Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Micransix Crappy film

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Eric Stevenson The most memorable part of this movie was when Hamlet was walking around the video rental store. Wow, this really does come off as an old story. Anyway, this movie is an updating of Hamlet in modern times and it wasn't quite handled that well. It's probably because they try to use the old dialogue in the modern times. It does come off as awkward. I still thought that the pacing was pretty good. I think Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are becoming my favorite Hamlet characters. We get the ghost of Hamlet's father and everything else.It's just that there was nothing unique about this version. I guess the longest movie I've ever seen in my entire life that adapts the same story would be a tough act to follow. It's still faithful to the original story. The actors aren't bad. It's just that they aren't bringing anything particularly interesting to the table. I guess when you see the same story over and over you get a bit tired of it. It's still interesting to see a modern version. **1/2

Steve Pulaski Michael Almereyda's Hamlet gets one major thing right and that's being a near-perfect representation of its respective time period - the 2000's. The film looks like most of its props were donated from a closing down Circuit City, as tube Televisions, Polaroid cameras, video rental cases, VHS tapes, and other odds and ends of technology populate the film almost as ubiquitously as beloved characters like Ophelia, Gertrude, and Claudius.Watching Hamlet, often billed as Hamlet 2000 for good reason, in the present day is fun because it seems like the direction Almereyda wanted to take got lost in the mix of keeping Shakespeare's original play dialog in the screenplay. From the opening minutes of the film, where Hamlet sees the ghost of his father on closed-circuit Television, it's almost as if the film is playing the story of Hamlet like a technological thriller - an undoubtedly subversive move for the anthologized play. The problem with this is because Shakespeare's original dialog is kept as the screenplay, Almereyda muddles any kind of concept and believable modernization potential this story had.The same sort of bastardization took place with Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, which had actors like Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes spouting Shakespeare's original play dialog whilst holding handguns and driving cars glossed with candy-colored paint. The concept was intriguing, but the fact that no attempt was made in efforts to modernize or alter Shakespeare's original words to mesh with the appropriate time period and perhaps add a clearer focus on the story's themes resulted in a frustrating and ultimately lackluster slog through dialog that frequently seemed impossible to discern and follow during much of the film's action.Hamlet makes the same mistake; when reading Shakespeare, one can stop and reread and go back and analyze what exactly is being said, something even I, a committed English major, have difficulty doing in one sitting. Watching a play of Shakespeare's acted before you helps showcase character emotions better than if you just read the words to yourself, but watching a film that makes an attempt to subvert the material while making you sit through and analyze the film's classically written dialog and multitude of character relations is a frustrating chore on part of the audience.Because of this, one can't really appreciate the obsessive brooding of Ethan Hawke, who plays Hamlet here in a way that is defined by slicked-back/unkempt hair, black sweaters, and a bitter, unforgiving facial expression sustained throughout most of the film, nor can they really admire the sinister Claudius played by the underrated Kyle MacLachlin. The relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia (Julia Stiles) is also criminally shortchanged, to the point where the famous "nunnery" scene doesn't even seem to hold waterweight because of the sterile dialog that doesn't fit the time nor the setting.Certain moments of Hamlet more-or-less send sputters of originality, especially when the technological side plays into the story. The storyarch made to connect Hamlet with the year 2000 is how Claudius took over Hamlet's father's and his brother's company, Denmark Corporation. Just from that detail, combined with an increasingly technological landscape often appearing to haunt and toy with Hamlet's psyche, one would expect a biting tech thriller defined largely by Hamlet's deteriorating mental state in the face of complex equipment.While that theme is certainly embedded in Almereyda's film, it's practically smothered underneath the frequently impenetrably delivered dialog and stunted performances. Bill Murray's Polonius and Liev Schreiber's Laertes are brutally miscast and seem to be struggling at delivering the period-specific lines of Shakespeare in a retelling of Hamlet that is largely defined in reference and depiction by the year in which it takes place. The result is a misguided rehash of one of the most beloved stories in history, succumbing to traditionalism rather than pushing boundaries of complete and total revisionism; it's like having everything from a camera, a quality condenser microphone, a boom, and some of the nicest sets to shoot a movie and opting for a picture collage with no audio-track instead.Starring: Ethan Hawke, Kyle MacLachlan, Diane Venora, Liev Schreiber, Julia Stiles, Bill Murrary, Karl Geary, Steve Zahn, and Sam Shepard. Directed by: Michael Almereyda.

Bob_the_Hobo Following the death of his businessman father, Hamlet (Ethan Hawke) is deeply offended by his mother's (Diane Venora) swift marriage to her brother-in-law Claudius (Kyle MacLachlan), who in turn takes over the business. Hamlet faces the challenges of his family while struggling with his own personal demons. The only other big budget modern day adaptation of Shakespeare's work that I have seen " Baz Lurmann's "Romeo+Juliet", which was a visceral, complex film with the same script as the play and the same violence we see today. There are few comparisons to make between these two similar films, however. "Hamlet" here is a much more middling, even unimpressive film with barely half the energy of it's predecessor. Ethan Hawke muddles along in a role that starts uninspired and manages to pick up later in the film, but by then it's too late. Perhaps he thought the film would be a good idea until he started filming it. He's a far better actor than this film would suggest, to which I would suggest Hawke fans turn a blind eye. Shakespearian language is a constant blend of rhyme and reason, and sometimes the lines he wrote hundreds of years ago don't translate well to our modern setting. It manages to work, but not without an all too often pausing and looking up the script, especially with the lack of energy from so many cast members. Julia Stiles can't seem to leave her scenes fast enough. She runs through her lines as if they were held up behind the camera, and is vastly inferior to someone like Liev Schreiber, who probably turns in the best performance here. Sam Shepard, as the ghost of Hamlet's father, is as powerful as he always is, but not enough to save the rest of the cast. The scenes of New York City and the power that is related with it are barely made into what it should be: a character in and of itself. That theme, if it had been so, would likely have kept me watching with more than a passive interest. All in all, Shakespeare would be better to watch the Lurmann film instead of this take on his work.

springm I really didn't expect much after I saw the disastrous modern adaption of Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet in 1996. In fact, I've been hesitate to watch this Hamlet for a long time. Now I'm just so glad I didn't miss it. Of the 4 versions of Hamlet I've seen on film, this is by far the most accessible and inspiring one.It revolves around this brilliant idea that the problems of Hamlet are universal and you don't need to be a stage guru to articulate them. The acting style suits the idea incredibly well with all the dialogs spoken in a natural and unaffected way. The scenes are carefully chosen so it's much tighter and easier to follow than the full-length play. My highest praise goes to the first half of the film for its pitch-perfect rhythm and intensity. The second half, however, seems a bit hasty and awkward at times, especially the grave scene and sword-fighting climax.It helps when you have a great ensemble to do a proper Shakespeare film. Diane Venora, Sam Shepard, Kyle MacLachlan and Liev Schreiber are all veterans who have tackled Shakespeare on stage. As for the actor who plays the title role, I agree with the conventional wisdom that "there's no Hamlet, only the actor who plays it". So if you can enjoy Ethan Hawke as Hamlet, you'll pretty much like everything he does.