Hamlet

• Hamlet
• William Shakespeare's Hamlet (Two-Disc Special Edition)
• Hamlet - Criterion Collection
• Othello
• Richard III
• Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead
• William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet (Special Edition)
• O (Two-Disc Special Edition)
• Much Ado About Nothing
• Henry V

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

Murray had apparently never done Shakespeare before, and it shows - he's reciting it, not acting it. 1) over-the-top, and theatrical, and outrageous, like Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet" or. 2) Shakespeare is nothing without the language. Therefore, if it needs to be filmed in a modern context, it must necessarily be. But this isn't a definitive Hamlet by any means, and no way in hell should it be the FIRST Hamlet a person watches.

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. 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 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. The problem is:.

Bill Murray and Ethan Hawke, sorry to say, are all at sea. I believe that the modern relatively deadpan acting method is contrary to the inherent theatricality of Shakespeare's language. The complexity of Hamlet is completely gone. 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. Julia Stiles isn't given much, as if sometimes she seems on the verge of saying something, but doesn't. Hamlet (2000) is a noble attempt, and some parts really work, but in the end it's a somewhat lethargic, uncertain prod, overall.

Venora and MacLachlan play their parts well - Venora with gusto and MacLachlan a little too passive at times. So the moment we hear them use Shakespeare's original language, full naturalism, no matter how strictly attempted, cannot be fully achieved. 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 -. Yes, he is young and foolish, at times, but also noble and innocent.

Laertes does well, and Shepard's ghost is convincingly restrained. 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. 1) In modern NY, no one speaks like that.

You cannot suck the audience in completely. Unfortunately, there's very little here. It was very painful to watch him Laertes' farewell scene.

This is known, accepted. I was thinking for quite some time about the incongruity of using Shakespearan english in the modern context. Yes, Hamlet is melancholy.

I just finished watching this monstrous perversion (then again, I saw the Branagh version recently; and not by accident, I am a "Hamlet" fiend). Branagh can beat Hawke up with an envenomed foil any day. Maybe the low rating has something to do with that. Bad actingwhich doesn't do justice to the timeless scriptruins it all. Gimme a break. Um.I don't even know WHAT to say. Answering machines.

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. The artistic choices aren't bad, but the actors in this version have no idea how to read Shakespeare. Since it's all of the actors, I have to put most of the blame on the director. I've seen at least 4 different productions of Hamlet and this is definitely the worst. The dialogue sounds stilted and gets in the way of everything this production is trying to accomplish.