Rating: 
Summary: mumbo jumbo
Review: If this had been my first exposure to Hamlet, I'm sure I wouldn't have had a clue as to what the play was about after seeing this updated version.
There's a lot of great talent in this film, but for a lot of them, this isn't their shining moment, and some seem acutely ill at ease with the bard's liquid phrases.Liev Schreiber as Laertes is one of the exceptions. He rises like cream to the top, and seems very comfortable in the part. Also good is Diane Venora, looking gorgeous as Gertrude, and Sam Shepard is a wonderful Ghost. Whoever decided that Hamlet should have a "grungy" look, carried it to an unpleasant extreme...and that woolen cap with the earflaps ! I realize this was done to make him look "unhinged", but it bothered me. This film loses a star, just for that hideous woolen cap. Otherwise, the art direction is good, and the cinematography (John de Borman) is excellent, highlighting some great architecture (it also highlights a lot of "in your face" product placement).
Listen for Eartha Kitt's "buckle up" message, it's a welcome chuckle...and I like the funny Holloween ghost child ! This film is an interesting curiosity piece, but I recommend seeing the Zeffirelli/Gibson version afterwards, which is a film that gets better with each viewing, and would be in my "Top 10" list of all time favorites.
Rating: 
Summary: Please read the play before acting the part
Review: Eathan Hawke manages to turn some of the most beautiful poetry written in English into the most deadpan and apathetic drivel I have ever heard. Perhaps he was sleeping (or the director was). I've seen a version of _Hamlet_ mocked by the characters of Mystery Science Theater 3000 that puts this version to shame. Save your time and money. You'll do better reading the Cliff's Notes or watching _Strange Brew_.
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: Transcending Time.
Review: Shakespeare's plays are just as relevant today as they were when they were first written and performed. Unfortunately most modern audiences never recognize that. They just think of Shakespeare as some cruddgy old author that they were forced to read in school who has no real value today. On the contrary. Shakespeare has never been more relevant and this latest film rendition illustrates how. The modern setting of the film fits perfectly into the structure of the play. Overall the acting was excellent and the imagery resonates in the imagination long after the final credits have rolled. Ethan Hawke is a wonderful actor and captures the brooding essence of Hamlet's tortured soul. Also, the interpretation of many of the scenes shedded new light unto the text for me (e.g. Ophelia contemplating suicide long before Hamlet's seemingly rejection of her love and the death of her father). However, the movie does have a few flaws. Out of all the actors, Julia Stiles seemed to have the most difficulty with the language. The poetry did not flow from her lips naturally and seemed forced. Though, Hawke gave an excellent performance, we never really see the madness of the Prince. This is a crucial element of the story and is not displayed in the movie. Instead, in the instances when Hamlet is supposed to be in a state of madness (whether feigned or not does not matter) he appears to be a spoiled brat. The whole gun episode that climaxes the film, doesn't work that well; the poisoned blades should have been left and Claudius doesn't receive the same death as King Hamlet like he should (poison in the ear). Finally, Claudius never appears in a church in an attempt to repent of his evil deeds. In the movie, he bows his head as if to pray, but that should not be enough to dissuade Hamlet's sizzling anger from blowing out Claudius' brains. These flaws are rather minor, yet they prevent the film from reaching it's full potential. Nevertheless, the movie is highly entertaining and is a great interpretation. My one brother who hates Shakespeare watched this film with me and though he had trouble with the dialogue, he loved the action.
Rating:
Summary: What were they thinking?
Review: I am so tired of "Rock and Roll Shakespeare." I am all for modern interpretations of Shakespeare - I've even done a couple - but these actors, particularly Bill Murray, could not have seemed less interested in the material. "Concept Shakespeare" never works because you have to fit the play into the concept, and not the other way around. Ethan Hawke is a good actor, but woefully miscast in this. Also, setting up Denmark as a corporation as opposed to a country sets the stakes very low, and makes us not care what happens after a while. In this version, Hamlet should have just called the police when he had the evidence and then gone out for a martini.
Rating: 
Summary: I wanted to like it, but....
Review: I am very open to modern reconceptualizations and all that, so I really wanted to like this version. Unfortunately, I thought the acting was really lacking. Ethan Hawke in particular sounded like he was reading all his lines for the first time - no spontenaity or ownership. Occasionally, that worked for Ethan as sort of a disaffected angsty thing, but often it was just unconvincing. Liev Schreiber was an acceptable Laertes, but for my money it was Sam Shepard who outshone everyone else in his tiny role the ghost of Hamlet's father. As for Kyle McLaughlin, he was ok; I'm just happy to see him working these days.
Rating:
Summary: If you don't like it the first time, watch it again.
Review: The best Hamlet ever. Mel Gibson's Hamlet seemed to breath new life into a tired vehicle, but Ethan Hawke's version not only enlivens, but also makes it believable. It is the only version where the audience really doubts Hamlet's sanity, and Hawke pulls it off magnificently. There is a wonderful mental ambiguity that emerges from this adaptation. Usually Hamlet gets mad, in this one Hamlet goes mad, and we follow. Very believable.
This Hamlet is like fine wine, it gets better each time you watch it. The first time you see it, the layers of novelty and creative innovation are so thick, it is almost intimidating or overwhelming. You can be absorbed by the costuming and sets and miss the plot. Try it again. It gets better everytime.
The acting is superb throughout.
Rating:
Summary: LET ME NOT THINK ON IT !!!!
Review: In the immortal words of Kurtz from "Apocalypse Now" ---"The horror! The horror!" This has got to be the worst Hamlet ever. I suppose it's worth seeing for that reason alone. I mean, who wants to listen to a voice-over of "To be or not to be" while a kid wanders through a video store? I can see kids wandering blank-eyed through the video store at my local [Video Store]. I will say, however, that Bill Murray was an amazing Polonius and the Mousetrap sequence was very inventive. But after that's all over you still have to endure the rest - absolutely AWFUL! Back to Murray - you'd think that Bill Murray as Polonius would be a super-buffoon, but he actually came off like a really nice, concerned Dad-type. I actually felt bad when Polonius got killed, for the first time ever. If you're serious about your Shakespeare, do not expose yourself to this one. You will writhe in anguish.
Rating:
Summary: a young hamlet-what a concept!
Review: first of all..this is the best hamlet available on dvd-simply
because someone has actually cast an actor the right age to be
playing hamlet..he's supposed to be 30..not old enough to be the king of denmark (sorry olivier) this is also the most accessible
version available..it's geared toward a younger audience so those
of you wanting a stodgy..slow paced...every-shakespeare-word-
is sacred-we-need-a-three-hour-plus-version probably wouldn't
want this. this is called an interpretation. it's what film does best and what theater companies (and actors) seem afraid to do. and kudos to ethan hawke for doing the role. unlike most of the other actors who have done this role on film he's talented enough to be able to do a wide range of acting and directing projects.
and he's doing it all at a young age. as a prince..not a king.
Rating:
Summary: The Worst Adaptation
Review: There are just some actors who just shouldn't potray the lead role in one of the world's best loved plays. Ethan Hawke is one of them. I've been exhaustively studying the play Hamlet for years and never have I come across an adaptation so poorly done. The movie lacked in emotion and sincerity...it sounded more like some bland read-through of a scipt during rehearsal time. Perhaps the best portrayal done was by Julia Stiles in the role of Ophelia, but even that was not at it's best. This is a movie that would make true Hamlet fans cringe.
| 
