Hamlet 1996 torrent 720p

[Arvada]

Hamlet

---

---

※ Download: Hamlet 1996 torrent 720p

---

Branagh chose to set his film in an Edwardian setting but at the same time decided to employ an almost uncut text, so that frequently the dialogue that is firmly rooted in Elizabethan mentality makes no sense in the context that it is being performed. I eagerly anticipated this Hamlet both as a reader and as a teacher, but discovered an overblown spectacle full of Hollywood-style excess, souped-up sex and violence, overpowering and distracting music, and performances that substitute volume for emotion.

Only Jack Lemon's Marcellus really disappointed, but I think that was mainly because he was so poorly cast in such a role. The film is full of sumptuous visuals, particularly in the multitude of interior shots of the castle which called to mind the elegant interiors of Luchino Visconti's classic film The Leopard. The idea of doing a Shakespearean play with nineteenth century dress in the late twentieth century worked wonderfully well, but I know not why. I don't think this is the space to attempt to get into thematic material of Shakespeare's work but I will say that there really isn't much that has been lost in the adaptation process.

Hamlet - His direction has always been better than his acting.

Kenneth Branagh is perhaps the Laurence Oliver of our times. A great actor obsessed with the work of Shakespeare. And this is his masterpiece, Hamlet 1996 , a free uncondensed version with every line of what Shakespeare has written, on the last movie ,besides The Master, filmed on 70mm film. If you've graduated high school, you probably know the story of Hamlet. Hamlet is visited by the ghost of his father, who request the he kills his uncle, the new king of Denmark, because he murdered Hamlet's father. What I love about this adaptation is the things Kenneth Branagh does because he's using the medium of film. The use of Flashbacks in events is a great use that the stage adaptations could never do, same with the scenery. Elsinore Castle comes alive. It was genius for him to set the story in the 19th century. It gives a beautiful touch to the movie and costumes and set design were appropriate. THe final thing he does great is how he plays Hamlet. My English teacher taught him more as a mopey Dane, but he plays him as a cunning but indecisive genius which I believe is more interesting. His soliloquies have great touch to them, using visual elements and artful expression to make them interesting instead if Rambling. The cast is great too. No weak link in the acting, and everyone holds their own. The guest appearances of famous actors, Charlton Heston, Robin Williams and Billy Crystal add moments of freshness to secondary characters. The Cinematography shows off the world well and fits most scenes, same with the music. The problem is the length. It drags in places and with trimming could've been a masterful movie. Overall great adaptation better than the Mel Gibson one and shows off to a new generation the beauty and power of something written 400 years ago. If you have the time, check it out. It's no mean feat that he managed to do this in a way that truly makes the material seem cinematic without losing any of the essence of the work as it was originally created. Although most films don't have anywhere near the amount of dialogue that Hamlet does, the film doesn't suffer as much as it could have from an overabundance of words. The film is full of sumptuous visuals, particularly in the multitude of interior shots of the castle which called to mind the elegant interiors of Luchino Visconti's classic film The Leopard. It's true that the images might have been even more powerful if they had been allowed time to sink in without the distraction of the dialogue, but Branagh as a director does an excellent job of pacing the shots to get the best effect. Another way that he manages to avoid the pitfall of staginess is through judicious editing, particularly with the use of brief flashbacks to represent Hamlet's memories in one key scene. Between the great lines by Shakespeare and the great images by Branagh, this film's four hour runtime fairly whizzed by. Although Branagh was a bit older than I imagine Hamlet to be, he still manages to pull off his eponymous role quite well. The supporting cast is also good, particularly Billy Crystal in a brief but memorable role as a wisecracking gravedigger. Cameos by Jack Lemmon, Gerard Depardieu, Charlton Heston, and Robin Williams are also successful to varying degrees but welcome nonetheless as they tend to add some much needed levity to the seriously tragic proceedings. I don't think this is the space to attempt to get into thematic material of Shakespeare's work but I will say that there really isn't much that has been lost in the adaptation process. Not only does this help enrich studies of the original text, it also is as successful in its own right as any straightforward Shakespeare adaptation I've seen. There's really very little to quibble about in this excellent film. I'm pleased to tell you that this adaptation is every bit as good as the intense and dramatic play. The acting is extremely strong With a cast that features Kenneth Branagh, Robin Williams, and Billy Crystal how can you lose? If you're into this popular drama I highly urge you to watch this powerful 1996 adaptation from Shakespearean admirer Kenneth Branagh. I saw this film on its release, and have watched it 3 or 4 more times, including last week. I regret I have to be a voice of dissension with regard to Mr. This is really a glorious, sumptuous film, to say nothing of ambitious at over 4 hours long - beautifully shot and designed. Derek Jacobi, Julie Christie, Kate Winslet, Richard Briers, and many others do fine jobs. Then there's Kenneth Branagh. If ever there was a vanity project for an actor, this is it, and Mr. His performance confirms that, while he may come across better on stage where bigger is necessary, he has never been a great film actor. The scenery budget could be charged to catering, Mr. Branagh eats so much of it. No matter what theories people may posit on the Bard, he was, after all is said and done, a playwright. The brilliance of his plays rest in the fact that his themes are universal and timeless. It amazes me how Mr. It was an example of spending too much time working out how he's going to say something, and too little figuring out WHAT he's saying. Branagh has certainly done a wonderful job in mounting some entertaining productions, he would be wise to stay behind the camera and allow those who know the art of acting to practice it. His direction has always been better than his acting. I still give him immense credit for resurrecting interest in filming Shakespeare. He set a great template for other productions. And, it would be interesting to see him onstage, from about 20 rows back. But, I do hope he chooses to direct more and act less. Is it worth seeing? There are many little joys to be found in the film. But, it's a long, long movie and, by the end, one may feel less that they enjoyed than survived it. First, what I didn't like. The acting was not really up to the Hamlet standard. Branagh was really over-the-top, doing a lot of yelling mostly. In my opinion, those actors who were not big-name celebrities generally did a better job; though I would except Billy Crystal and Robin Williams. And Charlton Heston, too, but I wasn't sure if he was playing at being a hack. A lot of the ambiguities in the play were clearly resolved one way in the flashbacks. What I think speaks very much in this play's favor is that it is accessible. Shakespeare is hard to understand for the vast majority of people nowadays; many people are not even inclined to try, because of its reputation as Serious Literature and its archaic English. If they see this film they will understand clearly at least one man's interpretation of the play. They will be seeing it more as Shakespeare's audiences saw it: a play with sword fights and battles, and mighty kings and nobles, murder and incest and evil schemes and ghosts--and great art, if one cares to look for it, but in Shakespeare's day most didn't, any more than most people do now. Branagh's overacting, and his forcing of his interpretation of the story on the viewer, may detract from Shakespeare's art somewhat, but it is better that modern audiences get a piece of it, rather than nothing. I've got to say one more thing though. Well, in Shakespeare's time their costume and scenery was that of their own day for all of their plays. Shakespeare may have SAID it's in the days of ancient Rome or medieval Denmark or whatever, but he didn't dress his characters up like they were, he used the costumes of his own time. For the same reason his plays are full of anachronisms. For example, in King John the English and French have cannons--in Robin Hood's day. In Julius Caesar they talk of chimneys, which wouldn't be invented for another thousand years, and in Henry IV they talk about Machiavelli, who wasn't even born yet then. So I think this objection is silly--you might as well complain that the play isn't in Danish after all they live in Denmark don't they? I must say that, looking at Hamlet from the perspective of a student, Brannagh's version of Hamlet is by far the best. His dedication to stay true to the original text should be applauded. It helps the play come to life on screen, and makes it easier for people holding the text while watching, as we did while studying it, to follow and analyze the text. One of the things I have heard criticized many times is the casting of major Hollywood names in the play. I find that this helps viewers recognize the characters easier, as opposed to having actors that all look and sound the same that aid in the confusion normally associated with Shakespeare. Also, his flashbacks help to clear up many ambiguities in the text. Such as how far the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia really went and why Fortinbras just happened to be at the castle at the end. All in all, not only does this version contain some brilliant performances by actors both familiar and not familiar with Shakespeare. It is presented in a way that one does not have to be an English Literature Ph. D to understand and enjoy it. Branagh chose to set his film in an Edwardian setting but at the same time decided to employ an almost uncut text, so that frequently the dialogue that is firmly rooted in Elizabethan mentality makes no sense in the context that it is being performed. And Branagh does not concern himself with such textural subtleties as the ambiguous nature of Hamlet and Olphelia's relationship, treating the audience to a vulgar nude sex scene between the couple that tosses any ambiguity right out the stained glass window. The uncut text does allow Branagh to indulge in his favorite cinematic pastime: more footage of Kenneth Branagh. Branagh's Dane does in the king by heroically throwing an apparently magic rapier from across the palace to run through Claudius' heart with a super hero's bulls eye. The only thing that saved the moment from being unbearably maddening was that it was so off-the-wall funny. While this film has been praised in some quarters as a serious depiction of the tragedy, it is in fact nothing but a star-studded display of a once-talented filmmaker being overtaken by his own narcissism. The Emperor has no clothes, and this Hamlet has nothing to offer but a few unintended laughs and the appalling sight of one man's ego out of control. The actors play wonderfully, especially Kenneth Branagh himself. It's good that Robin Williams got the comedy role of Osiric, otherwise it could be a bit strange to see him in such a production. It is really great that Kenneth decided to use the fullest version of the text, this happens definitely not too often... Thanks to that the viewers can see the whole, not the chosen - by the director - parts. Also - thank God that the film is in a classical form; NO to surrealistic fanfaberies! Still being of school age, and having to learn Shakespeare almost constantly for the last four years which is very off-putting of any writer, no matter how good , I didn't really expect to enjoy this film when my English teacher put it on; I thought it'd be the typical English lesson movie: bad acting, awfully shot, badly edited and the dreaded awful old dialog, so, as you can tell, I was all but ready to go into a coma from the go. However, I watched and, much to my disturbance, found myself not only paying attention, but actually enjoying the movie too. This production of Hamlet is possibly one of the best drama movies I have seen in a long time- and it really brings to life what I expect Shakespeare wanted his plays to be like well, with the difference that this is cinema much better than my English teacher harking over the text ever possibly could. The story is good, the dialog seems to flow with an unexpected grace that is far from boring though a little hard to keep up with if you aren't used to Shakespeare's language and even the smallest parts are performed with a skill you wouldn't expect; mainly, perhaps, due to the staggering number of cameos this movie has. Brian Blessed and Charlton Heston are as great as you'd expect these two veterans to be, even in such small parts, but it is Robin Williams as Osric and Billy Crystal as the Gravedigger who really stand out, giving such minor parts an unexpected zest, as well as offering some comic relief amidst the tragedy. The main stars, of course, are also wonderful. Kenneth Branagh excels as Hamlet, bringing not only the confusion and pain required to the roll, but also a sort of sardonic air which plays beautifully in the comic scenes, making the movie as a whole much more watchable. The other major players are also good, but it is Kenneth Branagh who stands head and shoulders above the rest in the title role. The set pieces, too, are often quite stunning, giving a refreshing change to the danky old castle corridors we're used to seeing in Shakespeare productions, as well as a real sense of the country around them. Of course, the movie, taken as a movie in its own right, is not without faults, but no major ones the pacing is the only real problem I can think of offhand, as well as the prose for anyone not used to, as I said, Shakesperean language and, especially when compared to the sort of Shakespeare productions I'm used to seeing in class, it really is quite brilliant. It's even made me rethink my previous typical teenager stance on Shakespeare, that his plays are boring I came to the conclusion it's not the plays that are boring, merely the teachers who recite them in class. If only they made all of his plays into movies such as this one, English students in schools everywhere might have a higher opinion of the Bard. Not many directors could pull this off without boring their audience but Branagh's skillful use of bravora film style and stunt casting allows people to see the importance of the scenes that are usually cut out. This also included Billy Crystal as the grave digger, Robin Williams as Osric, Jack Lemmon as Marcellous, and Charlton Heston as the actor. Branagh's performance of the Act 4 scene 4 soliloquy Which again is usually cut out is nothing short of c cinematic marvel as the camera slowly pulls back as the intensity grows. It is a scene that literally made me want to jump out of my chair and start applauding. Branagh is the only film maker that understood the importance of every scene in this film and knew how to convey that importance to the general audience. This is a must see for everyone who enjoy's good story telling, brilliant acting,and incredible direction. All of these part of William Shakespeares greatest triumph. Part of the genius of Branagh's interpretation of Hamlet is in the use of the techniques of the cinema to enhance the production. Branagh has not condensed the acts like some mass market soup, as was done in Olivier's 1948 Oscar-winning production, or in, say, Zeffirelli's 1989 Hamlet lite starring Mel Gibson both excellent, though, within their scope , but has kept every word while directing our understanding so that even those only casually familiar with the play might follow the intent and purpose with discernment. Recall that for Shakespeare--the ultimate actor's playwright who wrote with precious few stage directions--interpretation was left to the direction and the actors, an open invitation that Branagh rightly accepts. The use of flashback scenes of things implied, such as the amorous union of Ophelia and her Lord Hamlet abed, or of a vast expanse of snow darkened with distant soldiers to represent the threat of Fortinbras' army from without, and especially the vivid remembrance in the mind's eye of the new king's dastardly deed of murder most foul, helps us all to more keenly appreciate just what it is that torments Hamlet's soul. I also liked the intense closeups. How they would have bemused and delighted an Elizabethan audience. Branagh's ambitious Hamlet is also one of the most accessible and entertaining, yet without the faintest hint of any dumbing down or abbreviation. A play is to divert, to entertain, to allow us to identify with others who trials and tribulations are so like our own. And so first the playwright seeks to engage his audience, and only then, by happenstance and indirection, to inspire and to inform. Shakespeare did this unconsciously, we might say. He wrote for the popular audience of his time, a broad audience, it should be noted, that included kings and queens as well as knaves and beggars, and he reached them, one and all. We are much removed from those times, and yet, this play, this singular achievement in theatre, still has the power to transcend mere entertainment, to fuse poetry and story, as well as the high and the low, and speak once again to a new audience twenty generations removed. Branagh himself is a wonderful Hamlet, perhaps a bit of a ham at times as I think was Shakespeare's intent , a prince who is the friend of itinerant players. He also lacks somewhat in statute as we conceive our great heroes ; nonetheless his interpretation of the great prince's torment and his singular obsession to avenge his father's murder speaks strongly to us all. Branagh, more than any other Hamlet, makes us understand the distracted, anguished and tortured prince, and guides us to not only an appreciation of his actions, wild and crazy as they sometimes are, but to an identification and an understanding of why the eternal query Hamlet is so long in assuming the name of action. In Branagh's production, this old quibble with Hamlet's character dissolves itself into a dew, and we realize that he was acting strongly, purposely all the while. He had to know the truth without doubt so that he might act in concert with it. I was also very much impressed with Derek Jacobi's Claudius. One recalls that Jacobi played Hamlet in the only other full cinematic production of the play that I know of, produced in 1980 by the BBC with Claire Bloom as Gertrude; and he was an excellent Hamlet, although perhaps like Branagh something less than a massive presence. His Claudius combines second son ambition with a Machiavellian heart, whose words go up but whose thoughts remind below, as is the way of villains everywhere. Kate Winslet is a remarkable Ophelia, lending an unusual strength to the role strength of character is part of what Kate Winslet brings to any role , but with the poor, sweet girl's vulnerability intact. She does the mad scene with Claudius as well as I have seen it done, and of course her personal charisma and beauty embellish the production. Richard Briers as Polonius, proves that that officious fool is indeed that, and yet something more so that we can see why he was a counselor to the king. The famous speech he gives to Laertes as his son departs for France, is really ancient wisdom even though it comes from a fool. Julie Christie was a delight as the besmirched and wretched queen. In the bedroom scene with Hamlet she becomes transparent to not only her son, but to us all, and we feel that the camera is reaching into her soul. The bit players had their time upon the stage and did middling well to very good. I liked Charlton Heston's player king although I think he and John Gielgud might have switched roles to good effect and Billy Crystal's gravedigger was finely etched. Only Jack Lemon's Marcellus really disappointed, but I think that was mainly because he was so poorly cast in such a role. Not once was he able to flash the Jack Lemon grin that we have come to know so well. The idea of doing a Shakespearean play with nineteenth century dress in the late twentieth century worked wonderfully well, but I know not why. Perhaps the place and dress are just enough removed from our lives that they are somewhat strange but recognizable in a pleasing way. And perhaps it is just another tribute to the timeless nature of Shakespeare's play. There is so much more to say about this wonderful cinematic production. It is, all things considered, one of the best Hamlets ever done. Perhaps it is the best. See it, by all means, see it for yourself. His choice of actors is often puzzling. For example, the late, great Jack Lemmon is a wonderful actor, but as a mid-70 year old castle guard, he is out of place. So is Gerard Depardieu, who, wonderful though he is, cannot be justified as the spy, Reynaldo where did a Danish spy acquire a French accent. Finally, Charlton Heston is downright poor as the First Player. Branagh, himself, is a dull and muddy-mettled Hamlet to be sure. The film is helped only slightly by the fine performances of Richard Briers Polonius and Derek Jacobi an unusually sympathetic Claudius and the interesting, though poorly directed and photographed Ghost of Brian Blessed. Skip this one and go directly to the Burton stage performance, the BBC version with Derek Jacobi as Hamlet, or the classic Olivier film -- cuts and all; all three are far superior. The acting style is dreadful: the actors shoot bursts of words in a machine-gun way. The beauty of Shakespeare's verses is utterly spoiled: poetry needs a reasonable time to be enjoyed. What about playing Beethoven's last quartets at the tempo of a Tarantella Napoletana? I cannot stand the mania in recent British movies of representing Shakespeare's works in 19th century costumes. Yes, I know that in Elizabethan times the actors were dressed in contemporary robes. Indeed, I am deeply convinced that such habits were due to economical, or legal, by no means artistic reasons. As a matter of fact, feminine roles were played by boys, why not doing the same today? In any case, the film was made in the 20th century, not in the 19th. I don't see the point of the huge number of cameos by famous actors. In particular, the great but very old Jack Lemmon as the soldier is definitely ridiculous alas! I was amazed in checking that Branagh was just thirty-six when the movie was made: he looks considerably older, too old to be Hamlet. The photography is straightforward and the setting into an actual Danish royal palace is clumsy and grinding. By no means the sex scenes between Hamlet and Ophelia could be forgiven. They are preposterous for a film which boasts strict fidelity to Shakespeare's work: in the tragedy it is almost openly stated that Ophelia is virgin and that she would like to change her status. And the very idea the fiancee of a prince be non-chaste was so totally inconceivable in the 16th and 19th century, that these sex scenes are even more grotesque than coarse and inappropriate. As a play, Hamlet is an anchor of civilization, and even moderately successful films are worth seeing. But in making the translation to film, the artist has two challenges. The first concerns the work as drama. This is Shakespeare's most ambitious vision, one he tinkered with and enlarged both conceptually and literally. The purest choice, the only choice which can encompass the full weave of the work, is to include everything -- and that's what Branagh has done. Consequently, this work has extra dimensions of life. In doing so, he's included some nice touches: --gone are superficial hints of mother-lust in the closet scene. These were never in the text. This makes Ophelia's loss and earlier obedience believable. The second challenge is cinematic. The play was written for sparse settings; it translates naturally to audio tape and unnaturally to film. So the filmmaker has an open palette. Branagh makes some interesting choices. Others are strange: --he introduces recognizable actors in secondary roles to jar us into the realization that this is a play. One of these is really funny. How do you portray an actor among actors playing non-actors. Well, you get a noticeably BAD actor. I wonder if Heston knows he'll be goofed on for this for many decades as this film outlives his sandled perorations. This ruins a few of the important ambiguities but we do have a wealth to spend after all. This is done only to allow for some cinematic sweep at the end. Okay, I'll reluctantly buy it since the alternative is extended mugging in the death scenes. I think Branagh and collaborators meet the first challenge nearly perfectly. As to the second challenge, this is our very best film version, in part because of extending the US tradition of playing the characters as real people versus the UK tradition of characters as speechifiers. So far as the cinematic challenge, there are some great, really great visions here, but there are also some big cinematic misses which keeps this far from perfect. Until Greenaway attempts it, this is the best film Hamlet we have, and that simply makes it one of the best, most rewarding films ever. I'll bet Branagh tries again before he dies. Branagh's Hamlet--both character and film--suffers from the same tendency that destroyed his Frankenstein: he simply goes overboard. When he's reined in, Branagh can turn in a fine performance, but too often he overacts, overdirects, overdoes generally, as here. I eagerly anticipated this Hamlet both as a reader and as a teacher, but discovered an overblown spectacle full of Hollywood-style excess, souped-up sex and violence, overpowering and distracting music, and performances that substitute volume for emotion. This is not the world-class acting the text deserves; if not for the sheer spectacle and the impressive i. Even the purportedly authentic screenplay makes several crucial interpretive choices for the viewer and completely rewrites the nature of Fortinbras's final entrance into Elsinore. The only bright points are Derek Jacobi, who offers some emotional complexity as Claudius, and a Gertrude who finally seems to have a backbone. The absence of the Oedipal interpretation is welcome, but this alone cannot place this disastrous film above the Mel Gibson version, which remains its superior.

Shakespeare may have SAID it's in the days of tout Rome or medieval Denmark or whatever, but he didn't dress his characters up like they were, he used the costumes of his own time. hamlet 1996 torrent 720p It's no mean feat that he managed to do this in a way that truly makes the material seem cinematic without losing any of the xi of the work as it was originally created. And perhaps it is just another tribute to the timeless nature of Shakespeare's play. Another way that he manages to avoid the pitfall of staginess is through judicious editing, particularly with the use of brief flashbacks to represent Hamlet's memories in one key file. His soliloquies have great touch to them, using visual elements and artful expression to make them interesting instead if Rambling. Kenneth Branagh is perhaps the Laurence Oliver of our times.