Hamlet

Rating:
Summary: Bad
Review: There have been a number of brilliant adaptations of Shakespeare in the past few years which has updated and modernized the settings, but this isn't one of them.

The use of contemporary locations throughout this movie is sometimes clever or witty, but never really hits interesting and always distracts from the play. The main conceit -- Denmark as a corporation, etc -- just doesn't fit the language, and each time someone refers to CEO Claudius as "dread lord" it serves to remind us of just how poorly the metaphor works.

Hamlet spends much of his time with a video camera, and clearly the director thinks he has something very important to say on the media or some such, but I have no idea what.

Ethan Hawke's performance brings out the unenergetic side of the role, as half the film is him muttering iambic pentameter in a dull monotone. There's no straining against his inability to act, he just can't be bothered to. I suppose this is a valid interpretation of the role, but it's deathly boring.

Julia Stiles does not appear to understand most of the lines she is speaking.

I'd have to recommend the 1991 movie starring Mel Gibson over this one. At least Mel Gibson wasn't wearing a stupid hat.

Rating:
Summary: Impressive, Surprisingly
Review: I heard about this movie and thought it would be terrible. Ethan Hawke has never been my favorite actor, and I hated the way Baz Luhrmann cut Romeo and Juliet (the last big "MTV generation Shakespeare" adaptation). However, I was extremely pleased with this film.

It's by far my favorite film adaptation of the play. While Branagh and Olivier (and even Mel Gibson) are all talented actors (to look at the major-release versions), what they fail to capture is the basic fact that Hamlet the character is really a slacker. He's a little immature, a little whiney. Ethan Hawke seems to understand this. Part of the reason behind Hamlet's tortuous soliloquies is to illustrate the fact that he's incapable of action and thus fails, whereas Fortinbras, decisive and bold, succeeds.

Hamlet himself aside, I loved the cleverness of this adaptation. The director seems to really enjoy the play. That's important. It's silly to wonder what Shakespeare would think of these films - it's enough that the texts remain both relevant and a source of inspiration to today's creative artists.

Rating:
Summary: surprised at some of the negative reactions here
Review: This is certainly an ambitious and for the most part, at least, a very well thought out and well executed version of the play. Particularly given the endless times it's been performed and reinvented, and that Hawke isn't overly impressive in the title role, it is surprisingly successful. For my money the only real glitches are a couple of casting errors, one larger -- Murray as Polonius tries but just can't get it, as good and likable as he may be -- and one not very large -- the completely flat performance of Thurman (presumably related to then Hawke significant other Uma) as Guildenstern. But there are more than enough casting and subsequent performance triumphs to well outweigh those, from MacLachlan's interesting Claudius to Shepard's presence as Hamlet's father to the modern fragility of Stiles as Ophelia all the way down to Zahn, whose Rosencrantz must have not only the best physical entrance of about any Rosencrantz in history but who also carries through nicely on the occasions when only his voice is heard. But maybe the real gem is Schreiber, whose Laertes is so good that you wonder if the final result wouldn't have been even better if he and Hawke had traded roles (although in a situation reminiscent of Brandauer and Redford in Out of Africa, it's hard to imagine that suggestion going over commercially with production heads).

Apart from all this, and of course the play itself and its ideas the language of it, which have obviously proved superb over the test of time, you have to give the makers credit for not just dropping the story into Manhattan in the year 2000 but also for genuinely and creatively following through on that with a commitment to work in especially the various media with which we communicate today. On maybe just one or two occasions (the pay phone, for example) does this seem a bit forced or unnatural; on manyh of them it is remarkably insightful and touching and brings you into the language and world of the play (such as the constant use and editing of film by Hamlet). And that's exactly what a modern interpretation of a centuries-old work should do. All were clearly aware of the sentiments of the play and how to update them for our age, as one can see throughout the film in general but also in the genius of a few specific points (for example, the way Hamlet's brooding while aimlessly wandering the aisles of a Blockbuster Video store and his lackluster renting of a dozen or more films captures a very modern world weariness perfectly suited to the character).

I watched it 3 times in a week and enjoyed it each time. Can't imagine that someone giving it a fair chance would come out of the experience anything but very satisfied.

Rating:
Summary: A Complicated Play Simplified by a Change in Setting
Review: Most people have a hard time adjusting to fiction written around 1590. This is especially true of the wordy Shakespeare. This present movie is an attempt to break down the visual barriers or lack of familiarity of a 400 years castle setting with period costumes and replace this with a modern setting with typical year 2000 clothing for the actors, while retaining the original dialogue, i.e.: make Shakespeare easier to understand.

Here - in the modern setting - we can actually follow the flow of the story instinctively from the body language, even when the sentences are difficult to follow. The story seems to flow with the visuals and we can deduce most of the nuances of the actors lines. For example we see Hamlet ruminating in a coin laundry shop and in a video rental store. In a depressed state he rents about 6 videos - in VHS format by the way - all to give some linkage to his thoughts in modern terms. He creates a computer generated video to show what he thinks of his mother's quick marriage, all in graphic terms, easy to follow. Knives are replaced by handguns, Denmark by a corporation, ponds are replaced by indoor water falls, notes by notebook computers, etc. The castles are replaced by corprate glass towers, condominiums, and fancy hotels. All this believe it or not while the dialogue remains mostly true to the original play, virtually 100% because the changes are visual not in the actors lines.

The movie is easy to follow and the producers, director, actors, etc all should be congratulated on the interesting film generated. Mostly it works and a beginner can follow the plot and their interest is maintained. It is filmed in color set in New York City in Manhattan in office buildings and in hotels, in limos, then at the airport, etc. It is mostly an interesting watch but perhaps the grim plot is slightly out of place in the modern setting. As most know, all the main characters die at the end of the play. The final scene with the deaths by a sword duel and then gun fire to kill the new CEO (king) is a bit far fetched. Still it is a lively view.

The acting by Ethan Hawke who plays Hamlet is solid. Julia Stiles is an appealing and believable Ophelia who suffers rejection by Hamlet and then the loss of her father. Her father Polonius is played by Murray, and he is okay, so so, entertaining but not great. He is a good actor but seems to have problems here projecting any personality through the complicated but famous lines. Sam Shepard plays a credible ghost. All in all it is a reasonable effort.

My only slight negative is that the audio seemed a bit poor - a bit low as if someone forgot and left the volume on low and that complicates the clarity of the actors lines. Otherwise fine.

4 stars and a worthwhile DVD or VHS view.


Rating:
Summary: Bad, very very bad
Review: I am a student and had to watch a bunch of versions of Hamlet for my paper. This was the worst version of Hamlet that I have seen. Bill Murray as Polonius was a horrible choice. I had a very difficult time understanding this because the language did not match the setting in the least. This movie took place in New York in the year 2000 and they talked like they were back in Shakespear's time, granted this is a Shakespear play, but that language does not make sense in the modern time. I do however, like the way they labled the king and used Denmark. Instead of being the king of a country the king was the CEO of a giant company named the Denmark Corporation. I thought that was creative. Other than that this movie was horible. Do not even waste your money on renting it unless you have a paper to write on it!

Rating:
Summary: An update that works
Review: OK, Hamlet has been done. It's been done a lot. A new one has to have something special to attract attention. This one has it.

It's a successful update of the classic story into contemporary Manhattan boardrooms, with the the CEO "royalty" of Denmark, Inc., staying at the luxurious Elsinore hotel. Hamlet himself is an art student, already brooding and edgy by nature. The party at which Ophelia makes her scene is a black-tie affair at the Guggenheim. Ophelia (Julia Stiles) is true to a 2000-era teenaged girl, with sneakers, baggy pants, attitude, and her tummy in the breeze.

A few things fit much too well, like the goons in Claudius' entourage. A few things fit poorly, like Bill Murray. I admit, he makes a serviceable Polonius. The problem is that he's Bill Murray, with "Groundhog Day" and "Osmosis Jones" all over him. A few things are remarkable additions. The "to be or not to be" soliloquy, for example, debates life and death as Hamlet roams the aisles of a video store. On the monitors, in the background, we see "The Crow: City of Angels" DVD playing. It's a movie in which life and death are not the only options, a well-placed echo of Claudius himself.

The original language is all here, even though the cadence falters rather often. The modern idiom of sight and sound, background music included, attaches very well to it.

Ignore the purists and look at the basics: the story is still true and strong, however it's spoken.

//wiredweird

Rating:
Summary: The Prince of all Hamlet Movies for the artistic
Review: First of all I don't know if i am watching the same movie as all these others that gave the movie 1 or 2 stars. I came on to see all the praise for this fantastic movie, and instead i saw critcs without open minds, and the slashing of the only Hamlet worth watching. So, i figured i better write a review of my own.
I came in on the middle of this movie when i first saw it, and i was so drawn to it, like a magnet to its attractable surface, that I became enamored and had to watch it. I already liked Ethan Hawke, but after this i became his "fan." It amazes me how much his acting career has matured since Dead Poets Society. I saw his potential there, but here it really shines.
Anyways after that first viewing of the movie it became glued onto my brain and i never forgot it. This movie made me love Shakespeare more than as just the author of Romeo and Juliet. At this point i realized Shakespeare was amazing.
The way they also use the book of Hamlet in modern day New York is not only creative, but also inspiring, and original. If you're kicking the tires of Shakespeare go and watch this unnoticed classic. Trust me, you'll get in and enjoy the ride.

Rating:
Summary: Modern day Hamlet
Review: This modern day version of Hamlet is quite interesting in its own way. I had watched this movie with the expectation of modern language, and so was pleasantly suprised to find that Shakespeare's language had been (more or less) preserved.

I think that if the language had been modernized that this adapatation could have been a little more acceptable. But the younger actors, including Ethan Hawke and Julia Stiles, just couldn't seem to handle Shakespeare's lines properly. Many of their lines were rendered rather woodenly.

Had the producers chosen better seasoned Shakespearian actors this movie would have had some real potential. It's a shame that star-power could so blight a promising film.

Rating:
Summary: An interesting, but not classic, take
Review: Working from the assumption that no modern interpretation of Hamlet can be 'perfect,' the best I think we can hope for is that each interpretation gets a few things right; but that, taken together, all other interpretations can only be an accesory to the original text. This Hawke version gets a few things right, and more things wrong.

Pros:

-I like Murray's Polonius. Polonius is, in many ways, a perversely sympathetic character, and Murray's depiction of a tired man and a loving father seems about right.

-Hawke does a passably good job with the monologues, especially 'to be' etc. As a lot of reviews seem to note, this monologue is delivered in a Borders video store, which I think worked pretty well. You have that sense of contrast between the lofty sentiment and the prosaic surroundings.

-At first, Stiles seems ideally suited for an Ophelia. Her constantly opaque, distracted expression and monotone delivery work well - while she's still sane.

-I like this interpretation of the ghost. You can see a certain amount of ambivalence in the way it threatens and terrifies Hamlet, rather than just appealing to his sympathies. The actor also does a fairly good job.

Cons:

-The film tends to butcher the language which should be its foundation. Way too many lines are delivered offscreen as the camera is panning around (a problem in a lot of modern Shakespeares), and visual effect displaces the words. A lot of important lines are also delivered without the proper emphasis. You wonder if the director is even familiar with the time-honored practice of having the camera focus on the character who is speaking.

-Two crucial scenes, Ophelia's death and the final duel, are just plain butchered. The idiosyncratic cheerfulness of Ophelia's lunacy, in the play, is one of the things which makes her death so disturbing, and Stiles' plainly grief-stricken interpretation loses this entirely. As for the end, several important speeches, all on Laertes' part - his statement that, in essence, he does forgive Hamlet, but still must demand satisfaction; and his farewell to Hamlet after he is wounded - are omitted, depriving him of most of his character. He doesn't have many other opportunities to speak in the film, and becomes flat without these lines.

-Several elements don't work in the modern setting. You can say that it's abstract, and that's acceptable to a point, but the idea of Hamlet being sent to England, where his _head will be cut off_ - detailed in exactly those words in the movie, in an e-mail - does a lot to harm the film's credibility.

-Overall, I don't think Hawke gets Hamlet. Obviously, there's more than one way to read the character, but Hawke is way too morose, lacking any of the wit or eccentricity which it seems would have to characterize someone who willingly feigns madness. This is really evident in the 'you are a fishmonger' scene.

So, it's not the best recent version of Hamlet, but I also like it for another reason; that in a way it frees Shakespeare from the prison of Orthodox interpretation by taking so many liberties with the text and setting. Shakespeare was a populist author when he wrote, and I can't understand how his immensely entertaining work has now become the exclusive property of pedantic, Polonius-esque professors.

Rating:
Summary: Hamlet as a Rip-Off of Romeo and Juliet
Review: I've seen most versions of Hamlet available on VHS or DVD, and this is absolutely the worst. One reveiwer here has pointed out that the cast's inability to handle the language is most likely the fault of the director; I'd say that's true, but the inconsistency and superficiality of the vision is also the fault of Michael Amlereyda. The source of the problem seems to be that no one involved in the movie (with the exception of Diane Venora, who has played numerous parts in Shakespeare, even in Hamlet, before) has any convictions about the play, their characters, or Shakespeare. Contrast this movie with Baz Luhrmann's innovative Romeo and Juliet, and you'll see Almereyda's inspiration. It seems as if he just wanted to cash in on the Romeo and Juliet craze--he even echoes that film by having Fortinbras' closing speech read by a newscaster on a TV set, as the final speech in Luhrmann's movie is read by a newscaster on a TV set. I'm not opposed to modernizations of Shakespeare--I'm opposed to thoughtless rip-offs.

I'd like to list the movie's redeeming qualities, but can think of none. Diane Venora is always worth watching, but she's much better as Ophelia in Kevin Kline's production.