Hamlet is a beautiful play. In fact, its widely thought of as Shakespeare's best works. Why someone would want to butcher it like this is completely beyond me. This adaption cuts beautiful and often crucial lines to focus on certain aspects of Hamlet's character, but completely misses the mark.My first and possibly biggest issue with this play is how completely unlikable Mel Gibson's Hamlet is. One of the most fascinating things about Hamlet is that he is a mystery, an enigma of a character. He is also a prime example of a beautifully flawed protagonist. Mel Gibson plays him as a moody, misogynistic, and lustful man-child with no regard for others. His struggle with whether or not to murder his uncle is almost completely diminished in favor of giving us more of Hamlet's "madness" while bringing close to nothing new or revolutionary to his character. Another of this adaption's fatal flaws is its near complete erasure of Horatio, Hamlet's loyal friend and moral compass. More of his lines are cut than anyone else's and his friendship with the moody prince is massively downplayed. In doing this, I believe this movie didn't reach its full potential of just how tragic the story is. We also lose a great deal of Hamlet's sense of turmoil when we underestimate how integral Horatio is to the story. He often acts as Hamlet's conscience and his only confident.Pair all this with a forgettable Claudius, mediocre Gertrude and frankly disturbing and incest-y scene between Hamlet and his mother and you get Hamlet (1990).I will readily admit to absolutely adoring how Helena Bonham Carter played Ophelia. This, in my opinion, is what made this movie worth watching. She seemed far less like "that girl in love with Hamlet" and far more like Ophelia than any adaption I've seen.Over all, though, this adaption of Hamlet's fatal flaw is really the fact that it is *too* Hamlet-centric. I know, it sounds crazy, but hear me out. This interpretation of Hamlet was so focused on telling us about Hamlet, that it left all other characters flat and uninteresting. Instead of asking what motivates a character or why they would say something based on who they were, this adaption seems to focus far more on how this effects Hamlet or what other characters can do to make Hamlet look a certain way. This does every character a great disservice.

Hamlet, a Danish prince, is not happy… his father has recently died and his mother has married his uncle, Claudius who is now king, less than two months later. Not long after this he is visited by the ghost of his father who tells Hamlet that he was murdered by Claudius. Hamlet swears that he will avenge his father. This being a Shakespeare tragedy it won't surprise anybody that by the time it is over just about all of the protagonists will lie dead.I think that this was the first film version of a Shakespeare play that I watched and I really enjoyed it. The Shakespearian language isn't difficult to follow, especially after one has got used to its rhythm. Mel Gibson does an impressive job as Hamlet; one can really believe that he is descending into madness and he can certainly handle the action in the final sword fighting scene. The supporting cast is full of familiar faces; Glenn Close, Alan Bates, Paul Scofield, Ian Holm and a young Nathaniel Parker to name a few... they all do an impressive job but it is Helena Bonham Carter who stands out for her portrayal of the tragic Ophelia; her breakdown after the death of her father and her apparent abandonment by Hamlet is almost painful to watch as it performed so well. While this is famously a tragedy that doesn't mean it there aren't moments of comedy which are still funny four hundred years after they were written. Director Franco Zeffirelli has cut down the script somewhat so that even though it is still over hours old it never drags and I didn't feel as if I was missing something… of course had a seen other versions first I may have felt differently. Overall I'd definitely recommend this anybody; it is a fine introduction to Shakespeare that makes it accessible without the need to modernise it.

Mel Gibson's HAMLET is a perfectly acceptable 1990s retelling of the Shakespeare play, eclipsed only by Kenneth Branagh's lavish 4-hour epic version that was later put out in 1996. I had the pleasure of seeing the Branagh film at the cinema back in the day, and it's still one of my favourite Shakespeare adaptations. By comparison, this version feels a little glum and subdued, although it's still perfectly watchable.One of the things that stands out about this HAMLET is that it has a gloomy and grey look to it; the sort of film that makes you feel the chill while watching. It's set in a forbidding grey stone castle for the most part and feels a lot like both Polanski's MACBETH and IN THE NAME OF THE ROSE. Gibson is a good choice for lead and successfully captures the character's anguish and a descent into madness, while the supporting cast are all very good too with Alan Bates and Ian Holm particularly shining. The film has just the right running time and stages all of the big moments with relish, ending on a high note despite the tragedy of the situation.

Purists be warned: this star-driven pulp rendition of the classic tragedy, "adapted from" the play by William Shakespeare, might just as well be subtitled (without apology to fans of Mel Gibson's previous bubblegum blockbuster) 'Bard On A Wire'. The source material survives more or less intact, but the rhythms and tempo of Shakespeare's language, so beautiful on stage, are not entirely suited to celluloid, at least not with director Franco Zeffirelli's artless insistence on video-format close-ups and choppy continuity. Gibson, on center stage for most of the film, hasn't enough depth to carry the entire drama. He gives the Prince of Denmark as much fire as he can muster, but falls flat on his much-photographed bottom during every soliloquy, and his credibility is further damaged by the casting of 43-year old Glenn Close as his mother. The rest of the cast is well balanced by such stalwart pros as Scofield, Holm and Bates, and (wonder of wonders) Ennio Morricone has actually composed some effective, understated music, a welcome change of pace from his usual bombastic background scores.