People are voting emotionally.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

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

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Having just completed a review of the Branagh Hamlet, I felt it fair to offer my two cents on this one also.Shakespeare is not above criticism. Nor does a person require a Ph.D to enjoy, or even interpret his words. While the historical plays may benefit from some due diligence to flesh out the finer points, the plays were written for a colloquial Elizabethan audience who were hungry for entertainment, innovation and also a little sex and violence.Not too different from people today I think.Hamlet is a very complicated play about a conflicted, hallucinogenic kid who struggles to cope with an uneasy, perhaps immoral, relationship with his mother and the marriage of her to his uncle after the sudden death of his father. It's heavy stuff, and boy does it get heavier. All that said it can easily serve as digestible entertainment on the level of a vengeance story. There is a reason this play has lived for so long. No matter how you transform it, the song remains the same. Even if this version of the song isn't perfect, it's largely a delight to the ear and also the eye. It is also quite accessible and easy to follow. In nearly every area I demonized the selfish Branagh production, this Franco Zeffirelli one excels. The ambiance is richer and more convincing in the dank castle halls. The editing flows surprisingly well for a two hour performance. The long lensing really zeroes in on the performances. There is a wealth of context in the relationships of Hamlet with all the major players. It feels as if Zeffirelli is acutely aware of subtext and exploits it with subtlety at every turn. With some exception, the actors are all steeped in the part and not simply engaging in dry recitation. Paul Scofield is absolutely scorching as the Ghost, who may, or may not actually exist. Ian Holm as Polonius is vibrant and also sad. Helena Bonham-Carter is just about perfect for Ophelia. Glen Close too really nails her unfortunately small part. Mel Gibson? He doesn't do all that bad. You really do take Hamlet as crazy, that's for sure. But Lethal Weapon could have easily been passed over for somebody better. On the other hand, without him, the film probably wouldn't have ever been made. To be or not to be I guess.

I saw this film as I love the play and I do like Franco Zeffirelli(especially for his opera films like La Traviata). While this 1990 film is far from terrible, it is the weakest for me of the three Hamlet films I've seen- I loved Branagh's and especially Olivier's- and possibly Zeffirelli's weakest Shakespeare adaptation also. It does have some undeniably good points, it is very well made with very evocative scenery, beautiful atmospheric lighting, sumptuous costuming and cinematography that is moody yet shimmering. The music is haunting and the sound effects really enhance the mood. The script is condensed, but still is very powerful and moving when needed. Ian Holm is a very effective Polonious, the character is creepier than one would expect but it proved to be an interesting touch. Mel Gibson was better than expected, initially it does scream disaster but actually he is charismatic and delivers his lines with meaning. He is perhaps too old for the role(but understandably as other reviewers have pointed out) and Branagh and Olivier conveyed Hamlet's tragedy more convincingly but coming from a non-fan of Gibson this is not a bad performance at all. The acting honours go to Glenn Close, whose Gertrude is beautifully elegant, expressive and sincere. On the other hand, while it is a long play with much complexity and so forth(therefore a slow unfolding pace is necessary) there are some scenes that do come about as too drawn-out and laborious. Zeffirelli I do like for his sumptuous style and how directs actors(and singers), but he does bring forth ideas that are interesting in hindsight but don't do very well in terms of the motivations of the characters, Orphelia and Claudius in particular really suffer from this, and like his Jane Eyre it does get pedestrian in places. Two performances don't work. Alan Bates did have potential to, he is a great actor and has done creepy and evil very well before in The Shout for example. But, not helped by the fact that the scenes make Claudius the character he is are severely reduced, consequently Bates is never evil enough. The worst offender though is Helena Bonham Carter, she has given very good performances(A Room with a View, Sweeney Tood and Howards End) before and like Bates seemed ideal for the role. The reasons why she wasn't is largely again to do with Zeffirelli, the idea to not have Orphelia poignant and meek and instead have her as the complete opposite, strong-willed and almost headstrong was a big mistake, undermining her lunacy scenes. Whereas they should be moving, this change to the character is partly why Bonham Carter's performance feels wildly overacted. On the whole, didn't really work from my perspective but it is not a bad film. 6/10 Bethany Cox

On the surface, one might reasonably conclude that Mel Gibson and Glenn Close starring in Hamlet may be some kind of joke, a parody of the Shakespeare play, but there is no joke. This movie is for real and both Mr. Gibson and Ms. Close give commanding performances in their respective roles. This movie is proof that when given quality material under excellent direction, talented actors will flourish. The rest of the cast is stellar too, but this movie squarely revolves around the two lead characters and if their performances fail, then the whole movie fails. In recent years, Mel Gibson's reputation has taken hits, but there can be no denying that he is a gifted actor and in this movie presents a novel, dynamic interpretation of Hamlet that brings new life to the character, transforming a brooding young man into a man of action who takes charge and pays the price, wherein lays the tragedy. For Hamlet is a tragedy. However, unlike previous renditions of the play, which focus on the murky and somber, this rendition is lit up, the characters are active, Gertrude is young and beautiful, all of which make the ending even more provocative and powerful. This movie should have been nominated for an Academy Award in every major category; that it wasn't is perplexing. All in all, this movie represents another triumph for Franco Zefirrelli, once again who proves that Shakespeare can be produced for the screen, if you do it right.

There's a moment at the very end when Mel Gibson's Hamlet, suddenly gripped by poison, looses his footing. It's shocking, natural and a terrible surprise, even to him. Such is the momentum of this melodramatic, almost operatic version of Hamlet that the audience's legs are torn from under them as well. I like this very much, a Hamlet performed by a company with respect but not reverence for the text, converting the script into movie drama not simply committing it to camera.Zeffirelli's biggest coup might be the setting, a damp and distant medieval fortress at odds with Gibson's modern, witty but clearly unbalanced Prince. The British cast assembled around him are very fine - I think Alan Bates would have to be my ideal Claudius. Glenn Close's Gertrude is rather spiky but this highlights her predatory sexuality which (I think) suits this arrangement. Morricone's score is bonus. 8/10