More than a film this is a work of art. From its spectacular sets through to a perfect casting, this masterpiece is enthralling.

Iconic. leaves you sitting in the melancholy of it all.

So errr yeah, I haven't got a scoot what any of them were saying at any point in this film. If you ever meet a time traveller from 16th century England, stick this on to keep them entertained, they'll prob find it incredible. If you happen to have been born in the past hundred and twenty years or so you'll probably be equally bemused by this. I feel asleep for a good half hour and don't think I missed anything. In the end everyone dies and it's a crying shame they didn't get a hurry on and die within the first five minutes. Worst Oscar best picture winner ever and I've seen Out of Africa before you ask... so that really is saying something.

Olivier is amazing and the music is excellent. Not sure why Jean Simmons was nominated for an Oscar though.

Hamlet is an excellent film. It is about Prince Hamlet who struggles over whether or not he should kill his uncle, whom he suspects has murdered his father, the former king. Laurence Olivier and Jean Simmons give incredible performances. The screenplay is well written. Laurence Olivier also did a great job directing this movie. I enjoyed watching this motion picture because of the drama. Hamlet is a must see.

Laurence Olivier critiques Hamlet as a heathen who struggles during his quest for redemptive values. In the beginning, when Horatio brings up the ghost of the deceased king, the Prince of Denmark, the once stubborn individual, suspects his presence as a sign of God. Thus, his sword stands as both a weapon and a rosary. Furthermore, as a confused and conflicted prophet who was guided by a vengeful omen, Hamlet progressively questions his own actions. On his vow to murder the "serpent who wears the crown," Claudius (Basil Sydney), his religious ethics overpower him within the first half of the film. Despite his Mousetrap play and his attempt to kill the incestuous uncle, his moral imperative suggests otherwise, watching the giant cross, the inanimate embodiment of God, above him. His girlfriend Ophelia (Jean Simmons) is a roaming guardian angel providing Hamlet comfort and innocence upon hearing his fall from grace and sanity. Therefore, when he shoos her away and sends her into her watery grave, his innocence disintegrates and his spiritual essence increases. Once he kills Claudius, the young prince has earned his redemption and dies from a poisoned sword. Laurence Olivier's Hamlet is the study of religious narcissism and morality. (5 Yorick Skulls out of 5)

I am not a big fan of Olivier's style but the rest is great.

I don't think that it is a leap to say that the first image that jumps to mind when considering Hamlet is that of Olivier in monochrome. Whether or not his performance is the greatest ever put to screen for the character is far from an objective debate, but the quality put forth in this rendition on the whole is unmistakable. The performances are universally excellent, and though a few of the cinematic flourishes stand out as unnecessary, most do add some visual flourish to the words of the Bard. (4/5)

Laurence Olivier deserved his best actor Oscar for playing hamlet. He is the best thing in the film and can suppress others. Jean Simmons as Orphelia encompasses the madness before her suicide and delivers a very effective performance The cinematography with many panning shots through gorgeous visuals. The camera pans across the cast as the main event do happen, including the shot of Hamlets mother as she watches the sword fight and as the play is being watched and the king can not take it. There is much that is missed out but the film is very well done. From the eeriness of the weather and to the use of shadows. Olivier displays the madness, the power, the vengeance and sadness with great vigor. I thought the sound and music throughout was terrific showcasing the sense of spectacle, the drama and the time. The terrific sword fight for the conclusion is intense and the ghost is weird and scary. A well made and shot film.

Rewarding actors turned directors for vanity projects has long been a habit of Academy voters as films from Ordinary People (1980) to Argo (2012) have managed to win Best Picture. This is a very early example of this phenomenon as Laurence Olivier, of Rebecca (1940) and That Hamilton Woman (1941) fame, directs and stars in his second film an adaptation of William Shakespeare's Hamlet, which some consider to be his greatest play. What a disappointment then that this is such a dull affair as it squanders potentially interesting source material and creates an experience that does not feel like a film but like a dated stage play. I was dreading watching the film because I do not like Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet (1996) and this film is 2 hours and 35 minutes I was really hoping to pleasantly surprised. Prince Hamlet of Denmark, Laurence Olivier, is upset due to the recent death of his father and his mother Gertude, Eileen Herlie, hastily remarrying to his suspicious uncle Claudius, Basil Sydney. When Hamlet discovers that his father was murdered by Claudius, by his father's ghost, he resolves to have his revenge but as he continues to remain inactive he isolates those around him including his love interest Ophelia, Jean Simmons. Ultimately he makes a rash decision that leads to unexpected tragedy and death for most of the main characters. The best Shakespeare film adaptations to me are Twelfth Night (1996) and King Lear (1971) both of which manage to make the material feel filmic instead of seeming like a filmed stage play. Olivier isn't what you would call a subtle actor and he clearly enjoyed "treading the boards" but his work in Rebecca shows that his efforts as a dramatic leading man could age well. The issue, beyond the overacting, is that the staging of the film is rather strange as we get shots that are unnecessarily inventive and different in scenes when simple camera work would have captured the moment adequately. Nothing about the film felt like something you wouldn't see in a stage play and you don't get the anticipation and excitement of being in a theatre which really makes Shakespeare's words come to life. William Walton's classical score deserves praise as he doesn't lay it on too thick unlike the rest of the elements of the film and his more traditional compositions suit the film better than Ennio Morricone's more experimental work on Hamlet (1990). I felt genuinely emotionally moved as I witnessed Hamlet hurting Ophelia with his jealousy and misunderstanding of the situation as Walton's score carried me through scenes that were otherwise difficult to watch. I believe that Walton was deserving of the ‘Best Scoring of a Musical or Dramatic Picture' Academy Award over Brian Easdale for The Red Shoes (1948). Although I do believe that The Red Shoes is a better picture as a whole. In evaluating the non-Olivier performances in this film I couldn't help thinking of other more modern Hamlet film adaptations and comparing them. Simmons received a nomination for Best Supporting Actress for her performance as Ophelia and I was disappointed as I usually am by how spineless she seemed. I feel that it is a failure of the writing more than the actress but I have seen theatre productions where actresses give the character some conviction or personality in scenes that seem like they are supporting abusive relationships. Herlie doesn't equal Julie Christie or even Glenn Close in her portrayal of Gertrude as her playing of the character seems like she's just going through the motions waiting for someone else to pick up the slack. There was none of the oedipal subtext or violence that makes some interpretations of the play so involving, I needed some of that passion to really get involved. The supporting cast were all a bit nothing in their parts and didn't bring to life the conflict or tragedy that makes Hamlet so timeless. The obvious choice for Best Picture when considering the 1948 nominees is The Red Shoes (1948). It's a classic for a reason and having only watched it recently I understand how haunting it is and how it's exploration of obsession and inner conflict tearing someone apart is brilliant, that is what Hamlet misses and that is why, other than the film aging horribly, it's not worth watching.

For me, Hamlet perfectly epitomises the problem of translating a play, especially one by Shakespeare, onto the big screen. A story full to the brim with monologues and dialogue that seem to go on forever, it took an act of will to make it to the end credits. Lawrence Olivier was an incredible talent, and remains one of the world's finest actors, but I could not have cared less about his plight in this film. The movie was repeatedly criticised for leaving too much of the play out. If you ask me, they didn't cut out enough. I can't imagine what it would have been like had it been an hour and a half longer. Its often feels like a film written by Quentin Tarantino or Aaron Sorkin, where characters prattle on and on and on, saying things in a thousand words which could be adequately explained in 20. Shakespeare dialogue is notoriously long-winded, and here all it serves to do is bog the film down in overextended scenes of discourse. At one point, Hamlet starts having a discussion with his own inner monologue. Yes, the movie is that desperate to have its characters talk to, and about, anything it possibly can. I felt nothing for any of the characters, and actually felt relieved when they died, since it's the only way to stop them from talking anymore. The character of Ophelia has almost no screen time, large chunks of it feel pointless, and I supposed Olivier turned on the fog machine and broke off the handle, since it looks like most of the scene were filmed next to a bonfire. It's atmospheric and well directed for sure, but I couldn't help but be bored senseless by it. No disrespect to Olivier, but this one let me completely underwhelmed.

Brilliant interpretation of the play. Of course, Olivier played Hamlet brilliantly, in such a manner that is inimitable. Itï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2(TM)s totally engaging and feasibly comprehensible, even if you didnï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2(TM)t study Hamlet in high school. Also, the ability to access information about Hamlet is easily obtainable online. I taught the play for years and itï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2(TM)s still my favorite.

Absolutely terrible. Olivier is terrible as the title character. I had watch it multiple times to see when he puts on the antic disposition, never saw it. Antics are more than just strange replies delivered without any emotion.

Laurence Olivier directed and starred in this fine version of Hamlet. Olivier's portrayal sets the standard for subsequent film editions. The film's staging, lighting, and camera angles are particularly splendid.

An achievement for its time, and definitely a noteworthy performance by Olivier, this picture, however, is ultimately boring and has since been done better (Kenneth Branagh's version).

10 out of 10: It may not be for you if your looking for accuracies to the play, but if you love films, You'll have no problem with this well acted and directed film.

Modernly slow. An excellent Shakespeare stage to screen adaptation in the young maturity of film.

Of course I wasn't expecting the full 4 hour play, but I was disappointed by the exclusion of some things. As for Oliver's delivery; rather lethargic and irritating.

É uma adaptação correta, com ótima fotografia e direção de arte caprichada. Mas dilui a obra a ponto de limar três personagens importantes: Rosencrantz, Guildenstern e Fortinbras.

A great and ambitious screen adaptation of Shakespeare's classic, Laurence Olivier's Hamlet earns its reputation as a classic due to its excellent performances and daring cinematography.