding the statue's movement are a little ridiculous, because we do not share the fear of the witnesses. On the other hand, Brian Blessed's later reprise of the role of the ghost in the woodland scene does indeed scare, with his whispered incantation and his glowingly dead eyes. It would have been, perhaps, an interesting idea in this scene to have compared Hamlet exuding cold breath from his mouth in the cold night air with the ghost's very lack of breath.But at the end of the day, after four hours of intense drama, I felt somehow unmoved. Was it because I was numb? Or was the fault to do with the play itself? Is the ending too contrived for this post-Enlightenment viewer? Why did Shakespeare believe that his audience would be persuaded that Claudius would go to such lengths as to create a final fencing match to kill Hamlet, when he had the means to remove him more covertly, just as he had done to Hamlet's father? For me, Hamlet is a wonderful play ruined by the need for ends to be tied-up neatly at the close of the curtain. But as for this film version, there is so much wrong, and yet far more that is so right. I have yet to see a better filmed version.

Superb cast and excellent Shakespear dvd on Hamlet. Fabulous cast and in which Kenneth Branagh was the star performer, also directed by Kenneth Branagh. Fabulous

Excellent and entertaining film of this classic Shakespeare play. Branagh has capitalised on the opportunities to use film to enhance the audience's experience. Worth seeing and comparing with other interpretations of this great play both classic and modern. Purists may argue that the play's the thing but this production allows a wider public to enjoy Hamlet.

Arrived very quickly, good product but had to return the first one as corners were damaged. Second one came with corners slightly damaged. Ordered as a present for my fussy collector husband- most people would probably not view this as damaged, but not sending it back as price has gone up now!

Brilliant