Favorite Shakespeare film adaptations? (1 Viewer)

[Tim RH]

I'm curious what I should rent to see some great William Shakespeare on film. I've only seen a few. I loved "TITUS" for instance.
Any favorites you could recommend? Thanks.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Roman Polanski's MACBETH!
(Recently released on a very nice DVD.)
EDIT: good review here -> http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s486macbeth.html

 

[Chad R]

Branagh's "Hamlet" and a second for Polanski's "Macbeth."

 

[Derek Miner]

I liked Branagh's Hamlet as well, but the Zefferelli version with Mel Gibson is what originally showed me that Shakespeare done well can be fun to watch.
Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing is a lot of fun.
I was very interested in Titus, but I can't think of any other filmed adaptations that try the same kind of twists. I hear Richard III starring Ian McKellen is good and has been transplanted to a different time. I must rent that one...
And if you are interested in Hamlet, don't miss Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead

 

[MichaelAW]

Branagh's Henry V.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Branagh's entire ouvre, really. My favorite is probably Much Ado, but Love's Labour's Lost is almost as much fun, even if it does set the movie in the 1930s, cut the living hell out of the text, insert newsreel footage and 20th Century musical numbers, and feature the likes of Alicia Silverstone and Matthew Lillard.
I'm trying to think of a good King Lear, but has there ever been one that's just Lear, as opposed to "King Lear in a different time period and culture"?

 

[Al B. C]

"Much Ado" followed very closely by "Titus". I really love the treatment that was given to both films. While I think the acting was better in "Much Ado" the visuals and story telling was stunning in "Titus".

 

[Tom Ryan]

Strange Brew. Seriously

 

[Steve Christou]

Forbidden Planet even more seriously...

 

[felix_suwarno]

i hate every shakespeare's movies.

because i know how the end is gonna be. they are always the same.

 

[Michael Reuben]

A lot of good suggestions. A few more:
Looking for Richard, directed by and starring Al Pacino.
The modernized Hamlet starring Ethan Hawke and directed by Michael Almereyda. It's an interesting companion piece with the Branagh version (which isn't yet on DVD), because Branagh keeps the entire text, while Almereyda chops it down to almost nothing and modernizes the setting. It's fascinating to watch such different approaches to the same material.
I happen to like Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo DiCaprio and Clare Danes, but the Zeffirelli film from 1968 is an excellent traditional rendering.

because i know how the end is gonna be. they are always the same.

No one watches (or reads) Shakespeare to be surprised by the plots. They haven't changed since the plays were written 400 years ago.
M.

 

[Chad Parks]

I don't know if I can call it the BEST, but my favorite is definitely Branagh's "Much Ado About Nothing". I can watch that film over and over and never get bored...

 

[felix_suwarno]

i mean, everybody is dead in the end.

 

[Chad Parks]

Not in the comedies!

 

[Mike Broadman]

felix, all I can say is that if your comments are serious, than you have a lot to learn about Shakespeare and theater before being able to make intelligent comments.

For some reason, modern audiences are focused almost purely on the ending. While this is fine for the Sixth Sense and Memento, it is a very narrow way of looking at story telling. Traditional theater is more concerned with the dialogue, the detail, and the characterisations.

This is why I'm more of a "purist" when it comes to Shakespeare: give me the whole play.

Branaugh is brilliant. Hamlet is my favorite Shakespeare play, and therefore my favorite play ever, so his version of Hamlet is every bit as good as it should have been (although I could have lived without Robin Williams' and Billy Crystals' gatuitous cameos).

 

[felix_suwarno]

do you think learning about shakespeare would be worth it? will it make me smart?

 

[Aaron Silverman]

do you think learning about shakespeare would be worth it? will it make me smart?

Hm, do I detect a hint of sarcasm there? Learning about Shakespeare would probably increase your appreciation of his plays (and the movies made from them). It's tough to follow the Elizabethan dialogue if you're not used to it. Also, the plots can be complex by today's standards.
Once you're familiar with the plays, it can be really interesting to see how different filmmakers (and stage directors) interpret them in different ways. I recently watched Olivier's Hamlet from the 1940's and the version from a couple of years ago with Ethan Hawke and Kyle Maclachlan. It speaks to the complexity and depth of the story that two filmmakers could create such wildly different visions of the same base material. (I'm dying to see the Branagh version. . .just awaiting the DVD version.)
By the same token, appreciating that depth and complexity will take a lot more effort than appreciating the average modern movie. Not everyone is willing to put in that effort, but there's nothing wrong with that. It's not for everybody, but I think that those who put in the effort will be rewarded! Give it a shot.
The recent Richard III, with Ian McKellen, is really cool and accessible to modern audiences due to the action-packed WWII-era battle at the end.

 

[Bill McA]

MacBeth (1971)
Romeo and Juliet (both 1968 & 1996 versions)
Richard III (both 1954 & 1995 versions)
Prospero's Books (1991, inspired by The Tempest, not a literal adaption)
Tempest (1982, modern-day interpretation starring John Cassavetes and without Shakespeare's dialog)
Ran (1985, King Lear in feudal Japan, without Shakespeare's dialog)
Throne of Blood (1957, MacBeth in feudal Japan, without Shakespeare's dialog)
Theatre of Blood (1973, amusing horror/comedy which includes re-enactments of various Shakespeare death scenes, complete with original dialog)

 

[felix_suwarno]

"Once you're familiar with the plays, it can be really interesting to see how different filmmakers (and stage directors) interpret them in different ways. "

that really opened my mind. yea, it would be really interesting to see how those people interpret the story and characterization.

honestly, so far i have tried to watch 3 movies. ran, the one with mel gibson, and romeo and juliet with dicaprio in it.

i didnt enjoy any of them. i felt like i was just an audience, watching a drama unfolds in front of me. the experience is different, compared to watching another drama. example, schindler's list, or black hawk down. in these movies, i felt like i was there with them. i dont know what is going to happen with these people. but in shakspeare movies, i dont get that feeling. "okay, this one is gonna be dead. that one too." it really disturbed my experience on watching the movies. i really appreciated the way romeo and juliet was made, but the experience when watching it was "empty". every effort the filmmaker made to develop the characters were simply useless to me when i know what would happen to them in the end.

and please dont underestimate a strong, surprising ending. it WILL make the story much more meaningful. imagine this : what would happen if the main character in sixth sense was still alive in the end, instead of a ghost? or what would happen if the audience is told from the beginning, "he is a ghost, lets see what happens after he is dead".


then you would say that the story is very uninteresting, and start bashing the filmmaker.

Spoiler bracket edited in by moderator. Cees

 

[ScottR]

Romeo and Juliet (1968 version)