Hamlet

Rating:
Summary: The archaic madman has finally become human
Review: If you are a Shakespeare purist, you are going to hate this movie. There are no theatrical extremes or classical cliches. There is nothing remotely traditional about this presentation of Hamlet.

That said, you should know that this is the most artful and humanistic portrayal of Hamlet ever put on film. In this film, Hamlet is neither an inaccessible eccentric nor an Oedipal mess, but a film student, a tortured and lonely artist. Ethan Hawke gives a performance that puts a dark and brooding perspective on a character who is normally portrayed as maniacal. In this movie, Hamlet's madness is buried so far within him that it radiates from the inside out. This is what most "mad" people are really like, and also why Hawke's Hamlet is one that for the first time an audience can actually relate to.

And this new humanity is reinforced by the talented supporting cast. Julia Stiles gives a haunting performance as Ophelia. Kyle McLaughlin and Diane Venora, as Claudius and Gertrude, act with fiery lust toward each other and chilling disdain toward Hamlet. Liev Schrieber gives an incredible bitterness to the role of Laertes. Sam Shepard, as the ghost of Hamlet's father, gives an excellent cameo performance. Even Steve Zahn, much to my surprise, gives a very funny take on Rosencrantz. My only complaint is the casting of Bill Murray as Polonius. He isn't really cut out for Shakespeare, but his prescence could be seen as a sly throwback to Ghostbusters. This is one of many hidden references and clever interpretations in the movie that may go over the heads of some viewers but make the story fresh for those who know it.

I am truly sorry that most of the people who reviewed this movie could not appreciate its ability to be innovative while preserving the ideas and the mood of Shakespeare's play. Maybe it strays too far from tradition to satisfy all audiences. Or maybe they just didn't get it.

Rating:
Summary: one of the best hamlets
Review: I had always been annoyed by ethan hawke, in everytthing from training day to reality bites (was he in that?) and wherever else he's this dinky annoying murmuring brat, but somehow I loved his Hamlet and I loved this version of it. One of the best "tricks" is the planting of the wire on Julia Stiles' Ophelia (At first I thought I didn't like her in the role, but I keep thinking on her and like her a bit more and more, her subduedness), and getting caught that way. It's always interesting to see where in that exchange Hamlet realizes that he's being spied upon. Sometimes at "Where's your father," but sometimes elsewhere. I thought the film within the film was great, too, a sort of more honest representation considering the medium that we're watching the work in. I like Horatio. He's actually one of my favorites, very neutral and attractive. I don't like all the product placement, the ghost by the pepsi machines for example. And while I kind of like the Blockbuster tobeornotobe, with clips of Brandon Lee's The Crow and James Dean in the back, and Hawke walking past the "Action" section are clever, I wish there were some things left a little more generic.
Claudius confesses his sin in the back of a limo that Hamlet is driving. This is a good scene.
Mostly I was pleasantly surprised at Ethan Hawke though. He ends up doing one of the best screen Hamlets; much better than the so overrated and sucky Olivier, and better than Williamson, too. He's not quite as goofy as they sometimes try to be, but he's Ethan Hawke, so you can't take him too seriously to begin with. This might be why it works so well.

Rating:
Summary: good modern day version
Review: some things in this movie are really dry and some of the emotions the actors give out are way over the top and the ending is a little bit too quick and not that great. Ethan Hawke is great in the lead as Hamlet and he sprouts a cap in most of the film. Julia Stile, Liev Schreiber and especially Karl Geary are astounding as well. Steve Zahn and Sam Shepard have little time and thats not right. the part where Hawke does his to be or not to be speech in the video store is a nice touch as well

Rating:
Summary: Horrid.
Review: I think that many of the other reviewers have hit the nail on the head. So I won't bore you with the small points. I'll just say that this play was butchered and if Shakespeare were alive and saw this abomination he would puke in his soup.

Rating:
Summary: Yuck!
Review: I like Shakespeare enough that I popped for the BBC DVD collection, and Hamlet and Henry V are my two favorite. I have seen maybe 15 different productions of Hamlet, and this is easily the one I disliked the most. If I didn't already known why Hamlet should be interested in Fortinbras, for instance, I would have to ask myself why he was even in the movie. If he did "What of piece of work is man", I must have dozed off. No grave digger scene? No handshake between Hamlet and Laertes before the sword fight? In fact, the entire final scene was butchered, in my opinion. Now, I'm not a purest; I've seen out of period productions of a number of plays (Macbeth, Richard III, As You Like It, A Midsummer Night's Dream) and enjoyed them. But this one is just too far out and artsy for me.

You may think of Mel Gibson as Mad Max or Martin Riggs, but I think that production was a much better use of two hours. I am, of course, really waiting for Branagh's version to come out on DVD.

Rating:
Summary: See this version!!!!!
Review: In this version of Hamlet, Michael Almereyda boldly answers the question: what is one to do after Branagh?

He shows us a Hamlet that we haven't seen on the screen before. First of all, his Hamlet is exactly the right age. In Shakespeare's play, Hamlet is around 20 for the first four acts, and then he is (inexplicably) 30 in the final act. Watching a series of 40 + year-olds play Hamlet in my life has had much the same effect as sitting too close at the opera when 350 pound 40 year-olds are playing young star-crossed lovers---I'd like to have a sense of wonder, but the casting makes it difficult. (after my first couple of operas, I learned to sit toward the back)

Almereyda's intelligent direction uses the advantages of film to show us the inherent split in Hamlet's personality. Through voice-overs, Hamlet's obsession with film and home-recording, we are able to see Hamlet-as-actor and Hamlet-as-director all at once. We see Hamlet on a screen delivering an impassioned soliloquy, but we also see Hamlet, the director, watching, calculating, cold. What a perfect way to represent Hamlet as the director of himself, as the endless reviser.

Many film versions of Hamlet don't take advantage of the medium nearly enough. So, we end up seeing a play-on-film. Almereyda's use of the medium gives fresh insight to the character. For the first time, I see the a Hamlet who loves no one. I see how the nihilistic drive was likely there before any of this ever happened. And, I see, as Harold Bloom suggested, a Hamlet who is in the wrong play.

Julia Stiles is brilliant as Ophelia. I felt like I understood more about this character after seeing this film. Once again, we have a greater sense of backstory in this film. We understand in this presentation how fragile Ophelia has always been.

The biggest criticism I have of the direction of the film, which leaves probably about 60% of the original dialogue out, is the near-exclusion of Hamlet's madness. We don't really see Hamlet's feigned madness, which is so central to both the plot and understanding the motivations of all of the other characters. There are a few moments where we feel very strongly what is missing. At 111 minutes, they may have included more....

I also think that Hamlet's film version of "The Mousetrap" doesn't work. I like the idea very much, but the execution falls short. Instead of illuminating the film, giving us an understanding of how Hamlet so easily outsmarts Claudius, we are left with a disappointing moment of a director showing off what he learned in film school. It's just a bad sign when the viewer senses that a filmmaker is trying to be smart.

Luckily, this director IS smart, and he shows us a Hamlet worth seeing.

Rating:
Summary: An insult to our intelligence
Review: Bill Murray as Polonius? Absurd! The man is not a Shakesperean on any level. His performance is atrocius. Unfortunately, we best know him according to his type-cast as a clown. With this in mind, Mr. Murray would have made a better Yorick. Kyle MacLachlan as Claudius? Passable, but not convincing. Stick to David Lynch, please. Ethan Hawke as Hamlet? Ay, there's the rub!

The Hawke's nightmarish incapacity to play a meaningful role is revealed through his inability to do anything more than just recite a semblance of the script by rote. Mr. Hawke should stick to the popular fare and shallow shtick of his (and mine) generation. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about his performance except his death followed by the eject button. The bottom line: Ethan Hawke is too immature an actor to play Hamlet. There is a reason why the best Hamlets are performed by older actors: with age comes wisdom and depth of expression. Hawke has neither quality in this film, and his youth is palpably disturbing in the naive manner in which he portrays the prince.

The revisionist direction and production also leaves much to be desired. It is simply dull; it lacks luster; it's pretentious. One gets the impression that there was no interest in the language, which is so key and central to Shakespeare. Ethan Hawke even manages to flub several soliloquies, leaving out entire lines in the process. What were the filmmakers thinking? Where is the quality control? This movie is a completely unstudied rendition of a highly respected work of art. It only impresses the quirky few whose minds are focused more on what they are told is "trendy."

Save your money. This is not a serious version of Hamlet. Look elsewhere, but avoid the Gibson version--although he is a bit more palatable than Hawke (if that's possible). If you can stomach Olivier's butchering of the play, then perhaps you may be able to enjoy his outstanding performance. Campbell Scott made a genuine attempt at introducing a fresh revisionist spin to the tragedy, and he succeeds in making the prince a memorable, and entertaining character. His camera-work is captivating, and the casting a stroke of good fortune. However, the only drawback is the inherent difficulty in producing a film version of this difficult play. In my opinion, the best version to date--in all movie history--has to be Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet. Don't miss it.

Rating:
Summary: not worth the rent
Review: let me start out by saying that i can somewhat admire this version for its willingness to try "hamlet" in a new setting. with that said, let me then go on to say that it just doesn't work. this version seems bent on the concept of hamlet's suicidal nature, and that drives everything in the movie, which ruins it. "to be or not to be" - first played on a video with a gun to his head....i fear that they missed the point of the speech. by ten minutes into the movie, i was telling the whiny brat to go and kill himself already, and get it over with. the characters, unfortunately, seem one-dimensional for the most part (one exception is claudius, who confesses his sins in his limo). lines are spoken conversationally, like prose, which kills the feeling of the verse and flattens any emotion out. (see sam shepard's entrance as the ghost, when he steps into hamlet's apartment and mumbles, "mark me." hamlet mumbles back, "i will." and this is an overall problem i see - no one is really surprised or taken aback at this ghost.

and where to begin with the updates? i didn't understand why hamlet's father was still called "the king" - who calls a ceo "the king"? was it just to stick to the text? on that note, "the denmark corporation" is a predictable stretch. the main point i'm trying to make here is that hamlet works on a royal setting, and not in a corporate setting. the issues just aren't broad enough when you make the transition from a kingdom to a corporation.

if you get a chance to see this movie for free - borrow it or something - go ahead and do it just for another perspective. but don't pay to see it.

Rating:
Summary: How do you ruin a classic?...Watch this and see.
Review: By far the worst interpretation of Hamlet I've ever seen, and a terrible film in its own right. You can be as open-minded as you want about re-interpretations of Shakespeare, but this film was more than ludicrously produced: they actually had the cajones to put BILL MURRAY in the role of Polonius, and strangely enough I think he was channeling his character from "Caddyshack," the way he mumbled through his lines. Ethan Hawke delivers his usually half-hearted, bored-with-his-job, GenXer performance. I had high hopes for this film, but it was so over-the-top maudlin that I almost couldn't bear it. There's a difference between exhibiting your interpretation of a classic drama and simply making a film just to see it done--this version of Hamlet is sadly the latter.

Rating:
Summary: worst movie ever
Review: this is the worst movie ever i was totally disgusted by it