Critics’ reviews

Hamlet (1996)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 78: 5 positive, 1 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Hamlet

78
Positive
5
Mixed
1
Negative
0

Most critics welcome Branagh’s full-text Hamlet as a clear, engaging adaptation whose four-hour length is less daunting in practice than it sounds. Praise centres on the performances, elaborate production design and the confidence with which the film makes Shakespeare’s language accessible without cutting it down. The reviews also value its outward-looking approach, giving the political circumstances space alongside Hamlet’s private turmoil, with Branagh’s robust performance setting the tone.

The reservations concern how much embellishment the text needs, and the spread runs from wholehearted enthusiasm to a mixed assessment. Variety admires the staging and cast but finds some flourishes literal-minded. The Independent is the clearest dissenter, arguing that the nineteenth-century setting, elaborate designs and cameos distract, while the camerawork and exaggerated action undermine the production. Even that review finds value in Branagh’s trust in the complete text.

RogerEbert.com
24 January 1997 · ★★★★/4 · Roger Ebert
100

The critic praises Branagh's full-text adaptation as long but engaging, with breathtaking 70mm visuals and strong performances that place Hamlet in a broader political context rather than focusing solely on introspection.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
25 December 1996 · Kevin Thomas
85*

The critic commends Branagh for presenting the full text with remarkable clarity and meaning in a handsome, compelling production that immerses viewers in the tragedy without feeling overly long.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 1996 · Mike Jeffries
80*

Branagh's grand cinematic Hamlet is the clear choice over other versions, delivering quality, scale and an interval. Performances are uniformly awesome, with stunning support turns and splendid art direction.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
25 December 1996 · Janet Maslin
80*

The critic highlights Branagh's robust performance as the centerpiece of a lavish, four-hour production that remains engaging despite its length, noting the stellar cast and preference for bold strokes over gloomy introspection.

Read the full review →
Variety
5 December 1996 · Todd McCarthy
75*

The critic finds the full-text version rewarding for its clarity, richness, and accessibility, praising the staging, performances (especially Jacobi and Briers), and visual splendor while noting some literal-minded flourishes.

Read the full review →
The Independent
13 February 1997
50*

Branagh's four-hour film is a greatly flawed project with good and bad ideas scrambled together, redeemed by its faith in trusting the full Shakespeare text. The 19th-century setting, elaborate designs and cameos are often distracting, with tentative camerawork and hyperbolic action in places.

Read the full review →
Time Out
22 January 2014 · SGr

Branagh's ambitious four-hour film carries itself well and assembles one of the finest casts ever seen. The production design of Elsinore stands out as a highlight, though an intrusive score and some casting choices are drawbacks.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
16 January 2012 · James Benefield

Branagh delivers an uncompromised, unabridged four-hour adaptation of Shakespeare's tragedy that is essential viewing for fans of the Bard despite its length. The production is a grand, cinematic spectacle with an all-star cast and consistent visual ambition that turns the play into a blockbuster.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate