Hamlet

Rating:
Summary: Timely and still timeless
Review: I read about 40 of the 80 reviews posted here, and I have to say that all of you who are touting the Olivier and Branagh versions over this one are elitist, close-minded snobs. Not to be judgmental, but...
It's not a classical interpretation, but what did Branagh have to offer except classically-trained actors and lavish sets? At least Michael Almereyda seems to have a personal connection to the story and a specific take on it, moreso than many past filmmakers who treat Shakespeare like it's the Bible. They play it safe. Almereyda has the guts to bring it down to an everyman level, and he does so in an inspired and organic way.
Yes, there's humor in it. So what? All of you chiding the scene in which the ghost disappears into a Pepsi machine, did it ever occur to you that he's being swallowed up by a corporate logo, which is in keeping with Almereyda's whole vision of the story? It's funny, but what's wrong with complicating the emotions we feel during these scenes? The moments of humor make the tragic ones more hard-hitting than those Hamlets that treat every scene like a maudlin death march.
Shakespeare wrote Hamlet for the masses; he wrote it to be entertaining. He didn't write it so that directors would bow down in front of it and chastise those who don't treat it in the proper, Elizabethan manner.
My point is, lighten up. It's an amazing play, and I give Almereyda credit for recognizing that without being afraid to make it personal and still have fun with it. This version hits me in the gut more than any other purely because it isn't larger than life. It's deceptively simple, and wonderfully realized. The most original, personal and, in many ways, the most complex Hamlet film I've ever seen. Get off your high horses.

Rating:
Summary: Abysmally tawdry
Review: It seemed the director could not make up his mind whether or not to make this a Hamlet set in 2000 or 1600. The intolerable dichotomy of the characters and setting quixotically existing in 2000 while the language is invariably that of Shakespeare - a theoretical possibility - but not with this director or this cast by any means - proves to be an utter and unmistakable disaster.

The only saving grace, and the only reason I didn't give this 1 star, was for the effort put forth by Ethan Hawke. As evidenced by his Oscar-nominated performance in Training Day, he can act. You can't blame him for the terrible direction and production of the movie - i.e. walking through Blockbuster Video while delivering the "To be or not to be" soliloquy. Furthermore, the ingeniuous idea of Hamlet's father's ghost disappearing into the Pepsi One vending machine made me just about lose it. The last straw was Laertes pulling out a gun and shooting Hamlet in the final scene - an utter and unspeakable repugnance that made me want to vomit. Nice effort on Hawke's part - but that's it.

Rating:
Summary: more authentic than you might think
Review: This 2000 version of "Hamlet" works. There is no need to be hung up on the acting or the setting of this most famous of Shakespeare's plays: the bringing of the Bard to an early 21st Century metropolis has resulted in an inspired and altogether new perspective on the play. When Ethan Hawke's Hamlet, returning to Manhattan, strolls out of the clear doors of an airport, a gray hood drawn tight over his head, it is hard not to see him an avenging angel and a confused lad at one and same instant. In a single motion he catches a motorcycle helmet and embraces Horatio, and we are hooked-- we are along for this ride, whether for good or ill. This multifluous tone in the character of Hamlet is brought out clearly in the film, and it strikes a chord with both the modern world and the Hamlet of Shakespeare's play. The tendrils of Fate and the perplexity of Existence are eternal themes to humanity, not ones molding away in our past.

Shakespeare's text was created at the dawn of the 17th Century, and even after 400 years these seminal ruminations on death, the meaning of life, love and revenge have yet to be topped by any other writer. Almereyda's film wisely does not try to be a perfect Hamlet, but a *precise* one. The plot is fully intact, though some major speeches and characters are excised. Where this Hamlet works is in Hamlet's intense interiority and introspection. It is completely believable that a 21st Century Hamlet would be playing around with video cameras and making short films of anything catching his eye; not to mention leaving angry messages on his girlfriend's answering machine. These small, snappy details are what make this movie work, and work well. In my view, the film is true to the spirit of the play.

While this is by no means the best film of Hamlet or even the one most well adapted-- I would view Olivier's and Branagh's versions in those terms-- I still would recommend this one to anyone who feels they may not "get" Shakespeare. I think it is a better Hamlet than the Mel Gibson one, and I also prefer it to Baz Luhrmann's Shakespeare. The clinical imagery, the moody soundtrack and the understated grandeur of the performances are yet more reasons I think this Hamlet should be taken seriously.

Rating:
Summary: to care or not to care
Review: I'm not gonna bash the original script because, well, it's Shakespeare, and maybe his greatest work.
The director's concept for his production, I thought, was valid. One of the beauties of doing the Bard is that by his very timelessness he prevents egomaniacal, numbskull directors and screenwriters from "updating" a piece into oblivion. Which is not to say that Almereyda is either; he puts together a film that is a good cut of the original play, and is visually both interesting and illuminating.
The huge, glaring hole in this film is, unfortunately, in the portrayal of the title character by Ethan Hawke, a normally fine, if minimalist, actor. So, the performance (word used loosely) may not be Hawke's fault since acting in film is analogous to acting in a puppet show. Maybe this performance is what the director wanted. (in which case he should be, in the future, kept at least 300 feet from his actors) Maybe in the editing process those involved decided they wanted Hawke to look like he had no idea what forces drove his character, and only cut in takes where he wasn't doing anything. Maybe the filmmakers decided that Shakespeare's original conception for the piece was of a five hour play centering on the moral dilemmas of an unmotivated, unreadable, cream-of-mushroom-soup lead. (does everyone else here doubt that, too?)
I have seen many Hamlets: the Oedipal Hamlet, the Existentially Paralyzed Hamlet, the Emotionally Crippled Hamlet, the Overly Intellectual Hamlet, the Just Plain Angry Hamlet, etc... What I have never before seen, and hope to never see again, is the take presented here: the Apathetic Hamlet.
Three stars for the visual elements of the film, plus three stars for the screenwriter's cut of the original play, minus five stars for missing the point of the play entirely.
Want to see an interesting Hamlet? Check out Derek Jacobi's RSC production aired on the BBC in the mid 80's, Kevin Klein's aired (on PBS?) in the early 90's, or even ego boy Ken Branagh's uncut production which released theatrically in the mid 90's. Avoid Mel Gibson's Hamlet, unless you are in it for all the other fantastic performances. That said, however, Gibson's performance is still more interesting than Hawke's, which makes me wonder even further about Almereyda's credentials to direct actors. Maybe he should make films without them.

Rating:
Summary: Get thee to a nunnery......
Review: .....for even spending your days there would be more interesting than having to sit through this drivel. I did so want to like this adaptation of one of Shakespeare's best known plays. I have enjoyed both Baz Luhrmann's modernisation of 'Romeo and Juliet' and thrilled at Richard Loncraine's brave 'Richard III'. However Michael Almereyda has added an absolute turkey to this canon of Shakespeare updates.

But where did he go wrong? For a start, Ethan Hawke is a pleasant enough actor (given the right material, such as 'Gattaca', he can more than hold his own) but clearly is out of his depth playing Hamlet. He comes across more as a petulant teen than a young man seething through a vast array of emotions. Julia Stiles seems to be the young actress du jour, but she is no Ophelia - she merely wanders around with a surly look on her face. Kyle Maclachlan is wasted in the role of Claudius - a villain he will never be. The only actor to come out with any credit is Bill Murray as Polonius and of course he lasts only until halfway into the film.

Any updating of Shakespeare's work should be applauded, especially if it means appreciation by an even wider audience. Unfortunately in the case of this 'Hamlet', most viewers will be lucky to last the first act. For any students who want to see a movie instead of reading the play, you would be far better off watching Zeffirelli's 'Hamlet' with Mel Gibson in the title role. While not perfect, at the very least it rewards as a movie going experience.

Rating:
Summary: Flawed but fascinating
Review: This Hamlet is set, not in Denmark, but in the Denmark Corporation, Manhattan, and Claudius is its new CEO (king), married to the late CEO's widow Gertrude. Hawke's Hamlet is a disaffected college kid, wearing a grungey chullo on his head and believably mixed up; full of rage, full of self-doubt. The rest of the cast ably supports Hawke, especially the intense Laertes played by Liev Schreiber and the smarmy Claudius by Kyle MacLachlan.

The sound and diction in this DVD are awful. And some of the scenes are so clumsy, you want to stick your hands into the screen and rearrange the actors (viz. the scene where Polonius helps Laertes to pack up and go to France.) But...if you give the film some time, and a good bit of latitude, it really comes off as a credible version of Hamlet. From the point where Polonius is killed to the end, this version of Hamlet is gripping and believable. If it weren't for some unevenly paced scenes (the death finale too fast, the scene between Claudius and Laertes after Polonius' death too slow) I'd give this more stars. As it is, it's worth watching. An interesting interpretation of Hamlet and I ended up admiring it.

Rating:
Summary: A bit flawed but fascinating
Review: I ended up really liking this modern version of Hamlet. This version of the timeless play is set, not in Denmark, but in the Denmark Corporation, Manhattan, and Claudius is its new CEO (king), married to the late CEO's widow Gertrude. That works--why not? Our corporate chieftains are kind of kings and queens of fiefdoms in our society. And Ethan Hawke plays a very realistic Hamlet. He is a disaffected college kid, wearing a grunge-style knitted hat on his head and is, naturally, full of rage against his living parent Gertrude for betraying his father, a bit angry at Dad for dying and abandoning him, and of course full of self-doubt as any contemporary youth, just like the classic Hamlet we know from more orthodox Shakespeare productions.

The rest of the cast ably supports Hawke, especially the intense Laertes played by Liev Schreiber and the smarmy Claudius by Kyle MacLachlan. Sam Shepard is touching and vulnerable as the ghost of Hamlet's father. His tall, thin physique adds to the ethereal quality of the role.

The sound and diction in this DVD are awful. And some of the scenes are so clumsy, you want to stick your hands into the screen and rearrange the actors (viz. the scene where Polonius helps Laertes to pack up and go to France.) But...if you give the film some time, and a good bit of latitude, it really comes off as a credible version of Hamlet. From the point where Polonius is killed to the end, this version of Hamlet is gripping and believable. If it weren't for some unevenly paced scenes (the death finale too fast, the scene between Claudius and Laertes after Polonius' death too slow) I'd give this five stars. As it is, it's worth watching. An interesting interpretation of Hamlet and I admire it.

Rating:
Summary: Got to join the dissenting party
Review: Obviously this film has a legion of detractors ...-- I count myself among their ranks. Just one more criticism I haven't seen anyone else mention -- Ethan says "to whose bourne no traveler ever returns," instead of "from whose..." To me this single example sums up how sorry this rendition of Hamlet is. The leading actor, the director, and everyone else associated with the making of this awful movie failed to correct Hamlet's misplacement of a preposition that dramatically changes the meaning of what is probably the most famous group of lines in all of English literature. In my humble opinion, sloppy work like this destroys the whole point of producing a play like Hamlet. If they're not trying to reach an audience who knows the work and cares about it, then who are they trying to reach? This film has no substance. It's a bunch of posers trying to pretend that they're making something new and unique while really they look silly.

Rating:
Summary: Laughable
Review: I have seen every one of the legitimate Hamlets available on tape or DVD (excepting the Burton). I have seen Hamlet cuttings that were questionable but interesting, including Pryce creating a Hamlet who "channels" the Ghost. This is the only Hamlet I have ever turned off before Horatio laments the cracking of his friend's heart. I stopped it because this Hamlet is heartless, an empty thing that swings between pretense and silliness, as if a college fraternity had mounted the play as a drunken prank.

There are some who find setting the play in New York compelling and Hawke's attempt at Hamlet winsome. Both could have been interesting (but face facts: Manhattan-as-Denmark and a fresh, untutored Hamlet are hardly new ideas). What destroys this Hamlet is the abuse of Shakespeare's language. Naked actors who understand the rhythm and punctuation of Hamlet can land this play on bare concrete.

I would be more forgiving if this were presented as a learning experience by a student director. To put the actors through this nonsense and present it to the public as a serious work degrades the actors and wastes the audience's time.

Rating:
Summary: A Hamlet for My Generation
Review: Ok. I admit it. I was a virgin. I was in Blockbuster and having never read or seen Hamlet I decided to be literary. And I was completely blown away!! It was one of the most enjoyable movie watching experiences of recent memory. I identified completely with Ethan Hawke as Hamlet, and the whole cast (except for Bill Murray).
This version of Hamlet is perfect for anyone who has been a college slacker since the 70's and has felt the psychological and philosophical dilemma's that that place in our society engenders. The twin joys of this version are 1) the transcendent beauty of Shakespeare's language; and 2) the univerisality of Hamlet's struggles, which transcends the generations. It may not be for Hamlet scholars, but this one was done for us, and if your one of us, you will enjoy it.