Shakespeare

>anything but Ran

Attached: maxresdefault (2).jpg (1280x720, 187K)

Why does nobody like Gibson's Hamlet? It is quite comfy

still hasn't been topped to this day

Shakespeare even shows how ahead of his time he was

Attached: Ofilmposter[1].jpg (258x384, 15K)

The Hollow Crown is pretty good, a few scenes could have been better. Branaghs Saint Crispian speech is much better than Hiddlestons for example

Chimes at Midnight

Attached: la-et-mn-chimes-at-midnight-review-20160101.jpg (2048x1533, 576K)

Or Romeo + Juliet 1996

Attached: shrew.jpg (1320x1056, 169K)

Buncha plebs in here

Attached: XorHnUjAK0JVHgvTyc3cWo1H9o4we1_large.jpg (1288x1600, 143K)

Beautiful movie, but I wouldn't say it was the best film adaptation.

It's fucking amazing and Mel absolutely nailed it. SO underrated. In time it may well be recognized as one of the quintessential Hamlets.

If they redo Henry V, Ahnuld should play Exeter.

Has anyone seen the russian King Lear (1971)?
I keep meaning to watch that one.

Arnold is old as fuck now m8

Not the best but I love it, he cast alone was worth it.
>Hand me my longsword

Attached: rj.jpg (1000x975, 598K)

Second

He can pass for 50s with some makeup, that's all that counts.
youtu.be/xaVD3iBz7CU?t=5

Kino aesthetics and young Claire Danes/10

Attached: claire.jpg (917x573, 74K)

How is it productions back then could have actual plate armor while we get shit like pic related these days?

Attached: 1535990935376.jpg (1400x781, 71K)

I love the fucking film and the cardigan song
m.youtube.com/watch?v=NI6aOFI7hms

Couldn't rely on cgi back in the day. Film makers actually had to put effort into what was going to be on screen.

Everything you said should also apply to modern productions.
They just stopped trying.

they're not allowed to try, all the budget has to go to post-production nowadays. Why pay an artist and craftsmen to do something nobody (i.e. the general audience in the producers' mind) will notice when you can do some good old money laundering by puting all your budget in VFX?

>inb4 weeb
Akira Kurosawa's Throne of Blood is the best shakespeare adaptation,
West Side Story is second place. Polanskis Macbeth is third.

Chimes at Midnight or Throne of Blood

Branagh sucks. He's not a great actor at all and all his performances come off like someone doing an impersonation of Olivier doing Shakespeare.

Ran is one of the best movies of all time but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it a Shakespeare adaptation.

>Kurosawa conceived of the idea that became Ran in the mid-1970s, when he read a parable about the Sengoku-period warlord Mōri Motonari. Motonari was famous for having three sons, all incredibly loyal and talented. Kurosawa began imagining what would have happened had they been bad.[11] Although the film eventually became heavily inspired by Shakespeare's play King Lear, Kurosawa became aware of the play only after he had started pre-planning.

His adaptation of what was originally a feel good propaganda play as a dark portrayal of the brutality of war is genius though.

Best hamlet hands down
youtube.com/watch?v=KOGjVUa_iIE

It's obviously 10 Things I Hate About You

It's Richard III by Laurence Olivier

Because Laurence Olivier was both a trained classical Sheakspearian actor and a good director.

I had a huge crush on her when I was the movie as a teenager.

Attached: Claire-Danes.jpg (750x500, 79K)

I'll make it very simple and clear: Macbeth is really worth a watch. It's just entertaining and visually impressive, exactly what it was meant to be.

Just keep this in mind that it's a simple tale of treacherous royal ascension backed by supernatural forces so don't go looking for an overstuffed complex story. It's just a fun action movie that introduces us to a new Thane of Glamis, played brilliantly by MACBETH. I became an instant fan watching him in this literal princely role, something he manages to pull off with ease. Watch him in the action sequences and there's no way you can't be impressed. Viewers were literally cheering for some of the most heroic moments in the film. BANQUO as Admiral Thane of Lochabe is as awesome as always, it's just that his character feels even better and refined than what we've seen. MACDUFF is also quite good, and so is DUNCAN and MALCOM.

But the character that ultimately steals the show is PORTER. Some of the sequences involving him are so hilarious that it was really difficult to stop laughing.

Visual effects are excellent, and the IMAX 3D viewing just elevated them. And since it's most importantly an action movie, every single action sequence it delivers is impressive, especially the courtyard battle sequence. I would call it one of the major highlights of the movie. Cinematography in certain portions is really impressive. Humor, like any other work by The Bard of Avon, is top notch and really manages to make you laugh.

Macbeth has a simple-looking origin story presented and executed in a terrific manner. The directors have done a great job with the characterization of Macbeth, and that is what makes everything in the film seem so good. The pace is brisk, gore is minimal to no, and there's nothing unsuitable for kids.

Attached: Macbeth-and-the-Three-Witches-1855-xx-Theodore-Chasseriau.jpg (779x600, 150K)

Kurosawa's adaptations easily.

Attached: Screenshot_2019-03-09 Throne of Blood Japanese 1957 poster - Throne of Blood - Wikipedia.png (266x375, 299K)

PLEBS
LEAVE
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Attached: hamlet.jpg (630x472, 80K)

Too many cameos.

no such thing

Attached: hamlet_collage.jpg (540x500, 161K)

Now that I think about it, what defines a cameo vs. a normal (small) role?

A celebrity that only appears in one scene.

Attenborough was in this also.

Titus

Attached: Titus.jpg (637x543, 278K)

Patrician choice my good sir.

Dat soundtrack tho:

youtube.com/watch?v=8tAT_A71WOs

Step aside plebs

Attached: modernmacbeth.jpg (500x500, 49K)

kino taste

What the fuck
>youtube.com/watch?v=VAZsf8mTfyk

Is that the one where the Weird Sisters are garbage men?

Othello (1951) for Micheál MacLiammóir
Othello (1965) for Derek Jacobi

this too