While for my liking there were too many close-ups where it could have been much more expansive and the final scene being too underplayed with need of more tension- some of the small roles also don't really distinguish themselves and feel like window dressing- this is still a very good Hamlet. For me it's not definitive, the excellent Kenneth Branagh film is more ideal in terms of completeness. But personal favourite is Laurence Olivier's, also abridged but it's brilliantly written, astonishingly well made and Olivier in one of his finest performances. Wasn't completely crazy about Mel Gibson's version. Coming back to this Hamlet, while very minimalist and fairly sparsely set it is lit in a way that has shades of expressionism which did make the production somewhat striking. While cut down a lot, the story is still atmospheric- almost claustrophobic- and coherent though it would have made much more sense with the confessional scene being left in. The script is remarkably literate and what is left of the prose does have a Shakespearean vibe and the impact that the lines have isn't lost either. The soliloquies like in the Olivier version is both thoughtfully written and delivered and the comic banter between Hamlet and Polonius is inventively done. Tony Richardson's stage direction is very meticulous from the smallest detail to the largest with little hint of stodginess while keeping the pace deliberate. He manages to solve the potential issue with the ghost(something that people may not agree with), which when not done well could be hokey, using a bright light. Nicol Williamson's Hamlet might not be for all tastes, it is a booming and forthright performance that may cry out for more subtlety for some. That wasn't a problem for me, because Williamson was incredibly commanding in the role with Hamlet's madness genuinely intense and he also brings nuance and thoughtfulness, which couldn't be more apparent in the soliloquies(if there was anything that wasn't quite right personally it was that he does have a tendency to speak too quickly). Anthony Hopkins is too young for Claudius but is regal and genuinely gluttonous and his scheming is genuinely evil. Judy Parfitt is an elegant Gertrude and Marianne Faithful is beautiful and affecting as Orphelia. Roger Livesey is a real bright spot here in dual roles, and Rosencratz and Guildenstern have rarely been more chilling than in this version. All in all, a very good Hamlet and perhaps the most underrated one but personally not definitive. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

I must admit that I wasn't really all that impressed with this version of Hamlet, though a gut feeling tells me that it is probably the version that most high school students watch, though these days there is probably a much wider collection. The main reason that I wasn't impressed was not so much that they left some things out of the play (such as the very important scene were Hamlet is in the confessional and hears Claudius spill his guts) but that the person playing Hamlet simply seemed too old. Granted, we are given no clues as to Hamlet's age in the play though he appears to be old enough to assume the throne.Stoppard suggests that Hamlet's problem is that Claudius stole the throne that was rightfully his, but watching this version I noted that Claudius had accepted that the throne was going to be Hamlet's anyway. The issue is not so much that Claudius stole the throne, but that while his father's corpse was still warm, Claudius married his mother. He had no idea that Claudius had killed his father until he was told so by the ghost.When one makes a movie out of one of Shakespeare's plays I generally do not accept the minimalist approach. While I do like the minimalist approach in the theatre, I have tried to watch the BBC productions and I just did not seem to warm to them. When they are made for the silver screen, there are so much more possibilities. This is clear with a number of American productions which work the play to make it more palpable to the big screen. It did not seem to be the case with this version of Hamlet. Granted, it was made in 1969, but so was the Richard Burton version of Taming of the Shrew, and this was a colourful extravaganza.I will always prefer a stage acted Shakespearian play, but the screen does allow much more creativity (such as the version of Richard III set in 1930's England, or the Macbeth set in the Melbourne underworld). It did not seem that this film explored the possibilities that the screen allows all too much, and as such I feel that this movie simply falls flat.

This is a passable re-telling of Shakespeare's great tragedy, but here's the rotten thing in Denmark. Not only does Nicol Williamson not fit the concept of a young Prince Hamlet. He actually looks a good many years older than both his mother and his stepfather (Judy Parfitt and a young Anthony Hopkins).

Although shot on film with an excellent cast, this film bears too much resemblance to all those dreary 1980's BBC television versions of the Bard's plays. All are well acted and directed with professional British casts, but all lack the necessary budgets (and daring) to make the grade as great cinema. At best they are documents of each cast or director's vision of the material. Here we have Richardson shooting his cast in tight, tight close ups in a darkened studio for lack of sets and decor. It makes for claustrophobic watching. Give me a Polanski or a Zeffirelli any day of the week for cinematic chutzpah.