Hamlet

Rating:
Summary: BIG Disappointment
Review: Terrible! The sound quality is so bad that I found myself turning the volume up repeatedly just to understand the words. Background noise is too loud. The movie is visually interesting, but if you can't hear and understand the language, what's the point of Shakespeare? I was really looking forward to seeing a truly modern interpretation of Hamlet, but I couldn't even watch this the whole way through.

Rating:
Summary: A movie that never should have been made
Review: I don't know what these people were thinking, but this movie is about as much like Shakespeare's Hamlet as an Elephant is like a chimpanzee. Hamlet's to be or not to be speech in a blockbuster, not even close. This movie uses all the tricks and gadgets from the twentieth century to completely dilute or better yet pollute the orginal play. The acting was lackluster, no emotion whatsoever. The screenplay should was lacking in all areas. Try Branagh's version of Hamlet for what a modern movie about Hamlet should be. This movie was a waste of everyone's time from the start to the end. The only good thing that can come out of this is that a few actors can now add a Shakespearean role to their resumes.

Rating:
Summary: not quite
Review: This version of Hamlet is interesting but except for Kyle Maclachlan as Claudius, no one performance really sings. Ethan Hawke's Hamlet is such a little brat that I couldn't understand what Horatio saw in him. He simply didn't have the acting chops to pull this off. Bill Murray's performance was...interesting. He had trouble with the words but he still managed to show that Polonius was pompous, windy fool. This version tries hard but it has no heart and doesn't quite make the audience care. If you want to see a Hollywood treatment of Hamlet get Mel Gibson's version instead or better yet, just get Olivier's version and see the play at full strength.

Rating:
Summary: "The Play's the thing," but not necessarily this film...
Review: One of Shakespeare's greatest plays gets modernized and transported to New York City in the year 2000, with Ethan Hawke taking on the role of the brooding Prince of Denmark. This version of "Hamlet," written for the screen and directed by Michael Almereyda, initially holds much promise, with what appears to be an outstanding cast through which Almereyda can present his vision of this oft-told tale of murder and revenge. That "vision," however, turns out to be somewhat clouded, and though the basic story remains intact, it comes across as something of a "Cliff's notes" rendition that is less than satisfying. And by the end we realize, too, that not all actors-- even good ones-- are cut out to play Shakespeare.

Hamlet's father, the King/CEO of the Denmark Corp. has died, and within a month his mother, Gertrude (Diane Venora), has married his uncle, Claudius (Kyle MacLachlan), who has also taken over the company. Hamlet, now ensconced in the Elsinore Hotel, grieving for his father, is appalled by the marriage of his mother to his uncle, and moreover, with such haste; but it is done, and there is nothing he can do about it. Soon, however, Hamlet discovers that his father was, in fact, the victim of murder most foul, and vows to avenge his untimely demise. Immediately, he sets a course that will bring the perpetrators to justice; but it is a course that must necessarily end in tragedy for Hamlet, as well.

With his screenplay, Almereyda has retained enough of the basic story that even the heretofore uninitiated will be able to grasp Shakespeare's original intent, at least in regards to the plot. The presentation, however, falls entirely short of providing the full impact of the tragedy. Almereyda's approach is altogether too solemn and lacks the energy needed to truly bring this film to life. And while it's true that the story is inherently introspective and melancholy, the director fails to explore the many possibilities available to him-- especially with the contemporary setting-- that could have made this vibrant and exciting cinema, such as the way writer/director Julie Taymor brought Shakespeare's "Titus" to the screen so successfully. Add to that the fact that Almereyda's adaptation of the play is terribly wanting; the character development is lacking, and though the language of the play remains, Almereyda's judgment of what to keep and what to lose in making the necessary cuts to bring a four hour production down to just under two, are questionable. Hamlet's famous soliloquy, "To be, or not to be," for example, is truncated into oblivion. In the final analysis, this was a project perhaps too ambitious for Almereyda at this point in time; knowing what "happens" in the story is not the same as knowing what it's "about," and in some of the choices the director makes, it's obvious that the "essence" of the play has simply eluded him, much to the detriment of the overall film.

As far as performances go, they range from outstanding to the downright laughable, which is disappointing but not surprising, considering the eclectic nature of the cast. Liev Schreiber, who has one of the best voices in the business and the elocution to match-- custom made for playing Shakespeare-- is nothing less than exemplary in the role of Laertes, and among those assembled here is in a league of his own. A tremendously talented actor, Schreiber has not yet achieved the acclaim he so richly deserves, languishing too often in forgettable films like "Kate and Leopold" and "A Walk On the Moon," though he was perfectly cast as Orson Welles in the made-for-TV film, "RKO 281," in which he was brilliant. Without question, with his masterful interpretation of the material and his natural eloquence, he is the saving grace of this film, in which, alas, he is afforded a less than propitious amount of screen time.

Only two others in the film even approach Schreiber's level of excellence, the first being Kyle MacLachlan, in his portrayal of Claudius. MacLachlan, at least, finds the rhythm and flow in his recitations that make his character believable and convincing, and his scenes with Schreiber are the most interesting aspect of the film. The only other actor in the film who can stand alongside Schreiber and MacLachlan is Diane Venora. Unfortunately, in this offering, Gertrude has been reduced to a role of silent observer in most scenes; when she does speak, however, her words are well spoken and meaningful, and it's a shame that she is so grossly underused here by Almereyda.

Then there are the performances that fall into the "acceptable" category, but are far beneath the capabilities of the actors involved, respectively: As Hamlet, Ethan Hawke adopts a brooding attitude that is effective, but he fails to achieve the commanding presence necessary to make his Hamlet viable. Sam Shepard, as the Ghost of Hamlet's father, is simply unconvincing. And Julia Stiles, as the doomed Ophelia, seems to be grasping at straws in a vein attempt at finding her character, and of the three mentioned here, her performance seems the most strained and unnatural, though it is so with both Hawke and Shepard, as well. All of which points up that, again, not all actors can play Shakespeare. It's difficult; and those who make the attempt should be commended for it, even if the results are less than noteworthy.

Make that "most" of those who make the attempt; because in the case of Bill Murray, someone should have put a stop to it right out of the chute. Murray is arguably one of the best comic actors the screen has ever known, and that is not something to be taken lightly; comedy is one of the hardest genres to master, and Murray is one of the best. But his portrayal of Polonius is embarrassingly laughable; there's no other way to put it. And it's one of the many reasons that make this version of "Hamlet" forgettable. There's just no magic in it.

Rating:
Summary: For Those Who Think Young
Review: This updated version of Hamlet was interesting, I must admit, but I wondered during most of the film why, for a hip and modern "Y2K" Hamlet, was this film not directed by Luhrmann when it was so obviously inspired by his interpretation of Romeo + Juliet. Granted, Luhrmann is about as subtle as a Pollock painting, and Hamlet is a far more paced and strategic work that needs to be spared being drenched in Luhrmann's invasive technicolor with a disco beat. However, I don't know if Almereyda was the filmmaker for this particular job. He seemed to feed off of memorable moments in R + J and regurgitate them into his own unoriginal backwash (most blatantly, the final scene that completely ripped off the opening and closing scenes of R + J's modern day news anchor narration). If he would have concentrated on the rich and grim beauty of the original play and not the appeasement of an MTV savvy demographic, I feel that it would have been a much more complete and respectable work.

There were parts of this Hamlet that I enjoyed, though. The acting by Venora and Shepard was wonderful. MacLachlan played a nice Claudius. I had to wonder, though, why on earth Ethan Hawke got the title role instead of Robert Sean Leonard, whom which this role seemed more suited for. RSL is by far the more talented of the two actors and more comfortably natural in a Shakespearean atmosphere. Hawke seemed tragically in place, however, with the trendy Julia Stiles who should have never ever been given the role of Ophelia. Poor Bill Murray was the most out of place actor in the bunch, god love him. I'm still trying to figure out the relevance of showing Polonius' oozing brains.

It was an interesting effort, and I wasn't disgusted or felt like I had wasted my time watching it, and I didn't mind the modern setting or the spiffy shots of NYC hot spots, but, much like Almereyda's "Nadja", I think his reliance upon grainy video collage as innovative filmmaking falls a little flat. There was also a significant amount of lines removed. I wonder if there was a "director's cut" of this film, and if so, would it have revealed a more true-to-the-original feel to it. There is something innately wrong with a version of Hamlet clocking it at under 2 hours.

I agree with one of the reviewers who said the title is misleading, because one could go into this movie assuming that it is a faithful version of the original when, in fact, it is an abridged and at times unflatteringly manipulated experiment in video collage and product placement. Did my eyes see it correctly when Hamlet's ghost disappeared into a Pepsi machine?! That moment, alone, was enough to poison this movie.

I also agree with another reviewer who said that, if it weren't for his/her familiarity with the play, this version would be very confusing. It was abridged enough that it skipped through sections so quickly, I felt like I had to rewind to understand the significance of the prior scene. And the dialogue was often mumbled by the brooding Hawke, making me feel that much more disinterested in and detached from his character and actions. If this was the director's intention, though, he indeed succeeded.

Nonetheless, I think this movie is worth a look to Shakespeare buffs just to see a modern interpretation of the classic. I think the casual onlooker who is unfamiliar with the text will be utterly lost and bored within the first half of the film, but it is an interesting experiment in filmmaking that, however, should probably have been rethought about two dozen more times before making it anywhere near a theatre. <...

Rating:
Summary: If only they allowed us to give movies zero stars
Review: I was furious when I read the glittering review of this film on the Amazon site (well, not furious, I guess I just disagreed with it strongly). Even the reviewer couldn't help but comment on how every single actor was plastic, rigid, stiff, or unapproachable in some way. Those meaningful and beautiful lines which were not delivered with all the passion of a sixteen year old reading off the local Denny's menu were sliced right out of the picture. And, despite the updated setting (which I have no problem with; Elizabethan actors didn't worry about period costumes), nearly every detail could be forseen minutes or even hours before appearing on screen. In fact, I would have almost been disappointed if we had not seen the inevitable shot of this videophile Hamlet watching Laurence Olivier's superior version. No adaptation of Shakespeare has been so insulting to its source material since (yeah yeah, all you depressed sixteen year olds, break out the pitchforks and torches) Baz Lurhman's unnecessary and too-cute titled Romeo+Juliet. Any version of Hamlet, be it Olivier's, Mel Gibson's, Kenneth Branagh's, or heck, even Branagh's Noises Off-ish A Midwinter's Tale, which is only a movie ABOUT people putting on Hamlet, would make for a better evening's watch than this badly failed experiment.

I have but one compliment to lend Almereyda's version (bit of a spoiler, I suppose): it is the only production of Hamlet I have seen in which Gertrude knows the wine is poisoned before she drinks it, in an attempt to warn her son of treachery. Beyond that, it contains nothing redeeming.

Rating:
Summary: To avoid, unless on medication
Review: I loved every Ethan Hawke's movies until now. This is a very outplaced Hamlet, very poor acting or actor-direction.

...
I mean.. throwing out the lines without any feeling on it.. just like reading a postcard somewhere??? ...

Now.. whos to blame? The actors are good and many here... so what's wrong?

I think the director or the one that made the script is to blame here.... or.... maybe even the actors... ...

Hamlet's father appears in a cigar machine? Come on!!! And look... just look at the air of surprise of Hamlet when he sees the ghost for the first time.

Was Ethan on medication? In fact... were everyone here on medication? ...

Plain ridiculous and quite entertaining to watch such a movie with such an amount of lack of feeling and expression.

Rating:
Summary: Ethan is the man in this one! Greatly revised.
Review: This is not your granddaddy's Hamlet. It's also not for those few serious souls who take everything that Shakespeare does so seriously. It's Shakespeare for the new breed of literature lovers, and the film does wonders.

I rented this film a year ago and fell in love with it. The acting is sufficient, the cast superb, and the words fall perfectly in line with William's original script for Hamlet. Besides Hawke as Hamlet, we get to see an always convincing Julia Stiles as Ophelia, Bill Murray as Polonius, Liev Schrieber(Scream 1&2, Sphere) as Laertes, Diane Venora(Heat) as Gertrude, and Kyle MacLachlan(Twin Peaks mini series) as Claudius. Other notables are Steve Zahn(Joy Ride, Out of Sight) and Sam Shepard as the Ghost.

English teachers should allow their students to watch this version for a change; they might actually come to enjoy Shakespeare. A highlight to this film is hearing Hamlet say the ever famous "to be or not to be" speach while walking through a Blockbuster. Excellent twist.

Check out this film, you won't be dissapointed....unless you're one of those take-everything-too-serious-Shakespeare-lovers. The rest is silence.

Rating:
Summary: Very Uneven...but worth watching
Review: TO WATCH or not to WATCH? This is reasonable question for any
version of what may be the greatest play by the world's greatest
dramatist. My verdict is: view and enjoy despite the manifest problems. The production; casting; scripting are scatter-gun uneven. Who/what will please or appeal to one may be dismissed or even disdained by another. Most viewers will agree setting and art direction are interesting, occasionally fascinating. ROTTEN DENMARK has become a rotten corporate cabal in funky New York. The setting reeks of meretricious glamour; skyscrapers hide grand escapades in boardroom racketeering we've become familiar with thanks to ENRON; WORLD.com etc. Kyle MacLachlan is excellent as Claudius; here oligarchial pretender who's killed his brother for lust of his power and wife. MacLachlan looks as good in his custom tailored Brianni suit as did the thugs who appeared before the Senate. MacLachlan is utterly convincing as an amoral appetite-driven "hollow man". Sam Shepherd plays Hamlet's slain father. Here he's schizoid(sterile);emotionless; this GHOST making him uniquely believable as...literally...an icey, gruesome corporate ENTITY out for revenge. Julia Stiles is excellent--and heart breaking--as Ophelia. The other actors have their moments. Ethan Hawke is adequate to good as "melancholy" Prince. Diane Venora is visually arresting as Gertrude. Only Bill Murray seems grossly miscast.Saturday Night Lives smartest smartass will never work in Shakespeare; even playing a fool like Polonius. Despite the fact that Polonius is "comic" figure, much of what he says is WISE...not wiseass. Murray can't pull this off. It will be up to individual viewers to guage how much has been lost( gained)in substantially altering parts of the play.I thought Director Almereyda's effort was excellent; overall not a bad job. His HAMLET'S the thing, wherein he'll catch the approbation of viewers...or not(3 & 1/2 stars)...

Rating:
Summary: a very original and pivotal look at Shakespeare
Review: This movie is perhaps the best version of Hamlet put to film. Less melodramatic than either Kenneth Branagh's or Lawrence Olivier's traditional versions of the play, Almereyda has created a film that uses Shakespeares text extremely effectively but at the same time this does not take away from the movie's visual quality. Cinematography and editing are perhaps the most important part in a film and the problem with bringing Shakespeare to film is that Shakespeare is about language not image. In terms of performances, Ethan Hawke offers a new interpretation of Shakespeare's most complex character. He portrays Hamlet as a confused adolescent and young filmaker, who is almost driven mad by what he sees in the world. He sees the world through the lens of his video cameras and Almereyda demonstrates this by adding a very dark and bleached look to the colors of the film.

This review is really just a brief outline of what could really be a long essay about this film's art. In short, the film is a masterpiece and bridges the gap between literal imagery and visual imagery.