SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

eammcl Hawke's Hamlet is suffering from major clinical depression, and the film reflects this, meaning that watching it gives you some symptoms of major clinical depression, such as exhaustion, loss of willpower, and desire to end it all and just go to sleep. While the film was objectively excellent and the tone incredibly well conveyed, I feel it was the wrong tone for a movie this length. It made it difficult to finish, because it was so utterly hopeless and depressing. The adaptation itself was good, however. The overall sense I got was not so much a scenic update (Denmark to New York) as a cultural one. Ethan Hawke's Hamlet is American; were he transposed to modern England he would be different, and different still if he were French (most obviously by a clearly improved sense of fashion--that hat needs to go). One of the reviews on Netflix described the movie's Ophelia as "a brooding adolescent" rather than "the classical indecisive waif". I found this description to apply to the movie as a whole, and not just Ophelia. Ethan Hawke's Hamlet is angsty, and there's no way around it. He's petulant and selfish and the very picture of the modern American adolescent male. He cares only for himself, and is insane in the sense of being so depressed he's lost touch with reality. He spends hours upon hours watching and making bad-quality videos (as a side note, why are movies in movies always so pixelated with ludicrously bad resolution, and why are they always strongly tinted green or blue? Don't any fictional characters have HDTV?). Holed up in his room with his own little mind in place of a world, it's no wonder he goes off the deep end and starts trying to kill people. It was hard to feel any empathy for Hamlet; while he was doubtlessly suffering, he used this as a license to wallow in self-pity. I actually found myself siding with Claudius and his mother. Hamlet and Ophelia's relationship, on the other hand, was very well done. I wish the movie had expanded more on it. Overall, this is a well-done film, but slow and difficult to stick with. As a final note, I felt the R-rating was undeserved; the only justification I could find for it was the relentlessly depressing tone.

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.

kayaker36 Originality counts for much when presenting a 400 year old play. This movie has freshness and originality in abundance. The direction, photography and above all casting are innovative.The real star is the city of New York with its nighttime magic and varied neighborhoods from the tenements of the East Village where film student Ophelia dwells to the luxurious high rises of the rich and well-insulated.For once, the roles of Ophelia and especially Hamlet are played by age-appropriate actors. Ethan Hawke was nearly thirty but looks and sounds like the college student Prince Hamlet was intended to be. That he does not employ the pear-shaped tones of the accomplished Shakespearian only adds to the freshness and realism of the film.As the ghost, Sam Sheppard is just outstanding, magnetic even when absolutely silent. He delivers his few lines in an intense burst such as never seen before. Diane Venora's eloquent performance as Gertrude, Hamlet's mother, shows the intelligence of a mature actress and credible sex appeal sufficient to drive a man to murder his own brother. Liev Schreiber is solid and does have a Shakespearian's voice, Kyle Maclaghlan acts with feeling and range, and Bill Murray shows a side of him previously unseen--comic yet touchingly fatherly in his scene with Ms. Stiles.

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.