Customer Reviews

Hamlet

5 star:		(31)
4 star:		(27)
3 star:		(14)
2 star:		(21)
1 star:		(39)

 

 

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.

I am a great fan of Hamlet, having seen at least 5 film versions, studied it in college and done a few scenes in acting class. This transposition to modern corporate NYC works very, very well. The Ophelia interpretation was the best I have ever seen. It was passionate, youthful and very believeable, putting me in tears in some points and making a lot of sense with her "father, PLEASE!" looks as doting Polonius (Bill Murray) patronizes her. Bill Murray did his early farewell to his son perectly - a father giving some last minute banal advice to cover his sorrow at his son's departure. The scene where Hamlet confronts mom in her bedroom and kills Polonius is very effectively done and makes more sense than most I have seen. There are a host of other modernizations that serve to bring out some areas really well. The play within a play becomes a film montage within a film montage, but that works well with Ethan Hawke's interpretation of Hamlet as a brooding college kid.

On the negative side, there is quite a lot of dialogue cut, and some of your favorite scenes may be missing, but it generally makes sense. The only exception is the final scene where a modern sword fight ends in death by gunfire, and Laertes blurts out an 'I forgive you' to Hamlet which makes you wonder 'why?'

Get this version for emotive content and interpretation. Get the Branagh version for completeness, the Gibson version for a more traditional (and well done) take.

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.

I don't blame people for not liking this version of Hamlet. I, myself, went to see it as a joke. I didn't expect to love it as much as I did. This version spoke to me more than any other film version I've ever seen. Almost every bit of updating seemed organic to the story (the dueling scene aside). The families are so modern in their dysfunctions, in their inabilities to relate to one another, and Hamlet's detached attitude is completely pertinent to young adults today. And delivering the "To be or not to be" speech in the action aisle of a Blockbuster Video? Come on, that's brilliant! Even if you must fault Michael Almereyda for his choices, at least give him credit for having a take on the story. Franco Zeffereli's was fine, but about as safe as you can make it. Kenneth Branagh's was an excuse for elaborate sets and costumes, with absolutely no interpretation or real feeling. Almereyda obviously feels close to this story, and he goes out on a limb to express his vision. I think he does it beautifully. This is not a pale and heartless updating (Baz Luhrman?). It comes from a very personal place, and therefore should be open to varying opinions. But please give Michael Almereyda credit for having a vision. It's more than many Shakespeare buffs can boast.

Olivier's Hamlet was offensively innovative to some viewers in 1948; Burton's was, onstage in 1964; so was Derek Jacobi's (still my favorite). No doubt this Hamlet will offend someone, it exposes our culture AT THIS MOMENT too ruthlessly. But if you want to see real artists doing fine, wild and authentic work, don't miss it. I thought our opportunities to see such an original risky vision in film were gone forever. Consider the way young Hamlet, a photographer, is constantly turning in on himself -- watching himself watch himself -- through windows of various media, all the while being spied on by Claudius whenever possible. I'm ignorant of even the names of most of his visual equipment and was frequently a bit confused and disoriented. AND found it all pretty creepy...So guess what? The film let me share in young Hamlet's experience (who was also often confused and feeling creepy). Consider how Polonius, Laertes and Ophelia embody modern dysfunctional family life: invasiveness, secrets, the spoken truth disconnected to true emotion...the sullenness and horrible dependence of Polonius' adult children; the malignancy behind his constant blank look of innocence. (Bill Murray was unimaginably brilliant as Polonius.) Watching those characters, too, often left me feeling uneasy.As did Claudius and Gertrude. And others. Scene after scene, this Hamlet packs an enormous punch. I didn't think it was flawless and it's not instantly the best ever. But for complexity of intent and new, exquisitely appropriate images, it deserves full recognition. The film was a gift to us of vital creative energy. Only, don't watch it if you're not prepared to be uncomfortable some of the time: one way or another it will leave you feeling exposed. Dare I say it? Like a developing photograph?

I was furious when I read the glittering review of this film on the Amazon site (well, not furious, I guess I just disagreed with it strongly). Even the reviewer couldn't help but comment on how every single actor was plastic, rigid, stiff, or unapproachable in some way. Those meaningful and beautiful lines which were not delivered with all the passion of a sixteen year old reading off the local Denny's menu were sliced right out of the picture. And, despite the updated setting (which I have no problem with; Elizabethan actors didn't worry about period costumes), nearly every detail could be forseen minutes or even hours before appearing on screen. In fact, I would have almost been disappointed if we had not seen the inevitable shot of this videophile Hamlet watching Laurence Olivier's superior version. No adaptation of Shakespeare has been so insulting to its source material since (yeah yeah, all you depressed sixteen year olds, break out the pitchforks and torches) Baz Lurhman's unnecessary and too-cute titled Romeo+Juliet. Any version of Hamlet, be it Olivier's, Mel Gibson's, Kenneth Branagh's, or heck, even Branagh's Noises Off-ish A Midwinter's Tale, which is only a movie ABOUT people putting on Hamlet, would make for a better evening's watch than this badly failed experiment.

I have but one compliment to lend Almereyda's version (bit of a spoiler, I suppose): it is the only production of Hamlet I have seen in which Gertrude knows the wine is poisoned before she drinks it, in an attempt to warn her son of treachery. Beyond that, it contains nothing redeeming.

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.

I'm not sure what movie many of these reviewers watched, but it obviously wasn't this one. The movie I saw was brilliant, with good acting, very fitting music, and good direction; an excellent _adaptation_ of Shakespeare's play.

Hawke was excellent as Hamlet. Julia Stiles was pretty unconvincing, as Ophelia, at first, but only got better as the movie progressed. Kyle Maclachlan is probably the most "Shakespearean" of the major actors, and he does not disappoint. Bill Murray is the weakest, but he fits in well.

All in all, the key to understanding this Hamlet is that it is a _movie._ It's not a play on tape, but a movie (or film, for pretentiphiles), and it takes advantage of all the capabilities of that versatile medium. It's also an adaption of the play, and a significant portion of important dialogue was cut, which is unfortunate. Nonetheless, the plot is intact and the film has a hard-hitting emotional impact.

Don't expect a traditional and stale Hamlet, and you won't be disappointed.

I had always been annoyed by ethan hawke, in everytthing from training day to reality bites (was he in that?) and wherever else he's this dinky annoying murmuring brat, but somehow I loved his Hamlet and I loved this version of it. One of the best "tricks" is the planting of the wire on Julia Stiles' Ophelia (At first I thought I didn't like her in the role, but I keep thinking on her and like her a bit more and more, her subduedness), and getting caught that way. It's always interesting to see where in that exchange Hamlet realizes that he's being spied upon. Sometimes at "Where's your father," but sometimes elsewhere. I thought the film within the film was great, too, a sort of more honest representation considering the medium that we're watching the work in. I like Horatio. He's actually one of my favorites, very neutral and attractive. I don't like all the product placement, the ghost by the pepsi machines for example. And while I kind of like the Blockbuster tobeornotobe, with clips of Brandon Lee's The Crow and James Dean in the back, and Hawke walking past the "Action" section are clever, I wish there were some things left a little more generic.
Claudius confesses his sin in the back of a limo that Hamlet is driving. This is a good scene.
Mostly I was pleasantly surprised at Ethan Hawke though. He ends up doing one of the best screen Hamlets; much better than the so overrated and sucky Olivier, and better than Williamson, too. He's not quite as goofy as they sometimes try to be, but he's Ethan Hawke, so you can't take him too seriously to begin with. This might be why it works so well.

I think, before writing this DVD off as a fluke as many people on this review page have done, that everyone should consider the fact that the crew of this movie has done a wonderful job in interjecting the plot of hamlet into a modern day setting. This could not have been easily done. This play has always been meant for a medival/renaissance type setting, but I think this movie is as good or even better than the modern day version of Romeo and Juliet. Romeo and Juliet was more easily adaptable to a modern day setting than Hamlet. I think the director and all the writers of this movie deserve kudos for thier effort, and I think that anyone who loves this great tradgedy such as I, should see this movie. Sure, it is hard to picture Bill Murray in a serious role such as Polonius, but I think he is doing a wonderful job in trying to branch out from comedies, although I think that automatically jumping into a tradgedy such as Hamlet is a little far-fetched. His acting was sort of monotonous though, and it sounded a little bit like he was reading the script for the first time. Out of all the roles, even Ethan Hawke as Hamlet, I thought that Liev Schrebiner as Laertes did the best job in portraying his role, with the possible exception of Kyle MacLachlan as Claudius. Schrebiner did wonderful in portraying Laertes' sorrow for Ophelia's death, and his anguish in coming back from France to find his father dead and his sister mad. The fight scene at the end dissapointed me when he pulled out the gun and shot Hamlet. What was the point of the poison tipped sword then? It was hardly dramatic. It is supposed to be symbolisim when Hamlet kills Claudius with his own poison. It really dissapointed me. I think they did a wonderful job portraying the rest of the scenes in the film, save a few, but overall worthy of your time, as it was mine.