Hamlet

Rating:
Summary: This existential crisis is brought to you by Blockbuster
Review: Modern adaptations/revisions of Shakespeare always remind me of circus bears. They'll wear a flowered dress, ride a unicycle, jump through flaming hoops, but the muzzle never comes off. While Almereyda's Hamlet put on a better show than most, it never felt dangerous, and that's a shame.

The basic problem is that the willingness to experiment and venture into risky territory seems confined by a deep-seated reverence for the Bard (I recall a scene in Pacino's Looking for Richard, an oustanding film by the way, which discussed the American fear of acting Shakespeare). Scenes that display fresh ideas seem rehearsed and thought out ahead of time. "OK, I'll tell you to look for Polonius in the other place and then you'll punch me." The acting itself becomes a set piece or an accessory. Rather than possessing the character and doing something completely unexpected, the innovation feels tired even as you're watching it for the first time. It's acting by committee. All the spontaneity has been storyboarded ahead of time and all that's left to do is jump rope without tripping.

That said, I very much wanted to love this film. Some of the ideas work extremely well and I found myself smiling as Hawke did such things as pick up a payphone to say one last thing to his mother while he dragged Polonius away. But the acting detracted greatly from all that was going on around the characters. Hawke was almost unvaryingly dull. And Stiles as Ophelia - it was like she was in another film. When she actually crossed her eyes during her great moment I thought I was watching the freebasing scene from Traffic.

If a modernization is to be done, it needs to be a complete reappraisal. I would love to see the set and design of this film combined with the acting and panache of My Own Private Idaho topped off by some daring editing and cinematography, something like Woo, or Wong Kar-Wai, or even Terry Gilliam. Use the camera, make some unexpected cuts. Make it truly modern. The camera work in this version was pedestrian and uninspiring and the musical score was so bad and inappropriate that it became a nuisance.

One last thought: the actors involved did do this film for scale and I have a lot of respect for that. But I wish they didn't have to make the sponsors so blatant. It made two great scenes impossible to take seriously: I'm surprised his father's ghost didn't stop to indulge in the cool, low calorie freshness of a Pepsi One. It will bring them back from the dead for just one more taste.

All in all, a valiant failure.

Rating:
Summary: Go Back and Try Again Guys
Review: This is by far the worst movie that I have ever seen. The director's cuts are suited for people with attention spans under 45 seconds. The setting is absurd given that the archaic language is preserved, as are all of the titles and place names. The acting is stale and lifeless. It is as if these people are reciting bible verses or poems they had to memorize for school.

Changing the visuals isn't up-dating Shakespeare. The props are so obviously stuck into the film in order to remind us that this is 20th century ... America, of course. It would have worked had we been left to draw our own parallels to the original Hamlet, from that which we saw. That opportunity is blown for us by the obvious attachment of names and titles smacked like labels on to modern things, people, concepts, and then the out-dated language which makes it all so unbelievable. We are to suspend our disbelief while enjoying a movie, but we can only do so to a certain point.

I honestly expected a top rate remake, set in the 20th century, like "10 Things I Hate About You." This make is horrifyingly tedious!

Rating:
Summary: Terrific adaptation
Review: I am so glad this finally came out on DVD. This is another one of the rare movies that I saw more than once in the theatres. Hamlet is one of my favorite plays - I've seen it performed in New York and London, in various guises, worked on two adaptations of it in very small, dark, off-off-broadway theatres, and I've read just about every book of criticism or acting method or literary analysis there is about Hamlet. I was dreading seeing this film because I went in thinking "oh great, Ethan Hawke" - and came out loving it. I was so surprised by what a good job was done putting this together. The text was adapted in such a way that it fit the modern setting so well.

And I've been out drinking with Dechen Thurman (rosencrantz or guildenstern, I forget), he's just like he is in the movie.

Rating:
Summary: Our thoughts are ours, their ends - none of our own...
Review: The everlasting masterpiece of Shakespear - the tragedy Hamlet, has always astonished and fascinated me with its plot, characters and their passions, be it M. Gibson's medieval and too theatrical version, K. Brannagh's Victorian overlong adaptation or this exuberant phantasmagoria set against the skyscrapers of NY and its exclusive hotels.

This is one of the very rare movies that can boast so well-casted actors: they embody their characters to perfection, and it does not matter what epoch's costumes they are wearing. E. Hawk (Hamlet) and K. McLahlan are especially good as Hamlet and Claudius.

This version mostly follows the classical plot of Hamlet, although some small parts were let out (if included, they indeed were irrelevant to this "modernized" version). True, to see Hamlet's monologue among Blockbuster's video stands implyingly screaming "action" or Ophelia drowning in the pool of Excelsior hotel is weird, and incompatibility between 16th century verse and Armani-clad PC operating characters is eye-striking. Whatever excesses of set pieces design the actors are acting against, I would like to thank the Director for offering us such original decisions.

Thankfully, it's not some action movie with Hamlet operating a machine gun and Claudius being an ugly cartoon villain, it is still the drama of an ordinary person discovering murder and nurturing revenge, but hesitating to face its consequences and afraid of bloodshed.

Still, I'll take down one star for the unconventional editing of the ending (the fencing is still there, but the whole scene lacked depth, to my mind). In general, a very good adaptation of a classic that still moves a modern mind. I wonder what version will be the next? Hamlet plus Star wars? The rest is silence....

Rating:
Summary: A good classic movie
Review: I have only seen this Hamlet but it was very good. I have'nt read the book but this movie makes me really want to read the book more so then I already did. I say rent this movie even if you dont like shakespear because this movie will make you more incharested or make you like shakespear if you already dont.

Rating:
Summary: To be innovative or to be very trite? ( not worth it)
Review: A production that does not know what it wants "to be". Usually I like to compare to other versions or the written play. In this case it is not worth the effort. When they updated Romeo and Juliet they at least had the innovation to change the dialog to match the situation as in "West Side Story " (1961) ... The combination of old English (Denmark) concepts added to NY. Reminds me of the housing project in Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" (1949) ... Adding a few Greek columns to make people comfortable.

Michael Almereyda talks like he sees the real way Hamlet is meant to be portrayed, then does this hatchet job on it and turns it into a bunch of Sound Bites.

If you like the actors then watch something that they did well and not forced into (probably for scale). If you like Hamlet then watch or read just about anything else and it won't be so polluted.

This is not a good example of getting of getting your peanut butter on my chocolate. It is more of getting something rotten on your bagel.

Rating:
Summary: For the love of god, please don't waste your time or money.
Review: This version of Hamlet is horrid. Everyone involved should quit the movie business and go apply at Taco Bell. It has less to do with Shakespeare's play of the same name then Strange Brew! Instead of watching this warped, massacred, and boring rendition of Hamlet you should just take off your shoe, kick a wall as hard as you can and start reciting all of the lines from the play that you can remember. You'll certainly get more lines than the actors did.

Rating:
Summary: Quite good
Review: I was quite pleased with this production, although not as much as I initially thought I would be. What a perfect setting for Hamlet, I thought when I first saw the preview. Hamlet's obsessive brooding had always struck me as difficult to dramatize convincingly, and the pampered, directionless rich youth of today seemed a perfect modern equivalent. Ultimately, while I thought it was very worthwhile to comment on Hamlet from a modern perspective, I thought it hurt the production to stick so closely to the original text, in which references to Kings and chastity seemed incongruous. The interpretation of Ophelia and Hamlet's film-student film of his father's murder were the highlights; a teasing non-inclusion of the "Yorick" speech a detractor.

Rating:
Summary: Truly a masterpiece
Review: While some people may have a beef with the setting of this movie (for example, the "to be or not to be" speech in a Blockbuster store), I must disagree. The concrete and steel city provides a marvellous backdrop for Hamlet's brooding. Most important, this was the first time I've seen an Ophelia who's believable and understandable, and I've seen at least four versions of "Hamlet." The ending was abrupt and startling, especially for those who are familiar with the story -- but it worked. It was able to surprise me and still not seem like carving up Shakespeare. And the acting was superb! The characters could have been in modern New York, yet Shakespeare's words didn't seem awkward in their mouths. Ethan Hawke is the perfect brooding prince, and Horatio was made into a memorable character.

Rating:
Summary: Les, you don't know what you're talking about.
Review: Hey Les from Michigan, (See second review at top of page) For one thing Claire Danes was not in this movie. She was in Romeo and Juliet. I think you're confusing movies. Second, if you only watched 45 minutes of the movie and didn't see the whole thing, how in the world can you write a review on the entire film? How can you judge something if you didn't see all of it? Did you even understand it all? Third, I did not think Bill Murray looked like he was singing in a Saturday Night Live lounge, he was serious sounding throughout the movie. He didn't even allude to his comeodious past. I think you need to take a closer look.