It seems almost heretical to say over fifty years after Olivier's Oscar-winning film has passed indisputedly into the realm of "classic," but the fact of the matter is that this is a badly butchered and tolerably performed adaptation of Shakespeare's play. Olivier and text editor Alan Dent cut the script to the bone, eliminating not only the character of Fortinbras (who is a common casulaty of the editor's pen), but Rosencrantz and Guildestern (who are indispensible to depicting a complete version of the story).

Most of the acting is forgettable, with only Academy Award nominated Jean Simmons making any impact as the tragic Ophelia. Olivier is frankly wooden in the role, making one realize that Hamlet was never really his part and that posterity would have been better served if he's left this play alone and instead filmed one of his stage successes such as Macbeth or Titus Andronicus.

Olivier's success comes as a director rather than an actor, depicting Elsinore as a gloomy and forbidding haunted castle. The drum representing the ghost's heartbeat is a masterfully effective device and the look of the film can only be described as wonderfully Shakespearean.

While the virtues of the film are spotty, one scene must surely be ranked as among the greatest ever committed to celluloid: the duel between Hamlet and Laertes in Act V. It is hard to imagine any other production (stage or film) competing the excitement or tension of this compelling action, and Olivier's celebrated leap from a high tower to finally do away with Claudius is worthy of every platitude it has received. (Compare this to the ludricrous display of Kenneth Branaugh throwing a magic rapier from across the palace to hit a super hero's bulls-eye into Claudius' heart in the vulgar and miscast 1996 film and you'll see what I mean.)

Olivier's "Hamlet" was an important milestone in it's day, but is badly dated and does not stand up well to more recent productions such as Derek Jacobi's 1978 BBC production with the pre-Star Trek Patrick Stewart as a magnificent Claudius (in my mind the definitive screen "Hamlet") or the filmed record of the John Gielgud/Richard Burton 1964 Broadway production (which is truer to the play's theatrical roots). Olivier's film is indeed a classic, but it brings to mind Mark Twain's definition of the word: "a book that someone praises but doesn't read."

Consider this: Shakespearean films more than other films are dependent upon the director's translation of the text. HAMLET in particular has been adapted roughly 43 times in film. I'll say up front that this version is not my favorite interpretation, but I won't deny that it certainly set the standard back in its day.

For those unfamiliar with the play, Hamlet's father, the king of Denmark, has recently passed away and he resents the speed with which his mother, Queen Gertrude, remarried. It doesn't help that her new husband is the dead king's brother, Claudius. Soon an apparition who is the spirit of his father, the dead king, visits Hamlet. The ghost explains that Claudius, Hamlet's uncle, murdered him in his sleep and tells Hamlet to avenge his death. The remainder of the story primarily revolves around the Prince's struggle to stop thinking and start doing (exemplified by the famous "To be, or not to be" speech. Can Hamlet do what it takes to truly avenge his father's death?

Olivier and his much-celebrated interpretation of HAMLET are considered by many to be the best of all Shakespeare film adaptations -- it certainly bears the indelible stamp of its director/star's personality. Apparently, the Academy agreed rewarding it with Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress and Best Costume Design and among others. (Trivia: Olivier's direction was also nominated losing to John Huston for "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" in 1948).

Olivier's take on Shakespeare's story of madness and murder most foul is unmistakably cinematic -- he takes full advantage of the medium, avoiding the trap of merely filming a play as some Shakespeare adaptations do, with monologues delivered as internal thoughts heard in hushed voiceovers. He occasionally uses dizzying camerawork to show Hamlet's inner turmoil, a trick that could never have worked on stage. The setting, lighting, and cinematography are wondrous setting the somber and Gothic tone.

Some notable scenes for me include the sequence where the Ghost appears. Olivier uses sound and voice to create the disorientation that Hamlet and others feel when in the presence of the supernatural for a great creepy effect. Another arresting scene is when Laertes and Claudius are planning the murder of Hamlet. It starts with a close shot of the duo but slowly backs away, as if it wants to separate itself, and the audience, from the bloody deeds being discussed.

But there are many disappointing choices made. Substantial cuts were made to the text (forgivable if you realize he needed to cut a 4-hour play into at least 2 hours. The omission of the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (childhood friends of Hamlet who are ultimately killed because they were too loyal to Claudius, and not to the Prince) is unfortunate as they bring so much contrast and subtle texture to the play.

While I am a great fan of Olivier's, I strongly believe there were certain roles that were out of his range, Hamlet topping the list. (And I'm not even going to talk about the fact that 41 year old Olivier is playing a character who is in his mid to late twenties.) Olivier also insists on taking the Freudian approach with Hamlet and his mother Gertrude, an idea not really supported by the text suggesting that the real reason Hamlet is upset is not so much due to his father's murder, but that he should be with Gertrude, not Claudius. But the thing that nags at me most is that Hamlet is fundamentally a man of action, though a man of action who is aware that his actions have consequences. He is divided: determined to act, destructive when he does act, and consequently disconnected from his actions. But while Olivier lives well in the language and his rendering of the lines is a kind of dark poetry, his overall portrayal is mannered and brooding and almost petulant. It's a disappointing adaptation by an otherwise brilliant actor.

Now as a DVD, this release of HAMLET is by the superior Criterion Collection. Criterion DVD's are often considered to be state-of-the-art, and this one is no exception presenting a nicely restored film good quality and sound. A definite must for a film collector. Having said all that, I'll end my review this way: again, this is not my favorite version of HAMLET (go watch Branagh's, Zeffirelli's or even Mel Gibson's versions) but as a piece of cinematic history this is definitely a watchable film worth seeing for it's accomplishments and cinematography.

There are several film versions of Shakespeare's great play about the troubled Prince of Denmark; Mel Gibson's imbues the drama with a barely restrained mania while Kenneth Branagh's is notable as the most nearly complete version yet made. Still, it is Olivier's production which remains the standard, and justifiably so. His is the performance which I believe most nearly matches the Bard's own vision of how the tormented Hamlet should be played--sensitive, caustic and impassioned yet tortured and lost. Olivier's direction leads the viewer inexorably into the heart of the play, whose characters move through the nearly inescapable walls of Castle Elsinore like sleepwalkers through a lucid dream. But Olivier couldn't do it all himself, and doesn't need to. Felix Aylmer is a likeable wise old fool as Polonius; Eileen Herlie is an appropriately confused queen and mother; Basil Sydney is well-cast as the villain who would rather not be; and Jean Simmons shines as Hamlet's innocent love, whose disintegration is so realistic it breaks the watcher's heart. More, the individual scenes are beautifully orchestrated. Oliver's rendition of the "To be or not to be" soliloquoy is pure magic, and the story's climactic duel is worth the wait, as Hamlet and Laertes (Ophelia's brother, well assayed by Terence Morgan)duel to the death--one unwittingly, and both to the death of more than each other. True, the production is incomplete, and the lack of Rosencranz and Guildenstern is a regrettable omission. But overall, Olivier's film captures the essence of Shakespeare's play like no other. As long as Hamlet is studied in schools, this will be the version most often used to show how the play should be done. A worthwhile addition to even the most discerning video library.

The story told in this book is rather dull and boring. I had hoped for much better. It also failed one of my major criteria for a novel; it was never edited. At various points throughout the book Sulu is refered to as the navigator or helmsman. On particular scene has Uhura, seeing Chekov look at her, ponder about the navigator. The very next paragraph she is now ponder about the navigator (Sulu). Very annoying. In order to make this book more enjoyable I found myself visualizing very colorful "sign language" by various character. Sign language plays an important part in the story.

Overall, I was very disappointed in this book.

Books written by three authors tend to be either bland or disjointed. Bland because arguments over the story line led to a mushy compromise or disjointed as some of each authors ideas were incorporated into the book. Neither is the case here. This is a book in the finest tradition of the Star Trek model. The new characters are well drawn and we get to see a side of Commodore Wesley that was not apparent in the original series. Chronologically, the story also takes place shortly after Chekov first arrives on the Enterprise, and a subplot follows his first days on the Enterprise where he commits some errors of enthusiasm.
The book begins with devastating attacks being carried out on Federation colonies. At first the only point of the attacks appears to be the destruction of Federation sites. However, after a great deal of investigation, the purpose turns out to be much more sinister. The Enterprise engages the raiders and just manages to defeat them after learning of their origins.
This is one of the better books in the Star Trek series and I found it difficult to put it down.

Star Trek: The Disinherited by Peter David with Michael Jan Friedman and Robert Greenberger is a TREK tale told well. The collaboration of the three authors gives the story a full body of adventure as the characters are fleshed out. You get the feeling while reading this book that someone has spend some time writing this story.

As Kirk and crew, minus Uhura, speed off to save another Federation world suffering from an unknown space attack, only to find the worlds completely devastated. Ready adventure is apparent when the attacking fleet severly damages the Enterprise and make their escape.

But, Spock finds something of great interest that could make a difference in the fate of the Federation, let alone the Enterprise. Uhura is on a mission of her own... making this a two story adventure... working the plots of these stories together, the readers get a better picture of the adventure.

This is solid classic TREK told well and written to keep your interest with an ending only found in the TREK universe.

David Robert's depiction of the last days of the 1924 Everest expedition based on his research, Conrad Anker's candid recounting of his and Dave Hahn's successful summit attempt and perilous descent, and Anker's educated guess as to what actually may have happened to Mallory and Irvine: couldn't put it down! Less enthralling, however, from earlier in the book: quotes from men who knew Mallory in his university days who seem to have had a more-than-platonic admiration of him. Thankfully, the book is more about Mallory's passion for climbing Everest than the passion other men had for him!

I became interested in finding out more about George Mallory after watching a television documentary describing the discovery of his body in May,1999. When I learned that one of the climbers on that expedition had co-authored a book describing the historical find I knew I wanted to read it.

By reading it, a lot can be learned about climbing, even by a "grounded" reader like myself. Being a non-climber, I really wasn't aware of the mystique and high regard in which Mallory is held within the community of men and women who challenge themselves to the extremes of mental, emotional and physical endurance by pitting themselves against the unforgiving mountains "because they are there".

The book provides extensive insight into the psyche of Mallory and Conrad Anker, the man who found his body. The talent to climb, the courage to confront the ultimate challenges and the respect and awe held for the mountains, especially Everest, seem to be shared by both.

In my estimation the book accomplished what it set out to do. Most importantly, it preserved Mallory's legend. He was treated with reverance and his feats and accomplishments become more mind boggling when you consider the technological limitations with which he worked.

It helped provide insight into why people climb mountains. Mountaineering taps into the competitive nature of man; Everest is seen as an opponent that needs to be conquered. It is the proving ground that measures a person's mettle and stimulates the instinct for self survival.

The book spends time desribing Andrew Irvine, incredible in his own right, and sheds light on why he was chosen as Mallory's partner for that fateful climb.

The book also addresses the question on most readers' minds, "Did Mallory summit?". Anker followed in Mallory's footsteps and attempted to duplicate the climb. That helped him theorize that Mallory did not make it to the top. He explains clearly why he reached that conclusion and identifies several points that justify his conclusion. He even hypothesizes how Mallory and Irvine died and where Irvine's body might be located.

Finally, this illuminating book offers several anecdotes that both entertain and educate about the most dangerous and exhilirating sport known to man.

If you thought "Oh no, not another Mallory book!" then think again. For me this one is the best.

Like the other reviewers I noted the flashes of ego in Conrad Anker's account, but what a story he has to tell: HE found the body, HE climbed the second step, and HE was the clear driving force in reaching the summit. He relects on all these events with a calm and fascinating intelligence, and crucially, with the insight that comes from actually being there doing it, not looking at it through a telescope from Base Camp.

As Anker and Hahn make their way up the mountain one even has the tingling sensation of walking a few paces behind Mallory in 1924. Could he have negotiated this terrain? There's an oxygen bottle! What other clues lie ahead? There's lots of detail here that you won't find in the other books. The action on the mountain is interspersed with background and supporting chapters by Dave Roberts which serve to give a welcome breather.

All the Mallory books have their pluses and minuses. The photographs in "Ghosts of Everest" are difficult to beat. "The Lost Explorer" gives the most persuasive account of what really happened to Mallory and Irvine.

The problem with using advoates as authors is that you only get one side of the story. In the case of EMDR, for instance, there is research that says a) the eye movements are unnecessary and b) its effects do not last as long as Cognitive-Behavior Therapy based exposure procedures. This really undercuts the second part of the title of this book "for Long-Term Change". Stories and anecdotes are often entertaining but for true treatment help see a professional who reads the scientific research and is not a cheerleader for every fad that comes along.

I found this book to be a remarkable and consise description of a complicated topic. The authors summarized the state of the field of short term dynamic therapy. They held no information back and identified the areas of controversy, particularly conflicting opinions and data on the use of confrontation in the Davanloo approach versus the approach preferred by McCullough and Alpert. Furthermore, the inclusion of EMDR as a dynamic treatment was inovative and exciting. Neborsky and Solomon's chapter on "Changing the Love Imprint" explained how EMDR and the STDP's may have a common therapeutic action, which was helpful to me as was their integration of attachment theory. Finally, David Malan's chapter on the science of outcome evaluation and what we might learn from his career was an inspiration to read. I hope this group continues to write and create more material for clinicians like this!

The recent no-name reviewer from Atlanta who attacked Short-Term Therapy for Long-Term Change's lack of research must have bought some bootleg copy that omitted its hundreds of endnotes and citations. Its dozens of pages of transcribed therapy sessions will hardly be dismissed as "anecdotes" by any mindful reader. The book's six contributors are tops in their fields. Calling them "cheerleaders," as no-name does, is a whooper bordering on delusion. This book is the best available overview of the latest breakthroughs in short-term psychotherapy available.

RAND, as usual, produced a first-rate study here. In this text, they looked into commercial SATCOM for Department of Defense use, what roles it should fill, and cost comparison between DoD-owned satellite versus commercial satellites. Many graphs adorn the text, adding useful information to make conclusions clearer and vivid. Anyone interested in commercial satellites and the role they should play for the DoD should buy this book. No hyperbole or propaganda here, RAND's text is useful text and solid conclusions that layperson and communicator alike can understand.

I am a BIG fan of Deep Space Nine, so I obviously love to read Deep Space Nine books. But this one, well, wasn't so good. The plot is OK, and the characters are OK, but it just didn't do it for me. The Ro/Kira thing was good, but I didn't think it was right that Ro and Kira took on a whole criminal ring and won. Plus, I didn't think that Sisko would ever let Quark pilot the Defiant, so that was pretty dumb, and why would Sisko leave Deep Space Nine without a crew???? It just doesn't make sense. I'm not a fan of Friedman, and I don't know who the other two people are, but I just hope that the two of you break off relations with Friedman, and write a new Deep Space Nine book.

Originally Michelle Forbes was to go from Star Trek Next Generation to the Deep Space Nine show when she quit, Kira Nerys was created. So this book is sort of tongue in cheek. Unfortunately the blending of so many writers convolutes not the plot but the tone of the novel. Though it's not apparent who wrote what to avoid particular criticisms all of these writers, while versed in Star Trek have different styles.
So this book fails.

This book, which is a plot based around the first meeting of Kira and Ro Laren, is really good. I enjoyed their interactions a lot - they tease each other, act deliberately irritating, and say sarcastic things to each other, just like I'd imagine they would. But, eventually they realize they are more alike than different, which is as it should be. The plot was interesting - a plague caused by replicators, which is actually kind of a twist on the first season episode "Babel". I enjoyed the nice balance of action and character development. There weren't many problems, just two glaring ones - why were Kira and Ro hiking around Bajor on foot? Don't they have hovercars or something? The only explanation I can think of is that they wanted to be really, REALLY incognito. The other was that Sisko took only Quark as his crew on the Defiant. Surely the warship needs more than one person and one Ferengi to run it! And taking that fancy ship with its cloaking device into Orion space? That's just inviting them to steal it. They really should've taken a runabout! However, the writing quality was good, and it was a fun adventure to read. I recommend this novel to any DS9 or Ro Laren fan.

I really enjoy the Using Series, and look for them whenever I want to learn more about a certain topic. However, this book is deplorable. It is not made for anyone looking to write their own code, or anyone who actually wants to program. All this book tries to do is show you how to use someone else's code. I do not mean another module, such as the infamous CGI.pm moudle, but rather using another script and "tweaking" it for your needs. It also does not seek to explain the theory behind the code. I was also quite disappointed in how it was organized. The Using Seies are good books, but this one doesn't belong in the family. There are much better books out there that will serve your needs.

I found this book to be hard to read and poorly written. The examples are very difficult to follow because most are only code segments not the full code. This makes it very diffcult to follow. As any experienced programmer will tell you "Nothing helps more than a good example.". This book is highly lacking of good examples. I have several years of experience with programming in several languages, which allowed me to fill the gaps in the examples, how ever a beginning programmer would be lost. In conclusion I do not recommend this book to a programmer of any level.

I found this book to be hard to read and poorly written. The examples are very difficult to follow because most are only code segments not the full code. This makes it very diffcult to follow. As any experienced programmer will tell you "Nothing helps more than a good example.". This book is highly lacking of good examples. I have several years of experience with programming in several languages, which allowed me to fill the gaps in the examples, how ever a beginning programmer would be lost. In conclusion I do not recommend this book to a programmer of any level.

I have used other books in this series and was quite happy with them. But after reading the first few pages in this poorly constructed book, I could see it was only going to frustrate me with it's blatant and carelees errors. Some of the questions were appreciated, but over all it was not worth the time to even scan over it. Too many errors for my liking...Here is a simple explaination found before the 1st chapter.....We all know that the minimum RAM required to install Sever 4.0 is 16MB...right? According to this book..both Workstation and Server require 32MB!!!! DAHHHH

I've read several books on the MCSE courses. All of them have some errors. Some have more than others. This one has more than any I've come across. I do not recommend using this book at all. For the money, there are many other places you can acquire a bank of questions that are substantially more acccurate and relevant.

In comparison to the Exam Cram Networking Essentials I found this publication to be more than adequate. In fact I managed to pass the exam mainly through the questions in the book. Yes, there are errors, but if you know your basics you will pick them out. Yes, the publisher should have proofed it better. But on the whole I found that many of my exam questions had something in common with those in the book. This was a second purchase from this series and it's a cheaper method than Transcender

I have said this before, but I'lll say it again that this is the worst movie I have ever seen. I once wrote a review on this movie back in 2002 but it wasn't helpful, maybe this one will be. I love batman but I hate this film. Seriously, Schumacher doesn't do it like Burton. Sorry Joel, but basically that is the bottom line, you don't do it as good as Burton did it. Schumacher's film (Batman Forever and Batman & Robin) are not dark and the plot is basically is something that is not humanly impossible. The first two films were dark and were realistic and look how good they were. Plus the dialogues are all bad. This film does consist of a wonderful cast but not even they can make their characters seem likeable. Example, Mr. Freeze saying stupid things and having an annoying laugh. No offense to Arnold Schwarzenegger, you are by far a great star but you being a villain in this movie was no way near as good when you played the evil terminator. And that is just one of the many things wrong with this film but I'll get to that later, here is the plot...
A new villain enters gotham city, he has a gun that freezes possibly anything in its path. His name-Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger). This is one villain who will be a big challenge against Batman (George Clooney) and (Robin). But worst comes to worst when another villain enters gotham. Her name- Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman). She was a biologist who wants to preserve plants. Her skin was mutated with poison when her boss went psycho. Now she takes preserving plants one-step too far. Poison Ivy is by far the worst batman villain but she is definitely the sexiest villain (and woman) in the batman films. The two maniacs join together to set up a diabolical to turn Earth into one huge block of ice and inhabit the world full of Ivy's mutant plants that she created. Besides all the trouble of stopping villains, Bruce Wayne has a new occupant in his home. Her name is Barbara Wilson and she is Alfrd's niece, who will also later become Batgirl.
That is the plot, now with the reasons why this film is bad
1.Mr. Freezes suit isn't so complicated that it needs diamonds o be powered up.
2.Poison Ivy isn't a sex crazed maniac who is obsessed to kiss a person.
3.Barbara isn't Alfred's niece. She is Commissioner Gordon's daughter.
4.Bane is not stupid.
5.Mr. Freeze's gun isn't so big and complicated either. Normally, his gun would be only twice the size of a hand gun.
6.If the Earth was all ice, where would Ivy be able to plant her mutant plants?
7.What happened to the classic "R" symbol for Robin?
8.Why wasn't Barbara shocked when she found the cave?
9.Why was there CD-Rom that had all the Batman stuff on it.
10.When Mr. Freeze froze the Batmobile, shouldn't have Batman had gotten frozen too because he was in it?
11.How were Batman and Robin able to use emergency escape doors as surfboards?
12.Wouldn't anybody find it a bit disturbing to have a huge statues of a naked man in the middle of a city.
13.Bad dialogues. One of Mr. Freezes lines were You are not gonna send me to the cooler"
14.Bad Jokes.
The good things in this film.
1.The motorcycle race that Barbara and Dick (Robin) were in was very intense. The only good scene in this movie
2.Uma Thurman. The bottom line-Poison ivy was so sexy. PERIOD!
Anyway, I'll end it right here when I say this movie is bad. I wuld write more stuff but then you'll be here all day reading the review and editors won't post it. DO NOT GET THIS MOVIE.

My sweet children, this movie sucks so much. Talk about selling out Batman. George Clooney as Batman? That's just great. Lame actor mixed with lame lines. Chris O Donnel returns as an ok Robin, yet still very annoying. Poison Ivy and Batgirl had some pretty bad lines, yet were not too bad; hey what the hell, they look really damned hot in those costumes. And for some really weird reason, Warner Bros. hired Arnold Arnold Schwarzenegger! He is the lamest villian so far, but you have to admit, Arnold is the only one that can pull off those lame one liners and make them funny. All in all, very bad Batman. The 2 stars are for Ivy and Batgirl in those revealing, sexy costumes and for Arnold's stupid and lame yet funny lines. The Batman series has moved from the cool, dark humor, and great acting of the 1st 2 movies and has declined into lame, teenie bopper movies. WARNER BROTHERS- For the sake of saving one of the coolest superheros of all time, re-hire the genius director TIM BURTON and brilliant music composer DANNY ELFMAN, and FIRE the idiotic director Joel Schumacher and composer Elliot Goldhental. And get back to the script, not the effects, I mean what looks and sounds cooler: Nicholson saying to Batman: "Come on you winged son of a bitch!" OR Arnold saying to Batman: "Ice to See You!" I rest my case.

Batman & Robin was and is by far one of the best Batman movies made. It has a great plot and great actors... Arnold, George, Chris, Alica & Uma all in the same movie--How could it possibly go wrong! One of my favorites... Great Job! :)