 | |
List Price: $9.99 | | Label: Miramax
Salesrank: 5102
Released: April 17, 2001 |
| Our Price: $4.91 |
| Used Price: $5.00 |
|
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
Hot Hollywood star Ethan Hawke (TRAINING DAY) is joined by Julia Stiles (10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU) and Bill Murray (LOST IN TRANSLATION) in a hip, thoroughly contemporary adaptation of William Shakespeare's epic story of passion, betrayal, and revenge! The president of the Denmark Corporation is dead ... and already his wife is remarried to the man suspected of his murder! Nobody is more troubled than her son, Hamlet (Hawke). Now, after this hostile takeover, trust is impossible, passion is on the rise, and revenge is in the air! Also featuring Kyle MacLachlan (ONE NIGHT STAND), Liev Schreiber (SCREAM 3), Diane Venora (THE INSIDER), and Sam Shepard (THE PELICAN BRIEF) in an outstanding ensemble -- the power of Shakespeare's timeless words is matched by the stunningly modern look and feel of this widely acclaimed, highly entertaining big-screen event!
Description of Hamlet:
Perhaps the least important thing about this latest film version of Shakespeare's masterpiece is its setting in modern-day New York. Yes, such locales as the Guggenheim Museum are used wittily; answering machines and faxes are logically worked into the plot; and it was both inspired and entirely appropriate to make the prince of Denmark a moody, introspective filmmaker whose avant-garde collages provide the context for some of his famous monologues. All of which would be so much pleasantly humorous eye-candy if it didn't come hand in hand with a sympathy for and understanding of this remarkable cast of characters. For that, ultimately, is what makes Michael Almereyda's Hamlet such a delight to watch. Forget that the immortal rumination on suicide is placed in a Blockbuster Video aisle and notice instead how Ethan Hawke's own youthful, callow arrogance makes Hamlet's vacillations believable. And how the comical but infantilizing way Bill Murray's Polonius dotes upon his daughter Ophelia (Julia Stiles)--and her mute acceptance of his attentions--lead her to thoughts of a watery grave even before her bout of madness. And also notice how much Claudius truly does love Gertrude (when gazing at her, Kyle MacLachlan's face relaxes from its usual plasticity) and how Sam Shepard's ghost is less vengeful or tortured than stiffened by remorse. These are the shining moments of invention in Almereyda's bold updating of the play, and they are why this will be a film to watch and enjoy long after its setting has made it as much a period piece as Olivier's adaptation, with its broodingly lit castle, or Branagh's, with its gleaming 19th-century court. --Bruce Reid
Hamlet Reviews:
Modern Shakespeare 
2007-11-11 - Great video. I used it in the classroom and showed several clips to coincide with the text. The casting director made some great choices and the director stays true to Shakespeare's story as he would want it told. The "To be or not to be" soliloquy is done beautifully--very introspective and spoken as Hamlet walks through a Blockbuster. There are a few things taken out of order, but only done for cinematic effect.
THE PERFORMANCES ARE A LETDOWN 
2007-09-21 - The idea of setting Shakespeare's masterpiece in modern-day New York proves to be a good one. The film's ominous tone and dark quality give the story a very ominous tone. Sadly, the film is nearly ruined by the acting. Most of the performers in this piece do nothing but recite the lines, failing to put emotional "umph" behind the characters, making this film nearly undramatic.
Ethan Hawke is a great actor, but doesn't have what it takes to play the Prince of Denmark. Kyle MacLachlan tries as Claudius, but isn't very convincing. Most of Ophelia's lines are mostly cut from the play, so Julia Stiles has little to do, but she's descent when she has the chance. And Bill Murray has NO place in a Shakespeare film. In terms of acting, the two stand-out performances are by Liev Schreiber, who's performance as Laertes is more tender than in recent portrayals; and Sam Shepard gives a very powerful performance as the Ghost of Hamlet's father.
Overall, this version of "Hamlet" is a disappointment due to some lackluster performances by what should have been a first-rate cast. It's hard to know who to recommend this film to. I'd say skip this version of "Hamlet," and check out either Branagh's four-hour masterpiece, or Zeffirelli's film starring Mel Gibson.
Movie/DVD Grade: C
Ugh 
2007-06-12 - Um...I don't even know WHAT to say. I just finished watching this monstrous perversion (then again, I saw the Branagh version recently; and not by accident, I am a "Hamlet" fiend). Maybe the low rating has something to do with that.
Bad acting--which doesn't do justice to the timeless script--ruins it all. Answering machines? Gimme a break.
Branagh can beat Hawke up with an envenomed foil any day.
The worst version of Hamlet yet.
2007-06-04 - I've seen at least 4 different productions of Hamlet and this is definitely the worst. The artistic choices aren't bad, but the actors in this version have no idea how to read Shakespeare. The dialogue sounds stilted and gets in the way of everything this production is trying to accomplish. Since it's all of the actors, I have to put most of the blame on the director. 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.
An interesting take 
2007-05-19 - I was thinking for quite some time about the incongruity of using Shakespearan english in the modern context. The problem is:
1) In modern NY, no one speaks like that. This is known, accepted. So the moment we hear them use Shakespeare's original language, full naturalism, no matter how strictly attempted, cannot be fully achieved. You cannot suck the audience in completely.
2) Shakespeare is nothing without the language. 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.
I believe that the modern relatively deadpan acting method is contrary to the inherent theatricality of Shakespeare's language. Therefore, if it needs to be filmed in a modern context, it must necessarily be
1) over-the-top, and theatrical, and outrageous, like Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet" or
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. 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 -
Hamlet (2000) is a noble attempt, and some parts really work, but in the end it's a somewhat lethargic, uncertain prod, overall. Laertes does well, and Shepard's ghost is convincingly restrained.
Bill Murray and Ethan Hawke, sorry to say, are all at sea. The complexity of Hamlet is completely gone. Yes, Hamlet is melancholy. Yes, he is young and foolish, at times, but also noble and innocent. 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. 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. Unfortunately, there's very little here.
Murray had apparently never done Shakespeare before, and it shows - he's reciting it, not acting it. It was very painful to watch him Laertes' farewell scene. Julia Stiles isn't given much, as if sometimes she seems on the verge of saying something, but doesn't. Venora and MacLachlan play their parts well - Venora with gusto and MacLachlan a little too passive at times.
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 this isn't a definitive Hamlet by any means, and no way in hell should it be the FIRST Hamlet a person watches.
