Diagonaldi Very well executed

Cebalord Very best movie i ever watch

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

john-156-886426 The majority of reviews of this wonderful production of Hamlet by the Royal Shakespeare Company are positive, and offer many reasons to watch this filming of the play. However I noticed that there are a few horribly low reviews, ones and twos, that bring down the rating of this film. I read them to see why, and would like to offer counter-arguments to some of the statements. The setting: some reviewers, and I respect their opinions, found the sets,costumes, etc., unworthy of this play. It is a modernized version, though at times it seems like it is taking place long ago. However, I feel that the touches of modernism and the touches of the past go a long way towards demonstrating that this is a work that transcends time periods, it doesn't really matter when it happens. Also, for example, Tennant, as Hamlet, wears an orange, skeleton t-shirt. Many found this out of style and bad. But it depends on how you look at it, I, an English major who is familiar with dissecting Shakespeare's works, found it a sneaky foreshadowing of future events, as well as demonstrating Hamlet's attribute of wearing his heart on his sleeve.David Tennant: though most found his portrayal unique and intriguing, some say it is horrible and over the top. They also make the complaint that he is rude and makes the audience side with the villain, who never seems evil. This, however, was done on purpose. Patrick Stewart plays the counterpart, the exact opposite, of Hamlet. As well as this, there is debate over whether Hamlet was genuinely insane, or acting insane to hide his true doings and intentions. The RSC definitely chooses the second option, and David Tennant fills this role exactly, being so mad that the audience just knows its all an act to fool the King. That is not to say he isn't deeply affected by his father's death. I had never heard the lines of Hamlet spoken in this type of tone, but after finishing the play, I couldn't believe there was any other way of saying them- from Tennant the words are natural and don't sound recited at all. All in all, the acting from all of the actors is fantastic, and it is a thoroughly entertaining and riveting version of Hamlet. Even my friends, who deplore Shakespeare, were captivated until the last frame.

jamesdedwards33 I thought this was an amazing Hamlet. As my theatre company prepares to perform Shakespeare's tragedy, I've watched a LOT of Hamlets starring a variety of different actors set in a variety of different places. I thought this one was the best by far. Some the ultra-modernness I could have done w/o, such as the filming w/ the security cameras. I thought David Tennant was brilliant in this production. Instead of being whiny like most Hamlets tend to be, he was vengeful & strong willed. The only bit of acting that I was thrilled with was I thought the King's (Patrick Stewart) reaction during the play w/in a play could have been much stronger. Over all I loved this production of Hamlet and look to using some of the aspects in our upcoming stage production.

LeonardOsborneKael I'm all for new approaches to Hamlet - I truly LOVED Branagh's portrayal of Hamlet as "everyman". And I'd love to see a modern-day version that really works! (Sorry - not Ethan Hawke's). Mel Gibson's Hamlet was nicely filmed and might have gotten at least a B+ if not for his annoying habit of wagging his head from side to side on every line. Sadly, in the Royal Shakespeare Company's version, almost everything that can be done to ruin the play has been incorporated. Hamlet speaks the lines intended to be spoken introspectively to himself - to the camera! And likewise with the Sililoquoy - during which he keeps glancing just off-camera - as if looking at a cue card! And just whose idea was it to play Hamlet as a cross between Pee Wee Herman and Monty Python's "Upper Class Twit Of The Year" anyway? Hamlet comes off as an absolute jerk throughout - first as a goofy 12 year-old figuratively giving the finger to all the adults - later, as a vicious monster out for blood. Although it is clearly part of Mr. Shakespeare's intention that Hamlet be seen by the other characters in the play as very likely addled, I think it unwise to present him as definitely so to the audience. There's a little thing called "audience identification" at stake. The only people I can think of who might possibly identify with this asinine character would be Generation "Z"! Why not just play him as a good kid gone "Goth"? That would be fun! And why not write your own modern day script if you are going to ignore the poetry? This is truly a Hamlet for post-MTV generations - everyone runs or hustles almost ALL the time. Most of the actors rush through the dialogue, apparently to get to the action, with abject disregard for The Bard's poetic genius. Notable exceptions are Oliver Ford Davies (Polonius), Patrick Stewart (Claudius), and Mariah Gales (Ophelia), whose innate sensibilities for great language apparently immunize them from this all-pervasive plague. Every moment and every line of Davies' Polonius is superb - masterful. Stewart's Claudius is excellent, though oddly played as remarkably sympathetic, with measured civility and visceral remorse. In fact, though probably unintentional, it's far more likely that the audience identifies with him as protagonist as opposed to the obnoxious and self-absorbed Hamlet! Inexplicably, this rendition of Hamlet starts off pretty much as a filmed play, with mostly wide-angle master shots - then, somewhere around the midpoint, suddenly and joltingly discovers cinematography - with closeups, high angles, and stark lighting. The sets and wardrobe are a mish-mash of past, present, and future - oddly enough, more like a Doctor Who environment than anything else! The orange t-shirt with the musculature on the front is particularly witless. Sure, slash a few lines out of that damn Sililoquoy and play it squirrel-eyed and flatter than a dental hygiene film. Or is that actually "tongue-in-cheek"??? Hey, I know - let's give Gertrude a cigarette - why not! And, what do you know, Hamlet is recording a performance with a 1940s home movie camera. Yuk, yuk! Ugh. Not witty; not funny; not cute - just ... WHY? Even the blocking is distracting and forced. Your average television commercial is far more fluidly and intelligently blocked. "Critically acclaimed", huh? If he were still around, William Shakespeare would be suing to get his name off this monstrosity. Sorry, but for the benefit of posterity, all copies of this production should be destroyed.

oldgirl No matter how many times I see Hamlet (and I've seen it a LOT), I always seem to be in directorial mode, mostly to the detriment of what I'm watching. This is one of only two Hamlets where I was capable of actually watching the PLAY, rather than the director's mistakes. Tennant's very tense and tightly-wound Prince exhibits a pain and obtusion almost excruciating to watch. The contemporary gloss (LOVED those black interiors, shiny floors, endless reaches of doors and columns and the infinite dark starkness) doesn't feel superficial and does not distract at all from the text, unless you're one of those Renaissance Purists. Patrick Stewart's Claudius was slick, smooth, menacing, and (oddly enough), almost touchingly revealing. This production's Queen Gertrude had that haggard, 'wanna be young' angst seen in so many truly beautiful women once they hit fifty -- and I liked that she seemed to age as the battalions of misfortune kept coming in waves. Most importantly, I liked that the director allowed the TEXT to take center stage, rather than some radical new interpretational agenda. For once, a director that allows the audience to draw their own conclusions.