Hamlet (1948) User Reviews

the great moody Dane

[didi-5 · 9/10 · 17 August 2003]

It stands to reason that Larry Olivier's version of Hamlet is one of the best, and even if he was a little old for the role (in his forties by this time) it really is the perfect role for him.

One or two things to note - the camera angles and shots are often stunning, from above, using angles and shadows, extreme close-ups, and so on. This gives the sometimes ponderous adaptation atmosphere and the black and white photography is gorgeous. Amongst the supporting cast Jean Simmons is a childish, doting Ophelia but this works well. Not working so well are the soliloquies largely within Hamlet's head (and therefore, voiceover). This seems a little gimmicky and only really makes sense with 'To be or not to be'.

That aside, this really is Larry's show and he is brilliant. Despite a few cuts it does the original play proud and is, like Welles' Macbeth and Othello, a truly cinematic reading.

Almost a great movie...

[du_man · 9/10 · 31 August 2005]

Hamlet (Laurence Olivier), son of the murdered king of Denmark, contemplates whether or not to take vengeance on the murderer and now king, Claudius (Basil Sydney), Hamlet's uncle. Hamlet must also decide what to do about his mother, Gertrude (Eileen Herlie), who is now married (quite happily, it seems) to Claudius, and Claudius' chief adviser, Polonius (Felix Aymer). In the middle of all this is Hamlet's love Ophelia (Jean Simmons), who is completely confused --- and hurt --- by Hamlet's increasingly bizarre behavior.

Like the Zeffrilli/Gibson and Branaugh versions of Shakespeare's classic that followed, Olivier's adaptation is a mostly excellent film with several annoying flaws keeping it just out of reach of greatness.

Olivier is superb as Hamlet --- especially when delivering the soliloquies, several of which are genuinely powerful. The rest of the cast, however, is a mixed bag. Herlie is very good, managing to completely overcome that fact that she is really 13 years younger than Olivier. Sydney has his moments and does a decent job, but never really gets across who Claudius really is. Aymer is amusing but nothing more. Simmons makes a good Ophelia, albeit not a great one. Norman Wooland is excellent as Horatio (which is a tough role to actually be memorable in). Stanley Holloway is good as the Gravedigger, but somehow he doesn't nail the part the way Billy Crystal did in the 1996 version. Finally, Peter Cushing is… odd as Osric. The rest of the cast is either stiff or completely uninteresting.

However, other than some weak performances, Olivier does a superb job directing everything. The atmosphere during the ghost scenes is absolutely suffocating and starts the film off well. And right from that scene, it's obvious that the camera work is going to be awesome. The camera moves and sweeps everywhere --- but not just for the sake of moving and sweeping like many movies (coughMichaelBaycoughcough). It creates extraordinary images and energy that make many scenes unforgettable --- without calling too much attention to itself.

William Walton's creepy music adds a lot.

Finally, the climactic fencing scenes are genuinely great – easily the best fencing scenes in a version of Hamlet and possibly among the best in film history.

However, despite many great scenes, the movie never creates the emotions it needs to really make the blows come. Yes, some scenes are truly compelling, but on the whole, it misses the mark in that department.

However, the scenes that work are brilliant, and despite the lack of emotional power, it is an entertaining and superbly made film that's just as worthwhile as its 90's successors (although it is marginally inferior to them, which is odd --- the 40's version inferior to the 90's remakes!).

Is this the greatest of the greatest?

[xenophil · 7/10 · 1 June 1999]

I had expected something extraordinary from an actor I had thought was one of the greatest Shakespearean performers, but I just could not see it. I did not think it was bad but I remained unmoved. Also, there were substantial cuts to the text.

Maybe sensibilities change. Maybe I am too jaded by modern lavish production values to appreciate this primitive-looking one. The pace seemed jerky, some of the acting mannered, including Olivier's, and the mannerisms seemed dated and not all of a consistent style. The miracle I hope for is that the play in its fullness could be intelligibly pitched to a modern sensibility - or else that the production style could elucidate an earlier sensibility. In this version, the flowery Renaissance sensibility that pervades the lovely poignant scene of the death of Ophelia seems replaced by half-hearted Freudianism and a dated concept of medieval style where austerity and floridness jarringly conflict.

I would be grateful if one production could make clear to me why Hamlet feigns madness. I guess I am still looking for the definitive Hamlet.

Memorable Acting by Olivier in Somewhat Slow-Paced Adaptation

[Snow Leopard · 23 May 2001]

This adaptation of "Hamlet" by Laurence Olivier (he both starred and directed) is a brooding, somewhat slow-moving, but also memorable version of Shakespeare's great play. Olivier's personal performance as the Danish prince is by far the strongest aspect of the picture.

Hamlet is one of the most complex and fascinating characters ever created, and no two great actors ever play him quite the same way. Olivier portrays him primarily as "a man who could not make up his mind", and his fine and often subtle acting brings to his role a deep understanding of his character's inner struggles and dilemmas, both moral and practical. He renders Hamlet's most famous lines in a distinctive way that reveal the many possible paths in Hamlet's future. It is a performance not to be forgotten.

If Olivier the actor is masterful, Olivier the director is good but not perfect. A great deal of Shakespeare's text was eliminated, getting the running time down to 2 1/2 hours, but even so there are times when the movie seems rather slow-moving, especially in the first hour or so. Most of the cuts involve interactions with the minor characters, and some of the original play's minor roles are cut completely out of the film. The result is to concentrate the emphasis even further on Hamlet himself and on his pessimistic meditations. While this enables Olivier's fine acting to become even more prominent, it does eliminate some very interesting portions of the story whose absence will be regretted by those viewers who love the play.

Olivier does add some good touches, though. He emphasizes the somber tone with numerous tracking shots of the castle's gloomy corridors and staircases. The filming of the famous sequence of events at the end is very good, and is much livelier than the rest.

While this is probably not the very best interpretation of the play "Hamlet", it is as good an interpretation of the character Hamlet as you will ever see. For that reason alone it is must viewing for any fan of Shakespeare or of Olivier.

That Legendary Melancholy Dane

[bkoganbing · 10/10 · 8 October 2005]

With this film, Sir Laurence Olivier set the standard as to how Shakespeare should be done on screen. His direction of his handpicked cast was flawless and his own straightforward interpretation of Hamlet is the one everyone else's is measured by.

It was a straightforward interpretation because Shakespeare himself in the introduction says that Hamlet's tragedy is one in which his problem is that he couldn't make up his mind. Olivier opts for that and doesn't try to give any deeper meaning to Hamlet's indecision.

For those who've never read the play or have seen it or studied in school, Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark. He's Hamlet Junior. His father Hamlet Senior was the king and the king has died. But at the beginning of the play, Hamlet is visited by the ghost of his father and the father tells him he was murdered by his brother Claudius. Claudius took the title and married Hamlet's mother Gertrude. All this was done while Hamlet was away at school in Wittemberg.

The ghost wants his son to revenge him, understandable enough. But the story is Hamlet deciding one thing and then another, moderating his course. His actions have everyone believing he's lost his mind. In the end it's tragedy all around.

I've always thought that the key thing to remember is that Hamlet is the only one who heard the ghost. Some other palace personnel told him about some apparition making an appearance on one of the battlements of Elsinore Castle, but Hamlet's the only one who's been told the tale. Therefore he's the only one who heard the story and he can't prove anything.

The device of spirits visiting Shakespearean protagonists is one the Bard used with great effect. Here, in MacBeth, in Julius Caesar, all of those visits meant someone was meeting their doom. But in Hamlet the ghost makes his appearance at the beginning of the play. Maybe if the ghost had revealed himself to Horatio, to Polonius, the Queen even, Hamlet's duty would have been clear.

In the supporting cast I liked Eileen Herlie as the Queen, Jean Simmons as Ophelia, Felix Aylmer as Polonius, and most of all Terrence Morgan as Laertes.

Laertes is an important character here. He's the son of the chief counselor in the court, Polonius and brother of Ophelia who has a yen for Hamlet. In the beginning of the play Laertes takes off for France. Later towards the end he finds out the tragedy Hamlet has wrought upon both his father and his sister and Laertes has no trouble making up his mind what he's going to do. Quite a contrast to Hamlet's behavior.

The film is moodily photographed in black and white. Olivier wanted to use color, but J. Arthur Rank wouldn't spring for it. So he made due with black and white and the lights and shadows of Elsinore castle as shown almost make this version a kind of Shakespeare noir.

I don't think subsequent versions with Nicol Williamson and Mel Gibson hold a candle to this one.

My favourite Hamlet, for sure!

[o_levina · 10/10 · 1 November 2001]

For years I've considered the classical soviet screen-version of Hamlet directed by Kozintsev (1964) as the best adaptation of the play. I still think it's a masterpiece, however now it fills the second place in my preferences and the first one belongs to Lord Laurence Olivier. To begin with, I was astonished to find out that scenery, costumes and make-up in Kozintsev's film clearly resemble those from Olivier's version. No doubts, our producer knew and appreciated earlier English movie and deliberately copied the settings. Well, I don't blame him: he used it successfully, but the lack of originality is somehow disappointing. The scenery is really wonderful: cold, gloomy, dark, gothic, haunting and even more impressive for being black-and-white. And then… LORD LAURENCE OLIVIER IS THE BEST SHAKESPEAREAN ACTOR EVER. No one else can make the 16th century Bard's text sound modern, natural, alive, expressive, exciting, clear and full of hidden before meaning. Indeed, soviet actors pronounce the text fantastically well, but in Russian: I mean in translation by talented Russian poet Pasternak. And recently I've become interested in reading and watching Shakespeare in original. And here Olivier is an unparalleled performer. He portraits his hero wonderfully. His Hamlet is dignified and noble, reserved and mistrustful, emotional and ruthless (when he knows it is justified), and deeply frustrated (for he is disappointed in everyone except the foreigner Horatio). He is willing to act and yet waits to understand what's happening better. However events take an unexpected course and lead to the final tragedy. At the beginning Hamlet is called `a man who couldn't make up his mind'. Well, I would choose other words: `a man who changed his mind too often', but it wasn't his fault – so were circumstances. And Olivier presents these changes very vividly and truthfully. He makes `To be or not to be' an unusually powerful scene showing Hamlet just a man who sees so much evil all around that he nearly commits suicide. He is stopped only by sudden understanding that death is unremediable and too frightening – natural thought for any sensible man, brave as he is. Such simple variant pleases me better than more sophisticated ones. Somebody may disagree with Olivier's conception of the character but everyone has to admit that while Larry acts he creates complete, convincing, living image of his hero (and very sympathetic, by the way). I also would like to mention Jean Simmons. She seems to be severely misjudged by most reviewers. Simmons is an excellent Ophelia – a simple, naive young girl, merely a child, affectionate, light-hearted, playful, flirting and exceptionally sensitive. An absolutely charming scene is that of Laertes' departure. Polonius makes his solemn speech and Ophelia all the time mischievously distracts attention of her brother. I like all Olivier's films for such amusing trifles. Gertrude is well chosen too, quite believable. Eileen Herlie clear shows that at the end Gertrude understands her husband's wicked game and takes the poison consciously. However, Claudius is not impressive enough, to my mind. To see a perfect thrilling Shakespearean villain you have to watch Kozintsev's film.

Of course the play is noticeably cut. I confess I miss Hamlet's passionate soliloquy `Is not this monstrous that this player here…', and also Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (they are important, for Hamlet faces the treachery of friends in their part). On the other hand more complete versions are rather overlong. I am not sure that Branagh's four hours movie gains anything from using the full text. This film is dynamic and worth seeing not only for the sake of Lord Laurence's outstanding performance, but because it is extraordinary interesting version of the familiar play.

there's a connection here

[lee_eisenberg · 10/10 · 29 December 2015]

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.

Something Untoward In The State Of Denmark.

[rmax304823 · 10/10 · 14 December 2005]

I think it's safe to say this is the best Hamlet so far. Not that I've seen them all but it's hard to imagine how anything in this production could be much improved upon.

The story, admittedly, is kind of dumb. Everybody since Samuel Johnson has been trying to figure out why Hamlet just didn't go ahead and kill Claudius. Ernest Jones psychoanalyzed Hamlet to uncover his hidden motives. But the answer is a simple one. If Hamlet had obeyed his father's ghost, marched down the steps, and killed Claudius on the spot, that would have been the end of the play, as well as the end of Act I or whatever it was. You might as well ask, when the Indians are chasing the stagecoach, why don't they just shoot the horses?

But the dialog never goes wrong, even though Olivier has deleted some unnecessary files and defragged the rest. As one lady said after viewing the film, "I don't know what's supposed to be so great about it. It's all made up out of old quotations." Some of the old quotations, usually corrupted, have entered the English lexicon without our awareness. "Every dog has his day." "Neither a borrower nor a lender be." "The play's the thing." "There's method in his madness." "To be or not to be." "Alas, poor Yorick." "In my mind's eye."

The production design in this black and white film is spare. Hardly any superfluous furniture. And it's obviously bound to the studio, and yet it's extremely effective. It has the kind of fog you never see in real life. The last scene, of Hamlet's body being born up the stairway to the tower, takes us on a leisurely tour of previous settings -- the bed chamber, the king's prayer room -- like Welles' camera in the climactic shot of Citizen Kane, moving over the expensive worthless material goods left over from Kane's life.

The performances and direction themselves would turn this into a memorable movie. First of all, what a cast! Christopher Lee (Dracula) as a spear carrier. Peter Cushing, another Hammer veteran, as a gay servant. Anthony Quayle. Stanley Holloway (Liza Doolittle's garbageman father in My Fair Lady) as a quick-witted gravedigger. And Olivier himself, brooding and animated by turns, and doing a splendid job of mock fencing, a truly physical presence.

It won several Academy Awards, including best picture and best actor. I wonder if it would win anything today. Awards seem to have become hardly more than glitzy settings in which Oscars are given to the biggest pictures that bring in the most money.

Well, no sense being too cynical. Let's just say that Olivier's Hamlet is worth about two or three dozen Pearl Harbors and Titanics. If you get a chance to see this, or rent it, don't let the fact that Shakespeare wrote it keep you from watching it. The old guy had a way with words. And, after all, you have incest, five murders and one suicide, and some sneakily bawdy lingo. ("Did you think I meant country matters"?)

Set the Stage

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 10 November 2015]

Prince Hamlet (Laurence Olivier) struggles over whether or not he should kill his uncle, whom he suspects has murdered his father, the former king.

"Hamlet" was the first British film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture. It is also the first sound film of the play in English. That seems pretty hard to believe, but it is true. Stranger still, the first sound version was actually in Urdu.

Olivier excised the "political" elements of the play (entirely cutting Fortinbras, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) in favor of an intensely psychological performance, partly to save time. Olivier himself stated that "one great whacking cut had to be made", and the cut he chose to make was the omission of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. This was not much criticized at first, but later critics did take more notice of it, especially after shorter productions of Hamlet that did not leave out these characters were presented on television.

Olivier also played up the Oedipal overtones of the play by having Hamlet kiss his mother lovingly on the lips several times during the film. Film scholar Jack Jorgens has commented that "Hamlet's scenes with the Queen in her low-cut gowns are virtually love scenes." In contrast, Jean Simmons' Ophelia is destroyed by Hamlet's treatment of her in the nunnery scene.

Changes or not, this is the "Hamlet" that all others should be compared to. Whether longer or shorter, political or not, this was the one that broke ground. And for that, it is a valuable contribution to film history.

An acting - and directing - masterclass from Olivier

[dr_clarke_2 · 10/10 · 6 June 2020]

One tends to think of Laurence Olivier more as an actor than a director, but as his 1948 Academy Award for Best picture winner Hamlet demonstrates, he was both. And given how good it is, it is a shame that he only ever directed five films in total. Olivier's career started on the stage and often remained there even after he found movie stardom. Thus, one might expect his film version of Hamlet to look like "filmed theatre", but in act nothing could be further from the truth. Having clearly learned about more than just screen acting from the likes of William Wyler, Oliver's of Shakespeare's celebrated tragedy is remarkable on multiple levels. The Bard's script is trimmed, with extensive cuts including the removal of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, as well as Fortinbras; the former pair provided a small measure of comic relief in an otherwise serious play, and with them excised the story is even darker. This darkness is reflected throughout the production: it's dark and moody, with claustrophobic sets, film noir-like lighting, and some memorable camera-work from cinematographer Desmond Dickinson, who uses close-ups, tracking shots, and deep-focus shots throughout the film. There are stylistic flourishes, for example the "play within a play" is entirely silent and shot in a way that almost recalls silent movie making. Olivier takes advantage of the format so that Hamlet's thoughts are occasionally heard in voice-over rather than spoken aloud, whilst the camera focuses on Olivier's brooding face. The first soliloquy is a notable example, and Olivier paces restlessly around, looking convincingly troubled. A flashback shows King Hamlet's murder. Olivier's own processed vocals make the ghost sound appropriately sepulchral. In contrast to most of the rest of the film, Ophelia's drowning is shot on location and has a strange, dreamlike quality. The swordfight between Olivier and Terence Morgan's Laertes is brilliantly choreographed. Classical composer William Walton's score is both atmospheric and dramatic, as required. Olivier seems to delight in using the tricks of cinema to breathe new life into an oft-performed play. As director, Olivier thus pays great attention to detail of what he is doing, a fact reflected in the set design, costumes and props. At the same time, his performance as Hamlet is incredible, one of those rare pieces of acting that looks like a master class in how to do it. Olivier's interpretation of Hamlet makes him seem guilty when he's deliberately rejecting Ophelia; he even makes the line "Get thee to a nunnery" sound like gentle advice, although he soon loses his temper. Famously, he plays up the Oedipal overtones of Hamlet's relationship with his mother. The cast is recruited from British thespians, with predictably impressive results (lthough it must be said that Olivier is visibly older than his on-screen mother Eileen Herlie): it might seem hard to give naturalistic performances when one's dialogue is written in iambic pentameter, but everyone here manages it. Basil Sydney emphasises Claudius' regret and self-loathing at his sins, whilst Jean Simmons is very convincing as Ophelia gradually gives in to madness. Hamlet is a masterpiece, not just in terms of its acting, but in every aspect of the production. It not only deserved to wow the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, it also deserves its reputation as one of the finest British films ever made.

Problems of adaptation in Shakespeare's "Hamlet"

[Polaris_DiB · 7/10 · 6 February 2008]

"Hamlet" is basically Shakespeare's most adapted play. One of the basic reasons for this is the fact that its themes make adaptation somewhat controversial: a major theme of Hamlet is indecisiveness and ambiguity, which makes fleshing it out for any stage or screen a struggle for its adapter. Laurence Olivier was not very happy with this adaptation, nor were many critics at the time.

But how does this movie stand out? For one thing, Olivier has enough sense of the rhythms and dialog of Shakespeare to make it's more archaic delivery mostly seamless and logical. Secondly, he uses the set-design to emphasize isolation of the castle and claustrophobia of the characters in order to remove the staginess, or at least expectation for staginess, in the film. And thirdly, his camera roves around at a subjective level, sometimes literally detaching from the action to focus on empty sets in order to create a Phantasmagoria in the film. These three devices flow together to create drama that manages well to keep focused and emotionally compelling. Most importantly, the adaptation is quite logical.

Unfortunately, even though I've read Hamlet I'm by no means a Shakespeare scholar and I do not remember every detail it: as I understand, Olivier made some pretty controversial cuts in the script, especially two of Hamlet's soliloquys. It's understandable. At it's extant length, Olivier's Hamlet stays just within it's welcome, and the two soliloquys that he does keep show his difficulty in figuring out just exactly how he wanted to present them.

--PolarisDiB

Alas, poor Yorick

[nickenchuggets · 10/10 · 21 June 2021]

I have to say, movies based on plays written by Shakespeare tend to not get a lot of respect from me or many other movie fans. People tend to have beliefs that they are dull, slow moving, and not interesting simply because they contain a lot of dialogue that is sometimes really hard to understand. Hamlet is a movie that is a prime example of how to make a Shakespearean movie correctly, since it follows the play very well. It also stars one of the greatest of all British actors; Laurence Olivier. However, the movie does make some adjustments to simplify the play for the silver screen, namely the fact that much of the dialogue is left out and some important characters are missing. If this was a line-by-line reconstruction of the play, it would easily be over 3 hours. The movie follows Hamlet, the prince of the northern european country of Denmark whose father, king of Denmark, is killed, apparently by a snake. Hamlet (Olivier) is frustrated and suspects something else was responsible for killing his father. Horatio and some other men report seeing the ghost of Hamlet's father, and soon, Hamlet comes face to face with him. The ghost tells him he was killed because Claudius poisoned him while he was asleep. Hamlet pretends that he is mentally unwell, which leads Polonius to keep an eye on him. Polonius thinks he is insane because of his love for Ophella. Later, some performers perform a play for the new king that is altered to mimic the recent murder of Hamlet's father. Claudius refuses to look at it, which makes Hamlet positive he is responsible for killing his dad. Now wanting Claudius to die, Hamlet hears someone behind some curtains in his mother's room, and stabs the curtains with a knife. It's then revealed he accidentally killed Polonius, and the spectre of his father appears again. Hamlet's mother is unable to see the ghost. Near the end of the movie, some men challenge Hamlet to a duel after he is deported to england but then returned to Denmark. Using a poisoned weapon, Laertes hits Hamlet with it and he dies shortly afterwards. This is one of the better movie adaptations of a Shakespeare play. Despite leaving out almost 50% of the dialogue, it still manages to tell its story, and was successful upon its release in 1948. Ironically, the actress who plays Hamlet's mother in this movie was younger than Olivier's character who is supposed to be her son. When I say that the movie was well received when it came out, I'm not exaggerating. This is actually the most acclaimed Shakespeare film in terms of awards, and Olivier received an oscar for best actor. Up until fairly recently, this was the only movie where the main (oscar winning) actor had also directed a movie that netted him another oscar. It's still a good movie (obviously since Olivier is in it), even if some people may not like the cuts made to the script.

A Flawed Work of Art

[robmeister · 6/10 · 15 January 2007]

There are very few names that inspire people to become actors. Not movie stars, but actors. Among them are Marlon Brando, Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn, and Sir Laurence Olivier. Having already some familiarity with the works of William Shakespeare (by no means, am I an expert, but I know some things), I judged it was time to see how Olivier himself treated one of the Bard's most famous works.

Well, the first impression I got from watching this movie is that it is quite obviously a labor of love. Olivier was an avid practitioner of Shakespeare, and this movie is his tribute. And, one thing I can say about this version of Hamlet is that it appears to be a more faithful interpretation, rather than an adaptation with whole scenes taken out for the sake of time, continuity, and/or to keep the audience's attention. While ambitious, the results are mixed.

First, let's cover what I did like about the movie. On the top of that list is Jean Simmons as Ophelia. Her performance was nearly flawless as Hamlet's girlfriend, who loses her mind after her father's death. Another surprise I spotted was character actor Stanley Holloway (Liza's father in "My Fair Lady") as the gravedigger in the "Alas, poor Yorick" scene. And the swordfight finale was well choreographed.

Now, for what I felt was lacking. Many of the actors in this movie (particularly Basil Sydney, who played King Claudius) appeared wooden. Even Olivier himself looked like he had succumbed to mediocre performance at times. A lot of the lines sounded like they were phoned in, and Polonius (Felix Aylmer) sounded too much like he was dispassionately reading from "Poor Richard's Almanac" while dispensing his wisdom to his children, Ophelia and Laertes (Terence Morgan).

As Hamlet himself said, "The play's the thing", but this is a play put on film. With that, there is an inherent problem with its presentation: Sometimes, it doesn't translate well. While I am sure that on stage, this was phenomenal, on screen it is hit-and-miss. But, like I said, it was a labor of love, and it does mark two firsts in Oscar history: The first movie directed by its star, and the first independent film, to win Best Picture.

For purists and those who study Shakespeare, this presentation is the one to watch. It's a no-frills, camera-eye view of the play utilizing a single set. But this is not just another movie to watch for the sake of watching it. It has been said that true art has flaws, and by that very definition, Olivier's "Hamlet" is art, warts and all.

O, it offends me to the soul to hear a periwig-pated fellow

[JohnByrd · 3/10 · 20 April 2006]

Uta Hagen's "Respect for Acting" is the standard textbook in many college theater courses. In the book, Hagen presents two fundamentally different approaches to developing a character as an actor: the Presentational approach, and the Representational approach. In the Presentational approach, the actor focuses on realizing the character as honestly as possible, by introducing emotional elements from the actor's own life. In the Representational approach, the actor tries to present the effect of an emotion, through a high degree of control of movement and sound.

The Representational approach to acting was still partially in vogue when this Hamlet was made. British theater has a long history of this style of acting, and Olivier could be said to be the ultimate king of the Representational school.

Time has not been kind to this school of acting, or to this movie. Nearly every working actor today uses a Presentational approach. To the modern eye, Olivier's highly enunciated, stylized delivery is stodgy, stiff and stilted. Instead of creating an internally conflicted Hamlet, Olivier made a declaiming, self-important bullhorn out of the melancholy Dane -- an acting style that would have carried well to the backs of the larger London theaters, but is far too starchy to carry off a modern Hamlet.

And so the movie creaks along ungainfully today. Olivier's tendency to e-nun-ci-ate makes some of Hamlet's lines unintentionally funny: "In-stead, you must ac-quire and be-get a tem-purr-ance that may give it... Smooth-ness!" Instead of crying at meeting his father's ghost (as any proper actor could), bright fill lights in Olivier's pupils give us that impression.

Eileen Herlie is the only other actor of note in this Hamlet, putting in a good essay at the Queen, despite the painfully obvious age differences (he was 41; she was 26). The other actors in this movie have no chance to get anything else of significance done, given Olivier's tendency to want to keep! the camera! on him! at all! times!

Sixty years later, you feel the insecurity of the Shakespearean stage actor who lacked the confidence to portray a breakable, flawed Hamlet, and instead elected to portray a sort of Elizabethan bullhorn. Final analysis: "I would have such a fellow whipped for o'er-doing Termagant; it out-herods Herod: pray you, avoid it."

Murder Most Foul...

[glgioia · 14 January 2003]

The amount of lines taken from this play and used in our everyday conversation is staggering. Like all of the Bard's works, his endurance is not only the mastery of language, but really in storylines that just never get old. Above, everything else, Hamlet is an interesting tale. Olivier's interpretation however, is very dark. Very deliberate. He shies away from the humor completely, and instead takes a slow, purposeful tack. To that, it might not appeal to some. In such a long play and movie, the humor is sorta needed to jostle you a bit, and break the overall bleakness of the tragedy. You don't catch a break here I'm afraid. Id classify this therefore as for more advanced taste, and not for the average moviegoer. Olivier's other two attempts, Henry V and Richard III, specifically the latter, will garner more mainstream appeal.

the most powerful hamlet ever portrayed

[kaiser-11 · 9/10 · 12 May 1999]

Olivier is absolutely mesmerizing as the dane of Denmark. I have seen Gibson's and Branagh's versions, and Olivier is still far and away the most impressive performance. Whenever I think of Hamlet, I always think of Olivier's Hamlet. The picture as a whole is very well done, although in parts it can seem a bit chinsy. Olivier (as director) firmly establishes the mood for the picture, and the ensemble acting is terrific. Watch for a very pompous Polonius!

Olivier

[winner55 · 9/10 · 16 July 2006]

For better or worse, this remains the definitive film version of hamlet.

I confess I'm not happy with that. Olivier re-edits the script considerably. What appear to be continuity innovations simply fall flat for me. The worst instance of this is the famed "to be or not to be" speech (most of it delivered in voice-over), which jumps out of nowhere in this version, apropos nothing. Olivier gets away with this butchery on the basis of his roaring egotism (which finally leads to a roaring Hamlet to the end) and the fact that his is one of the most careful directions of the play-as-film to be found on film.

Which of course leads me to the positive aspects of the film. Simply as a film, it is brilliantly designed and executed. I've rarely felt a film so successfully blend claustrophobia and depth - this is accomplished through careful juxtapositions of scenes of high-contrast black & white with scenes filled with grey fog; only Hitchcock could have done better (but of course Hitchcock would never have made Hamlet).

And although Olivier's performance is really over the top, he wisely makes sure that all the other actors get to come close to that level, especially the actor playing Hamlet's nasty step-dad. So the film vibrates with energy almost from the get-go and all the way to the end.

I keep trying to see every film version of Hamlet i can find, to see if the final, absolutely really and truly definitive version of Shakespeare's play (and not Olivier's version of it) might yet be viewed; but until then, this will have to do.

A blond Olivier takes on the Prince of Denmark

[blanche-2 · 8/10 · 27 December 2007]

Laurence Olivier is "Hamlet" in this 1948 version of Shakespeare's play. The film, directed by Olivier, also stars Eileen Herlie, Jean Simmons, Norman Wooland, Felix Aylmer, Stanley Holloway and Terrence Morgan. Olivier's Hamlet on stage, of course, was very famous and modeled after John Barrymore's portrayal. Not as athletic as Gielgud's portrayal, Olivier's Shakespeare work was notable for the fact that he didn't "sing" the text, but rather said it realistically. For his film version of Richard III, he deliberately made the setting look false, making the point that, if you gave the audience a realistic-looking setting, they would then ask, "Why are these people talking so funny?" Similarly, for Hamlet, the castle is a stark, huge affair, standing in the midst of fog, and unusual camera angles are used to make some stunning shots.

The text of the play is heavily cut, and two characters, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are indeed dead - they don't exist here. The cast is good - it can't compare with Olivier's Richard III cast seven years later - but it's Olivier's show, and he's tremendous, giving a thrilling performance.

As many times as I've seen Hamlet, I'm always impressed at how many famous phrases have come out of it. But with such a compelling story and such beautiful writing, it's no surprise. Outrageous fortune indeed.

It Won!!!

[dataconflossmoor-1 · 10/10 · 18 February 2009]

The writings of William Shakespheare are always accredited as being the greatest literary works in the history of western civilization. The film, "Hamlet", won the academy award for best picture in 1948; suffice it to say, that an accolade such as this merely scratches the surface on the brilliance of this Shakesphearian production!! So many famous quotes of Shakespheare's are from "Hamlet" "Sweets to the sweet": "The dog will have his day": "There is something rotten in the state of Denmark": "Neither a borrower nor a lender be": "Get thee to a nunnery": "Sometimes Sister" : These are some famous quotes from "Hamlet". This literary masterpiece contains a list of world renowned soliloquies as well. "Too too this flesh shall melt-": And, of course, "To be or not to be-",: These are some of the quotes and soliloquies. There are so many, I have just rattled off a few!! When an actor or actress takes on a Shakesphearian endeavor, it becomes an acutely sensitizing challenge for them which represents an artistic epitome in their careers!! Shakespheare evokes an absolute height in human creativity, and the succinct polarization of both genders in "Hamlet" establishes a necessary storyline cohesiveness which is pertinent to all of the main characters in the movie. While a film like "Hamlet" is viewed as lofty in its disposition, the actuality of Shakespheare's work, is that such an idealism is very disconcerting! More often than not, the esoteric philosophies which are so eloquently manifested from the romanticist characters in Shakespheare's works, are usually vitiated with an emphatic desperation!! These Promethian philosophies are invariably preempted by the visceral components of perseverance. Shakespheare has always had a penchant for his characters to be provoked into agitated responses. "Hamlet" is an example of such emotions, "King Lear" and "Merchant of Venice" are also such examples of these intense displays of rancor!! I have seen this version "Hamlet" many times. Sir Lawrence Olivier does a remarkable job at directing this film (He also plays the role of Hamlet). Olivier won for best actor in 1948 with this role!! Olivier is a Shakesphearian aficionado who has the ability to carry off a successfully cunning articulation of "Hamlet" by astutely depicting its fatalistic irony!! The solemn imagery in "Hamlet" is extremely poignant!! Shakespheare had such a profound prescience with human emotions that he has manufactured an eternal impact on man's conception of what intellectually spellbinding literature should be!! I do like the 1948 performance better than the 1996 version with Glen Close and Mel Gibson,the gripping enmity in the 1948 movie seemed more believable!! The fact that "Hamlet" won for best picture in 1948 is a very insignificant modicum of this movie's formidable allure!! Such an embodiment of pejorative candor which is illustrated in "Hamlet" became an enticing attribute to the film in which the movie viewer could easily appreciate!! The myriad of belligerent proclivities demonstrated by the part of Hamlet encompasses a mindset which nurtured an extremely tumultuous cerebral unrest!! This is the principle reason that Olivier's rendition of "Hamlet" is so incredibly stunning!!The cinematography is sensational in this film, and the acting from virtually everyone with this presentation of "Hamlet" is paramount!! See this film!! It will elevate your intellectual awareness of Shakespheare, and hopefully, it will also enlighten your perspective of this great masterful work of Shakespheare's which became an academy award winning major motion picture!!

intriguing interpretation

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 31 August 2016]

Sir Laurence Olivier takes a stab at the brooding Danish prince in William Shakespeare's Hamlet. He's really too old to play the prince realistically. At most, he looks like the same age as his mother Gertrude. Even that is a great feat since Eileen Herlie is in actual life 11 years younger than Olivier. Olivier makes his version concentrate more on Hamlet's self doubt. "This is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind." He also plays up the Oedipus complex aspect of Hamlet. This may not be the definitive theatrical version of Hamlet. It is an interesting one made by a master. He has obviously thought it through and made the necessary cuts in his own ways. Olivier is obviously comfortable with the material. It is classically made with enough cinematic flourishes to keep it interesting.

Perhaps the best Hamlet

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 2 September 2011]

I do like very much like Kenneth Branagh's film especially for Derek Jacobi's Claudius. However, I consider this perhaps the best Hamlet. The first hour or so is a little slow moving I agree, but I had no real problem with the pace generally with everything else so good. The film is incredibly well made for starters with moody lighting, very interesting and well thought out camera angles and sumptuous costumes and settings. The music is resolutely haunting which suits the complex tone of the play and film more than very well. The writing is outstanding though if I have any criticisms I also agree the soliloquies don't quite work out as they could. Olivier's direction is hard to fault and he is brilliant in the title role. He gets strong performances from a fine cast the best being Norman Wooland's Horatio and Jean Simmons' Orphelia. Basil Sidney's Claudius is also very good, but I marginally prefer Jacobi in the role. All in all, may have one or two minor flaws but these don't stop this Hamlet from being one of the better Shakespeare films I've seen. 9.5/10 Bethany Cox

Hamlet review

[JoeytheBrit · 7/10 · 2 July 2020]

More confident direction from Olivier than for his Henry V from four years earlier, and he dumbs down some of the dialogue in hopes of attracting a more mainstream audience. The Shakespearean dialogue is still a challenge, but the plot is straightforward enough and Olivier is superb, managing to stand out amongst a cast featuring talent as diverse as Jean Simmons and Stanley Holloway.

Perhaps, the Best Cinematic Adaption of Shakespeare's Legendary Tale with the Richest Vocabulary for any Hollywood film of 40s.

[SAMTHEBESTEST · 8/10 · 14 May 2021]

Hamlet (1948) : Brief Review -

Perhaps, the Best Cinematic Adaption of Shakespeare's Legendary Tale with the Richest Vocabulary for any Hollywood film of 40s. I came to watch this film after seeing so many adaptions of Shakespeare's Hamlet, like Kurosawa's Japanese adaption 'The Bad Sleep Well' (1960), Hollywood version of 90s, Bollywood Version 'Haider' (2014) directed by Vishal Bhardwaj and even a regional Marathi Stage Adaption. After seeing so many versions i was expecting that this Oscar Winning version of Hamlet might look underwhelming to me but i was wrong. Laurence Olivier's Hamlet has impressed the most among all the cinematic adaptions of the play. It is so well presented, so well executed, so well performed and so well edited. And did i tell you that it has a rich vocabulary as every character drops diamonds of words whenever it mouth a dialogue. I have seen almost all major classics of Hollywood from 40s decade but I have never seen such a high range vocabulary for any film. The best dialogues for any film by its time which might have been surpassed later by Ben-Hur (1959) and some other films, not 100% sure though. The film follows the same story of Shakespeare's tragedy as we see Prince Hamlet struggles over whether or not he should kill his uncle, whom he suspects has murdered his father, the former king. Unlike other adaptions, this Hamlet has its roots at right place. From set designing to cinematography to dialects to characterisations to technical aspects, this film does not compromise anywhere. It just doesn't go out of the flow. Dear Laurence Olivier, what have you done? I mean how can you give such an unaltered and unmatchable performance as Hamlet? And that too after handling the burden of direction? Or maybe that has helped him? I don't know but whatever i have seen on screen is simply remarkable. Not just him but everyone in the film is just fantastic. Overall, a Classic and the Most Impactful Hamlet for sure.

RATING - 8/10*

By - #samthebestest.

Hamlet

[eparis2 · 6/10 · 6 September 2022]

Olivier could have produced an extraordinarily vigorous Hamlet, bursting with energy and boasting a physical panache that few others could equal. Instead, he has, unfortunately, deprived Hamlet of more than half his lines and many of his actions. He is more the paperweight of Denmark than its prince.

Scenes are rearranged, lines rewritten, and words changed. There is no trace of politics: Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and even Fortinbras vanish. Olivier's voice-over, "This is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind" (from the Gary Cooper film Souls at Sea), might more appropriately have been, "This is the tragedy of Hamlet made simpleminded." Hamlet becomes an immobile young man troubled by the twin demons of indecision and incest. In this cut-up, cut-down Hamlet, the prince cannot act until he resolves his feelings for his mother and his girlfriend and determines they are not one and the same.

Sadly, the strength of the film is not in the text or the actors, but in the questing, fluid camera, and the confining, claustrophobic set.

Dull and dreary

[TooShortforThatGesture · 3/10 · 14 August 2005]

What a tedious few hours this film makes for! I enjoy Shakespeare and Hamlet is (obviously) one of his great plays. But not if you only knew it from this version.

As others have said here, it's difficult to understand all the acclaim this film received in its day. Quickly looking over the list of "Hamlet" films on IMDb, it does seen that this 1948 production was the first filmed version since the silents (or at least the early talkies) so maybe that was part of it. And I suppose at the time the staging and set might have seemed unique (?). But it just came across to me as VERY stage-y, and far too dependent on clouds of dry ice smoke for atmosphere.

The setting also suffers from an odd combination of not enough people (many scenes where nobody else seems to inhabit this big castle except Hamlet) followed by too many people (rooms suddenly fill up out of nowhere with hangers-on and courtiers). The castle is just WAY too big and full of odd, useless spaces that were probably meant to give you a sense of Hamlet's confusion and isolation but instead had me thinking about how big the soundstage must have been to build all these sets and what a pain it must have been to film and the tracking shots as the actors moved around. And the matched set of 6 trumpeters appearing out of nowhere to play elaborate fanfares every time the King walks by felt like something out of a Warner Bros. cartoon. I kept expecting them to turn sideways and be playing cards.

The age thing? The fact that Olivier was 41 is not the problem. It's the fact that with the heavy theatrical makeup and bad blond dye job/wig he looks 52. Part of what Hamlet is about is the problem of being a young adult confronting big issues for the first time in your life. In this version, you keep wondering why this middle-aged man can't get it together.

As for Olivier's talents -- well, he certainly does have the technical ability to speak Shakespeare in a way that generally makes sense of the words -- but good phrasing is NOT the same thing as being able to ACT it well.

In all, there was not one aspect of this film that made me think it was worth watching it. It gets a "3" from me only on the strength of it being Shakespeare's text (or at least some of it.)