Hamlet | | Cast : | Ethan Hawke, Kyle MacLachlan | | Director : | Michael Almereyda | | Studio : | Miramax Home Entertainment | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen, Dolby | | Released Date : | January 01, 2000 | | DVD Released Date : | March 01, 2005 | | Language : | English (Dubbed) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | August 08, 2005 | | Summary | Not for the average viewer | Content
 | Personally, I really enjoy this version of Hamlet. It is an artsy, updated version that to me does more justice to the original script than Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet. I think they tried to stick with the essence of the story--even though it takes place on Wall Street and Hamlet uses a gun.
I have used the scene between Laertes and Ophelia to help introduce Shakespearean language in a Hamlet unit, and it works well to convey the original language in a modern setting. I like seeing the hint of Ophelia's suicidal thoughts; her desperate madness seems more realistic, and though I didn't get the crossed eyes, I really loved her stopping in a busy building and screaming her head off. The new take on the "play within a play" was done well and fit in with the shocking nature of its content.
Ethan Hawke does a good job as the brooding Hamlet, but I have to say that out of the performances, Bill Murray as Polonius and Liev Schriber as Laertes did a wonderful job, each adding a certain tenderness, even though Polonius is quite overbearing.
If you can handle the "artsy-ness" of the film, you'd probably enjoy it. If you're looking strictly for entertainment, go with Branaugh or Zefferelli. |
| Rating | | | Date | May 01, 2005 | | Summary | Artistic? Perhaps. Entertaining? No. | Content
| I remember watching Siskel and Ebert many years ago, wondering why I thought Siskel was off base in his reviews, and Ebert was on. Eventually I came to realize that Siskel placed more value on art, and Ebert placed more value on entertainment, and I value entertainment over art. This very difference is the problem with this movie. As art it may be incredible, but as entertainment it is tedious and boring.
The difficulty here is not so much the acting, which is good, but the juxtaposition of modern actors speaking Shakespearean English, and doing it in a way where ambient noise often muddies part of the speaking, and having less dramatic emphasis on the actions of the players, eventually this movie just tries too hard without ever succeeding.
The difficulty with translating play to screen is that the media are different. When you are on a stage you have to be grandiose and dramatic. Shakespeare knew this and created characters who emphasized their actions in a way that enhanced the dialogue. The subtleties of humor infused in this attempt come through, if you were looking for them, but the drama never really makes it to the screen.
The result of these issues is a movie that just never really entertains. As one example, my daughter thought the recent remake of "Romeo and Juliet" was wonderful. She purchased the DVD because of her enjoyment. On the other hand, she, along with the others in our family that watched this, wondered why we bothered.
Keep this movie as fodder for analysts and college classes. Everyone else should watch one of the earlier, better versions, or go see the play. You will be much better entertained.
|
| Rating | | | Date | April 24, 2005 | | Summary | Not To Be | Content
| This modernized version of the classic tale of Hamlet fails on all counts. The reason? The director and actors seem to miss the point of the play, creating something more like 'Reality Bites, Hamlet' than 'Hamlet'.
Ethan Hawke, while a decent actor in other roles feels oddly both perfectly and horribly cast in this role. Perhaps if the movie decided to take MORE risks than simply modernizing and re-arranging scenes, maybe even changing the dialogue so it suited modern language, this could have worked. Hawke seemingly waltzes about this movie like he's lost and has no idea how to escape. (And no, I don't mean that as a compliment to his portrayal of the character). His Hamlet is one that does not seem to be slowly falling into madness or even pretend madness to fool his family. Instead Hawke plays him as a minutely depressed young man who looks bored most of the time. There's no emotion in his delivery and the dialogue seems memorized.
Among the other actors, the one that comes through (in only one scene) is Liev Schrieber as Laertes. The others are all oddly cast, most notably Bill Murray as Polonius. Julia Stiles is a fine actress, but when she plays Ophelia's turn into insanity, it doesn't come across as that at all; she just acts a little strange. Apparently the she was given the direction to cross her eyes and scream for no reason to portray insanity.
This may have been made to appeal to younger audiences, but those who have never read 'Hamlet' before will be completely confused, more so than the ones who have. Changing minor things to suit the modern times, like (SPOILER) Laertes simply blowing Hamlet away with a gun after fencing for two seconds then getting shot with his own gun, comes across as way too random for those who know the story. Also, changing the weapon to a gun is not particulary clever...in the context of this movie it almost seems that if it was that easy they should have all died at the beginning. |
| Rating | | | Date | April 19, 2005 | | Summary | Good, But Could Have Been Better | Content
| There are so many movie versions of Hamlet out there, so what makes this one special? Well...it's in modern times. It might be more useful for English students who aren't really familiar (or just can't handle) with the original style of Shakespeare's play. For the most part, it does it pretty well. But the only problem with this film is how the actors can't seem to grasp the language naturally! It's one thing to know the lines of Shakespeare's entire play, but saying it realistically without it sounding as if it were memorized is another, and that's something that this film doesn't do to well. At times the way the actors speak the language comes off being kind of awkward and almost forced, to some degree it even gets distracting. And the other huge problem is that they don't put much emotion into how they speak Shakespeare's language; it almost feels as if all they did was memorize but didn't practice on making sure the audience can FEEL the characters, instead of hearing them speak an archaic style of speech. This is not a BAD film, but it could have been so much better. I would only recommend this for people who would rather watch a modern version of Hamlet instead of a more older version. |
| Rating | | | Date | April 13, 2005 | | Summary | Worst Hamlet ever made | Content
| I can't believe people actually thought this movie was a good idea! The whole film is a mess. The dialogue is very muddy. Not only is it spoken as if the actors have no idea what any of it means, but the background noise keeps drowning it out. The actors themselves were not the best choice. Julia Stiles may be the hottest thing around, but her "Mad" scene was more ridiculous than compelling. And the use of Polaroids of flowers, instead of actual flowers? Come on!
Bill Murray is another strange choice. When he's explaining to Claudius and Gertrude that Hamlet is mad, it's blatently obvious how uncomfortable he is with the dialogue. As for Ethan Hawke, a slacker Hamlet I can do without. I didn't feel anything but annoyance for him. This film was also very gimmicky, lots of product placement. I could not believe it when Hamlet's Ghost disappeared into a Pepsi machine. The final scene was botched. It was too rushed, much like the entire film. And when Hamlet and Laertes finally killed each other, I'm still not clear on how that happened.
My advice is to save your money and watch a better Hamlet, Branagh's, Olivier's, or even Mel Gibson's.
|
|
Picture 01 (20)
