Favorite Movie Adaptations

Of the various Hamlets, I like Branagh's the best, though I often use the Gibson one in classes since it is shorter and more accurate to the time.

One version of The Tempest that I found is really fascinating. It came out in 1999, with Peter Fonda as Prospero, and it is set during the American Civil War. Prospero is a plantation owner who has a slave woman who is a voodoo priestess that teaches him voodoo. Of course, his brother runs him off the plantation. Although there are significant changes made, I think it is a really interesting take on Shakespeare's story.

There was a BBC film called Macbeth on the Estate, which was absolutly phenominal. It's a modern version of Macbeth set in the Ladywood Estates in Burmingham, England, the absolute poverty-pit of the UK. It emphisized the contrast between Lady Macbeth and Lady Macduff very nicely. It also depicted a much more brutal Macbeth than any of the other film addaptations I have seen. He murders Lady Macduff and her children himself, rather than sending murderers. If anyone has a copy that they would be willing to copy for me I would be much abliged. If anyone sees a copy, GRAB IT! It is extrememly hard to find, but worth whatever price is asked.

Branagh's Much Ado and Olver's Richard III. I haven't been really satisfied with any of the Hamlets I've seen so far, though of the lot I prefer Brannagh's. And can omeone PLEASE suggest a REASONABLY decent version of Macbeth? it's my favourite play and I've been thouroughly disappointed so far- and don'treally like "modernized" Shakepeare. I did like Throne o Blood, but what I want is a reasonably straght from Shakespeare version.

Different films have strengths and weaknesses. Other than Macbeth on the Estate I think the best is the Roman Polanski version. However Lady Macbeth is weak in that one. A good Lady Macbeth is in the Jason Connery version. And the Orson Wells is the best for the witches. Throne of Blood is really good, but it doesn't use the Shakespearian languege. There are others of course but those are the best ones.

You're joking...right? Bos Lerman's Romeo + Juliet was crap.....Zefferlli is one of the only directors that stays true to the script.

We don't joke around here, my friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eadaoin

You're joking...right? Bos Lerman's Romeo + Juliet was crap.....Zefferlli is one of the only directors that stays true to the script.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IWilKikU

Different films have strengths and weaknesses. Other than Macbeth on the Estate I think the best is the Roman Polanski version. However Lady Macbeth is weak in that one. A good Lady Macbeth is in the Jason Connery version. And the Orson Wells is the best for the witches. Throne of Blood is really good, but it doesn't use the Shakespearian languege. There are others of course but those are the best ones.

---

I think I'll check out both the Polanski and Connery verions- if I can get hold of them. The Wells version was just about OK for me. Thanks for the suggestions.

Roman Polanski's 'MacBeth' is awesome. I think it came out right after the Manson Family massacre. It's charmingly gruesome. :D

i hated baz luhrmann's romeo and juliet. it sucked, face it. i wrote a whole essay on how bad it is, lucky for you i have a tradition of throwing away assignments (shame; i got an A+ for that one) or I'd post it up here!

Actually, the Manson murders were a huge part of the Polanski version. It's all part of the old curse-o-Macbeth. Polanski's wife was killed by Charles Manson himself, while the film was being made. Freaks me out man!

I too dug on Julie Taymor's "Titus". Stunning cinematography, and you just can't beat Hopkins in a chef's hat spooning Alan Cumming to death (and that cat who played Aaron was something else). I also enjoyed "Throne of Blood" despite the lack of Shakespearian language - the actress who played "Lady MacBeth" was utterly frightening because of her stillness - she was just an insidious voice coming out of a pale, doll-like face.

And here's a puzzler - I love Ian McKellan and I love "Richard III", but didn't like McKellan's adaptation of the play. Perhaps because they eviscerated the script for the sake of a short running time? Perhaps because they chose to set a very period-specific play in the wrong period, simply in order to draw a haphazard comparison between Richard III and Hitler? I dunno, maybe it's just me. McKellan's acting was top-notch, though.

I would say the best adaptation was by Japanese director Akira Kurosawa, his was an adaptation of Macbeth titled thrown of bload.

Kenneth's Hamlet was good for dialogue, poor for set and age.

It's now on Utube, and it is good.

Who else would like to see Clive Owens as Macbeth?

Personally, I love Mankiewicz's 1953 version of Julius Caesar. James Mason, John Gielgud, and Marlon Brando are all superb as Brutus, Cassius and Antony. Brando is frequently praised for his outstanding performance, but for me John Gielgud absolutely steals the show as Cassius. The fact that the film is in black and white just makes it more beautiful. What do you guys think of this one?