Hamlet (2000)

Modern Shakespeare

Great video. I used it in the classroom and showed several clips to coincide with the text. The casting director made some great choices and the director stays true to Shakespeare's story as he would want it told. The "To be or not to be" soliloquy is done beautifully--very introspective and spoken as Hamlet walks through a Blockbuster. There are a few things taken out of order, but only done for cinematic effect. November 11, 2007

THE PERFORMANCES ARE A LETDOWN

The idea of setting Shakespeare's masterpiece in modern-day New York proves to be a good one. The film's ominous tone and dark quality give the story a very ominous tone. Sadly, the film is nearly ruined by the acting. Most of the performers in this piece do nothing but recite the lines, failing to put emotional "umph" behind the characters, making this film nearly undramatic.
Ethan Hawke is a great actor, but doesn't have what it takes to play the Prince of Denmark. Kyle MacLachlan tries as Claudius, but isn't very convincing. Most of Ophelia's lines are mostly cut from the play, so Julia Stiles has little to do, but she's descent when she has the chance. And Bill Murray has NO place in a Shakespeare film. In terms of acting, the two stand-out performances are by Liev Schreiber, who's performance as Laertes is more tender than in recent portrayals; and Sam Shepard gives a very powerful performance as the Ghost of Hamlet's father.
Overall, this version of "Hamlet" is a disappointment due to some lackluster performances by what should have been a first-rate cast. It's hard to know who to recommend this film to. I'd say skip this version of "Hamlet," and check out either Branagh's four-hour masterpiece, or Zeffirelli's film starring Mel Gibson.
Movie/DVD Grade: C September 21, 2007

Ugh

Um...I don't even know WHAT to say. I just finished watching this monstrous perversion (then again, I saw the Branagh version recently; and not by accident, I am a "Hamlet" fiend). Maybe the low rating has something to do with that.

Bad acting--which doesn't do justice to the timeless script--ruins it all. Answering machines? Gimme a break.

Branagh can beat Hawke up with an envenomed foil any day. June 12, 2007

The worst version of Hamlet yet.

I've seen at least 4 different productions of Hamlet and this is definitely the worst. The artistic choices aren't bad, but the actors in this version have no idea how to read Shakespeare. The dialogue sounds stilted and gets in the way of everything this production is trying to accomplish. Since it's all of the actors, I have to put most of the blame on the director. As both an actor and a student who's spent 2 years studying Shakespeare generally and Hamlet in particular, I can assure you that this version isn't worth your time. June 4, 2007

An interesting take

I was thinking for quite some time about the incongruity of using Shakespearan english in the modern context. The problem is:

1) In modern NY, no one speaks like that. This is known, accepted. So the moment we hear them use Shakespeare's original language, full naturalism, no matter how strictly attempted, cannot be fully achieved. You cannot suck the audience in completely.

2) Shakespeare is nothing without the language. You can't just take the plot, change the lines around, simplify them: without the twists and turns, the wordplay and the thick meanings, a filming of merely the plot will amount to utilising the skeleton of any old folk tale.

I believe that the modern relatively deadpan acting method is contrary to the inherent theatricality of Shakespeare's language. Therefore, if it needs to be filmed in a modern context, it must necessarily be

1) over-the-top, and theatrical, and outrageous, like Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet" or

2) it must be done by exceptionally gifted and experienced actors already steeped in Shakespeare who can recite the soliloquys even while comatose and can import all their experience, all their gravitas, all their past successes into a medium that is essentially new to Shakespeare. All films of Shakespeare so far have been "filmed plays" with theatrical acting, or over-the-top attempts like R+J or like this one -

Hamlet (2000) is a noble attempt, and some parts really work, but in the end it's a somewhat lethargic, uncertain prod, overall. Laertes does well, and Shepard's ghost is convincingly restrained.

Bill Murray and Ethan Hawke, sorry to say, are all at sea. The complexity of Hamlet is completely gone. Yes, Hamlet is melancholy. Yes, he is young and foolish, at times, but also noble and innocent. But he is divided, pulled and pushed by forces within and without, feelings in him are awakened after a grisly murder of his own father that were alien to him before - and every word of the soliloquys is painstakingly written and meant to support that. Every small nuance is meant to be acted, to be played, to be demonstrated to the discerning viewer - here, it's about 80% gone. Gibson played him as a raving lunatic, a Mad Max of Elsinore, but there was still a lot in there. Unfortunately, there's very little here.

Murray had apparently never done Shakespeare before, and it shows - he's reciting it, not acting it. It was very painful to watch him Laertes' farewell scene. Julia Stiles isn't given much, as if sometimes she seems on the verge of saying something, but doesn't. Venora and MacLachlan play their parts well - Venora with gusto and MacLachlan a little too passive at times.

I would still recommend this to those who'd like to check out what can be done with it in the modern setting - it is an interesting effort, a good amount of thought has gone into it and some of it comes of very well. But this isn't a definitive Hamlet by any means, and no way in hell should it be the FIRST Hamlet a person watches.
May 19, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...