GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

jacobjohntaylor1 This a great movie. Great acting. Great story line. Hamlet (1948) is a little better. Hamlet (1990) is also a little better. But still this is a great movie. I know a lot people who like this movie are story snobs. But I'm not. It is almost as good as Godzilla. Better then Godzilla raids again. But Godzilla raids again is still a very good movie. This movie is more fun to watch them a hockey game. In spite of what most people in my home country of Canada would say. This movie is very scary. Not as scary as Hamlet (1948). Hamlet (1990) is also scarier. But still this is pretty scary. This is very good horror movie. See it see it see it see.

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.

eyesour After revisiting Richardson's Charge of the Light Brigade a couple of days ago I put this on again. I found myself far more impressed than when I'd first watched it, two or three years ago. This was even though I'd always admired Nicol Williamson in whatever else I'd seen him in, such as The Bofors Gun, and Laughter in the Dark. Everything about this version now struck me as really excellent, especially the manner in which it had been shot, with the multiple facial close-ups. Shakespeare is words, not scenery. The backdrops only have to be suggested in a minimal manner. This allows the script to take over, as it should, and as Shakespeare wrote it. Words, words, words; the finest ever produced.The ghost was imaginatively conceived. I formed the impression that its lines were actually spoken by Williamson himself, indicating that this apparition was largely a figment of his own thoughts and suspicions --- in spite of first being seen by the sentries. I may be mistaken in this casting.Of course there are many anomalies in the play. It's never clear quite how long a time elapses between Old Hamlet's death and Gertrude's marriage to Claudius: Two months ? Ten days? Soon enough for the funeral food to be served up at the wedding? Similarly, Shakespeare never makes it clear exactly how old Hamlet really is. Complaints about the comparative ages of the actors playing Hamlet, Claudius and Gertrude always seem to me quite irrelevant. The parts are being ACTED for heaven's sake. Shakespeare's stage had boys and men playing female parts; as well as white men playing black men. No actor is "really" a king, a prince, or a hero. It's a matter of the quality of the verse delivery, not the pursuit of some phony "realism". All art is fake, and total illusion anyway.This production reveals much of the play's subtleties, especially the psychology of Hamlet's state of mind, in ways unlike Olivier's Hamlet, which I also admire. I've seen another production, set in modern New York, which I thought was a complete failure. Having compared Branagh's Henry V with Olivier's, I don't think I'll be bothering with the full-length Branagh Hamlet. Branagh did nothing for me as Henry, and performing the entire script end-to-end strikes me as quite pointless; I sincerely doubt that it was ever performed like that on the contemporary stage. The varied interpretations delivered by different directors means that the work is always fresh and renewable.Watching this production by Richardson is a highly rewarding experience, and every part is played supremely well

Cara-8 For all its faults, this "Hamlet" has one thing above all the other versions: Nicol Williamson's amazing interpretation of Hamlet. He doesn't fit the image of young Prince Hamlet that we all have, but he'll win you over until you can't imagine anyone else in the role.