User reviews

Bill Murray doing Shakespeare is the cutest thing ever, it may be the first time Polonius steals the show. Incredible for the NYC buildings, streets, and upper class apartments, creating one great slice of atmosphere after another. The self-awareness of it makes it funny too. All those young 90s actors having fun, and McLaughlan as the King is so great and nuanced you somehow feel bad for the villain. A festive celebration of Shakespeare, cinema, and Gen X. So, films like this are a joke when they're released, hence its reputation, but in time they become works of art. One, because Shakespeare is immortal, and two, this era here of 2000 New York, this is a painting of nostalgia, from a long-gone era of history. It's incredibly fresh.

Otherwise this is the perfect way for young people to understand the play, how the casting gives you an immediate impression who these people are, framing the dialogue in a way that you always understand it. The irony when you get a good rendition you bond to it and don't want to imagine it any other way.

any movie that attempts to bring the Shakespeare canon to a new audience has to be allowed fairly wide latitude...so in the age of "Clerks", only right and fitting that we get a taste of Hamlet as a Kevin Smith-type community college slacker...filming from a severely truncated version of the play, this "Hamlet" still manages to provide some clever moments of originality...the "to be or not to be" monologue set in the "action" section of Blockbuster; an Ophelia who betrays Hamlet; the use of speakerphones and faxes to deliver dialog, in lieu of actors on screen...yeah, it's gimmicky...but if this is what it takes to get the Bard to the x and y-genners, then so be it...Joseph Papp would have approved...

that said, there's some interesting takes by Julia Stiles (Ophelia), Diana Venora (the Queen) and Bill Murray (Polonius) on their respective characters...it ain't all style over substance...

so come on, folks...you gave Mel a shot at this, didn't ya? give it a go...

Is this Hamlet? Depends on who you ask I suppose.

There are some who would require the plot and drama: a son whose inheritance is interrupted, so who may be imagining the murder of his father; a vapid, doting, hedonistic mother; a loyal, by the book counselor, his earnest son and brilliant daughter, she smitten by the prince. A scheming king -- wheels turn and everyone dies.

Some would consider the language the essential element. This is the poet's most convoluted, and heavily annotated metaphoric fabric. Shakespeare is most often celebrated for his layering and interelating of mental images, and certainly this work is his most globally elaborate (sorry).

But just as the language rides on the drama, the ideas of the play ride on the metaphors. These ideas are life-altering in their starkness: Reality, thought, creation, intent, the cause and validity of unnatural action, relationships among cocreated internal worlds. Much of this is developed in frightening and challenging terms. To my tastes, the ideas are what is important. Too many Hamlets (notably Olivier's)faithfully include the first two and never touch the third. I'd buy a complete abandonment of the first, but cannot see how one could get to the third without most of the second.

Now. This film. They have preserved the plot well enough for a film, I suppose. And they have kept the language, about one third of it anyway.

The bad:

Bill Murray is lost in Polonius, utterly lost. The production quality is poor -- that fits the film school motif (see below), but there is no excuse for the many boom mikes sticking down. They repurposed so much to fit the new setting, so why stick with swords at the end?

The biggest complaint is that they missed all the ideas, the big ones. The central example is at the end of the first act, where Hamlet says: `there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.' Hamlet, and Horatio are students of Wittenburg philosophy, which audiences would have understood as that of the magi Giordano Bruno, martyred by the Pope. (His book is the one Hamlet quotes when asked `what is the matter?,' and Bruno is also quoted in the northnorthwest and hawk from a handsaw lines.) The play has much to do with understanding Bruno's questions of thought and action. When Hamlet differentiates himself from Horatio, the play really starts. In this film, though, the `your' becomes `our.' Why?

The Good:

This Ophelia is wonderful. I don't know her other work yet, but it includes two other Shakespeare adaptations. She certainly was helped by the woman director, who amplifies the female roles in emotion if not screentime. She even transforms Marcello into a Marcella, Horatio's girlfriend. Rather nice. Also well done is the staging of the Rosenkrantz and Guilderstern dialog.

The central device of the film is rather clever, if not original. The play is deeply self-referential. All the rich text about introspection is what is usually cut in the name of modern impatience, and that is the case here. Also gone here is the sharply self-referential scenes of Hamlet lecturing the players. What we have in its place is self-reference about film, and filming. Hamlet and Horatio, indeed R&G and Marcella are all film students. He thinks in film (actually video), and all his ruminations are cast in visual terms, often in the context of video, even a Blockbuster store. The final chorus is in video, and much of the action is seen through surveillance cameras. The play-within-the-play is a homemade video, with clear film-school effects.

This is not as clever as it could have been in the hands of a master. (Or when the goals are exceedingly simple as in `American Beauty.') But it is an honest attempt to cast the reflexive depth of the play in cinematic terms.

Sam Shepard is the best King Hamlet's ghost I have ever seen. He is a solid blessing.

This is a respectable effort, and deserves to be viewed if not celebrated.

Here is the first film version of Hamlet to come along in modern New York. The director's use of New York is fun to watch for this native New Yorker, although how a limo can quickly move from 42nd St. between Broadway and Eighth Avenue to 48th St. and Sixth Avenue is beyond me.

But asisde from that, all we care about when we see Hamlet is how is the text handled, by both the director and the cast. The director, Michael Almereyda, has cut into the script and most of the film runs surprising lean for something that runs one hour, fifty-three minutes. His use of short films in the background, speaker phones, TV's and the like run the gambit from ingeneous to "Give me a BREAK!"

The casting however is inconsitent, for which we can certainly blame the director. Ethan Hawke, in the title role, has drive and energy. But if anybody remembers the TV show "The Critic", when they had Keanu Reeves doing Hamlet, then you know what I'm thinking. The words "Dude" and "Whoa" seems ready to break into Hawke's speeches at anytime. The complexity is replaced by a whiny "I'm in pain, but I'm cool" attitude for the bulk of the film and it doesn't really work. The mumbling of at least a fourth of his lines doesn't help either. He works better in silence, brooding.

The silence works even better for Julia Styles as Ophelia. When quiet, the pain of abandonment and loss is heartfelt. Then she opens her mouth, and the lack of a developed character as well as an appalling lack of command of Shakespeare's words is obvious. Ophelia, never mind getting thee to a nunnery, get thee "Beverly Hills, 90210", GO!

Bill Murray veers form earnestness to his Lounge Singer's act from "SNL" when doing Polonius. I know the role was suppose to be for comic relief. But after a while, everything Murray says is funny- intenionally or otherwise.

Kyle McLaughlin, as Claudius, doesn't fare much better. There is little distinction in his line readings, and in the end, he just comes off as a one-trick pony. Diane Verona is marginally better as Gertrude. The attitude is there, as is the pain, but her line readings lack a freshness to them.

The standouts are Sam Sheppard as the Ghost, Steve Zahn and Dechen Thurman as Rosencrnatz & Guildenstern, and especially Liev Schrieber as Laertes. Schrieber in paricularly as the energy, clearity, and believabilty that makes you wonder what if he played Hamlet instead of Schrieber. We probably would have had a better movie.

For the most part, I didn't like this film. As a Shakespeare scholar, I find it admirable trying to bring Hamlet into contemporary times, since it is a very complicated play.

To be fair, this adaptation does have some strengths. The monolithic coldness of Manhattan set off the isolation and intimidation of the storyline wonderfully. Gertrude and Claudius's affection is just shocking enough without being over the top. And Liev Schreiber's performance was quite good, but that's about where my praise stops. This movie is quite choppy, not only in mixing around the order of the scenes, which isn't really that big of a problem, but also in transition between scenes. Hamlet and Ophelia are almost comical in their sheer moodiness and I didn't believe either character as an art student. their angst made me not care at all about what was happening and Hamlet's filming was quite distracting. The acting is generally horrible, especially Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who are really just cringe inducing. Many of the characters seem to be miscast and Claudius can't get through a scene without smiling a little multiple times.

Thumbs down.

There are a million and one Hamlet's so I will briefly list the merits of this one: --Unusual and bold approach to a film, a version set in modern day using modern film tropes, but using the original Shakespearean english text.

--Ethan Hawke feels the right age with the right amount of youth angst and confusion. A very believable Hamlet if not the best technically.

--The film has an atmospheric and dreamlike quality making it intriguing and stimulating to watch.

--Does a good of leaving all the main plot elements and themes in while trimming the play down to film length.

With his stunning new vision of the most revered of Shakespeare's plays, director Michael Almereyda has effectively transposed many of the enduring themes of that classic work to our contemporary hi-tech era. Even if you are not very familiar with Shakespeare's plays or have always been confounded by his verse, one can still appreciate this film for the tremendously inventive ways by which Almereyda has interpreted the core scenes of Hamlet in the context of corporate America. His visually striking translation of scenes like Ophelia's drowning and Hamlet's famous `to be or not to be' soliloquy are a delight and true brain candy. The cast is all around superb, with the classically delivered lines from actors Liev Schreiber (Laertes) and Sam Shepard (Ghost) nicely counterbalancing the very contemporary style of delivery from Ethan Hawk (Hamlet), Bill Murray (Polonius), and Julia Stiles (Ophelia).

There will no doubt be much comparison between this film and Baz Luhrmann's flashy modern remake of Romeo and Juliet. However, whereas Luhrmann's film ultimately fails in going beyond the boundaries of its visually striking presentation, Almereyda's Hamlet proves to be far more than a mere spectacle for the senses. In fact, this is the serious flaw that plagues most of the films coming from young, talented independent filmmakers these days: all style, no substance. Well, this Hamlet has both. By setting the film deep in the heart of a very real and very modern steel and concrete American jungle like New York City, which is infused with the relics of the mass media and cold capitalistic consumerism, Almereyda powerfully enhances for the audience the sense of the desolation of his characters that results from urban isolation. This is a theme that Hong Kong director Wong Kar-Wai has so masterfully examined with his films Fallen Angels and Chungking Express. In Hamlet, we get a powerful dose of both Kar-Wai's visual flair and the sensitive, crumbling heart that it sheathes.

This modernization does a superb job of convincing the viewer that the story could take place in modern times; it was less than 5 minutes into the film that I was comfortable with Shakespeare taking place in NYC. What failed, however, was the delivery of the dialogue by actors who didn't seem involved. Hawke especially seemed bored with his character and does nothing to convince us that Hamlet was tortured with his father's death, his mother's remarriage, his love for Ophelia (which is never explained), and his own mortality. Instead he comes across as a spoiled brat overwhelmed by his trip to the big city and his inability to have things his own way. That such powerful dialogue as Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy was so lost is not a compliment to the filmmaker. We simply can't identify or sympathize with Hamlet, so the story loses most of its impact. Surprisingly, it's Bill Murray's performance as Polonius that steals the film, making us wish he had more scenes. Julia Stiles is also convincing as Ophelia. But their efforts aren't enough to save this film. It is also true, as others have written, that this film's audio transfer to tape was poorly done; you will find yourself adjusting your TV's volume frequently. The lack of enunciation by Hawke and Shepard doesn't help either. (Also, Shakespeare shouldn't be performed over a speakerphone.) Give this film a try if you're a fan of the bard who wants to see an interesting interpretation, but be ready to provide your own enthusiasm motivation for the characters who won't do it for you. A "4" out of "10".

Nearly four hundred years after his death, Shakespeare continues to be the best screenwriter in the English language. This beautiful, moody, stylish adaptation of his greatest play is no exception. Another wonderful thing about the Bard is how his drama seems to elevate any actor willing to take on the challenge. I especially enjoyed Bill Murray as Polonius: his performance was all the more delightful because of the necessity of restraining his comic genius here; he appears always on the edge of cracking a joke, and of course doesn't, adding even more tension to an already extremely taught production.

But what I loved most about this movie was how it departed from the usual staging conventions (medieval costume, stone castles) to get at the heart of what the play is really about: a kid coming home on a college break and discovering that his uncle has murdered his father and is having sex with his mother. Ethan Hawke does a fantastic job in the role, giving us the brooding, confused, lovesick, and ultimately self-destructive adolescent that Shakespeare intended.

If I were a high-school English teacher, this is the Hamlet that I would want to show my students.

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.

This is easily the worst translation of Shakespeare's work to film that I have ever seen. In this pointlessly, ineffectively, and inconsistently updated re-imagination of Hamlet, determinedly, overly hip cardboard cutouts do battle within themselves and with one another, using the text of Hamlet as the basis for their acts in a literal sense, but without even a hint of the humanity and insight that the original work gave us or that a new one could attempt to give. I have no issue with resetting classic works, nor do I care if an adaptation is somewhat unfaithful to the text; what I do have an issue with is if a movie simply doesn't work. At least Romeo + Juliet had some kind of emotion behind it; this version is altogether too detached to care about its characters and too clueless to remember that the story just doesn't work if we don't care.

Good points: Bill Murray as Polonius, and Kyle Maclachlan's Claudius, apparently digitally superimposed from another, better movie.

I've always been a fan of Hamlet but I find myself always searching out a version that isn't either 4 hours long or starring Kenneth Brannagh (sp?) or Mel Gibson. So, seeing a version set in New York circa 2000 seemed like an interesting (if not questionable) choice. And for me it works for the most part. While I'm sure Shakespeare purists would cry foul, and maybe rightly so, the simple fact of the matter is that Shakespeare needs some new fans and the best way to grab a younger audience is to present it in a way that doesn't seem antiquated. So long as that's done with respect to the source material, I see no problem with that.

The only real problem I have with this version is some of the casting choices. Obviously the script is the same as about any other version and only the setting and time period change...but Bill Murray as Polonius? Not that I don't like Bill Murray, but I've never seen him doing Shakespeare (and still don't, really). Steve Zahn as Rosencranz? Seriously? I thought Ethan Hawke would totally bomb the performance, but he did well enough. And Liev Schrieber as Laertes was surprisingly good...especially given the last thing I saw him doing was playing Sabertooth opposite Hugh Jackman. Not exactly high quality material.

All in all this isn't a fantastic adaptation of what is arguably Shakespeare's most popular work, but it's definitely a good effort and a bit of a shot in the arm for what many people believe is an outdated style of writing. I've never really understood that...just because you need a moment to process the meaning of something doesn't mean it's bad. It just means you're using your brain. But in any event, I would put this up against Mel Gibson's Hamlet any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Especially for the younger audiences.

As I shut this movie off half way through I had a feeling that perhaps Shakespeare was a bit over my head and I was missing something that others would have gotten. I guess my feelings mirrored many others as I read through the user comments.

This movie was horrible. The entire tone of the movie is a depress fest and all of the comic relief scenes which are vital to the original work are omitted. I was expecting to see a Hamlet who was "mad" in the crazy sense of the word much like portrayed by Mel Gibson. Unless I missed it during my intermittent naps during the first part of the film I don't even think Hamlet talked about putting on a mask as to appear mad to the others like he does in the original work. Instead he is just a depressed, whining, toque wearing movie junkie that is a complete bore.

Liev Schieber in his limited time on screen was dynamite and I was hoping to see that kind of fire out of Hamlet instead of the hum drum attitude that he possessed in the time I wasted on this film.

To give you an idea of how bad this film was....I actually said to myself less then half way through: "Turn it off, this is painful to watch" and 30 minutes later that's just what I did. A total bore.

This modern day version of Hamlet is imaginative in its adaptation to the setting of modern day New York City, and its translation of court politics to modern corporations. While the cast is fine, Ethan Hawke's slacker interpretation of the title role, while appropriate, ultimately sucks most of the energy from the screenplay. The recent modern version of Romeo & Juliet managed to maintain its energy.

While the screenplay does a good job of shortening the play to a manageable length (half of Branaugh's 4 hour version), there are still some gaps where, if you don't know the play, you won't be able to follow. It's definately worth watching, especially for the performances of Hawke, Diane Venora as Gertrude and Bill Murray as Polonius, and it is MUCH better than the Mel Gibson version. But it isn't quite the breakthrough as Romeo & Juliet was.

Director Michael Almerevda wanted to make "Hamlet" more accessible by relocating the play to modern corporate America. By necessity, he is forced to cut the subplots which make this such a rich play. What is left is less than what you get reading "Cliff Notes."

The performances range from the uninspired to simply amateurish. Ethan Hawke has his moments as Hamlet, but overall puts nothing into the role. The same can be said of Kyle MacLachlan's Claudius. As Polonius, Bill Murray acts as though he is reading his lines from cue cards. As Ophelia, Julia Stiles acts as if this were a high school production. Only Sam Shepard in his brief appearance makes an impression.

My recommendation for "Hamlet" is that you stick with the Olivier and Branagh versions.

Shakespeare has arrived in the moneyed world of New York, and I think he likes it. What particularly struck me about this film was some of the imagery and devices. Reflections are everywhere, not just in Hamlet's soliloquies: glass windows, mirrors, water, even the video screen. If we exist only in the eyes of others (J-P Sartre), then everything in this film is granted existence, even Hamlet's madness, because we see it through so many media and reflections. Hamlet's "play within a play" becomes a film, not something ephemeral, but a strip of celluloid that will last past his death, just as this play has survived so many centuries after Shakespeare's time.

Hamlet, like all the great Shakespeare's has been done numerous times on film, the most recent Hamlet before this one being Kenneth Branagh's version which was fiery and charismatic. By complete contrast, this version from director Michael Almereyda, is cold, dry and artificial. It is not unwatchable, but it has no soul except for the spirit of Hamlet's father.

Hamlet here is relocated to present day New York. Denmark is the name of a high profile media corporation, and Hamlet himself is not a prince but the son of the corporation head. I am assuming that anyone who is reading this is doing so because they are interested in the movie, and has subsequently read the play.

Hamlet 2000 is in a bit of trouble to begin with. The decision to maintain Shakespere's tongue in the 21st century America demands a suspension of disbelief which feels unfair to the audience. we become forced to examine not so much what the actors can bring to their roles, but how convincingly they deliver Shakespearian grammar. Given the contemporary setting, Hamlet 2000 is kind of demanding on the actors too, in the sense that it requires a merging of both film and theatrical acting (not one or the other). It is no surprise then that the best performance is turned in by Sam Shepard. Being a play write himself, Shepard knows how to act in the style of both.

As for the rest of the cast, I'm not super impressed, but I'm not super annoyed either. Ethan Hawke filling Hamlet's shoes does his best. His delivery is okay, but he doesn't quite convince.I think part of the problem is that the movie sort of restricts his potential by using not the actor to sell emotion but rather the existence of video technology. The famous to be or not to be speech is delivered as the character wanders through the aisles of a block buster video. Almereyda asks us to focus here not on entirely on Hawke, but on a dramatic movie being run on one the stores TV monitors being inter cut with the speech.

From a designers point of viewer, (and this too is in contrast to Branaghs film) Hamlet 2000 looks and feels quite clustered. All the indoor scenes take place in very small quarters: Tiny screening booths, tiny apartments, tiny offices, even the cabin of a large jet plane looks about as spacious as a Prius. Camera work is minimalist, in part because of how all the sets are build, giving the camera crew not much space to move around in. This is all clearly intentional.

Something else that Hamlet 2000 could use is a more spectacular finale. This movies take on the climactic duel feels contrived. Lemme ask you this: Who has a fencing harness rigged from a room's ceiling on the top floor of their office building? The duel itself looks like it was improved, or as if a sword master was not hired. By contrast Hamlet as told by Branagh successfully recreates swordplay in Errol Flynn style, and is far more epic and satisfying. Seeing a pistol being fired at point blank range has nothing on watching a sword being thrown across a ballroom, and into a man's chest (even if it is a little unbelievable)

Hamlet 2000, when all is said and done, qualifies as a good try, but not quite good movie. It is the product of an interesting vision but when translated to the screen it feels rather lacking in presentation, emotion and credibility, making it somewhat tricky to recommend.

This must be the worst modern interpretation of a Shakespearean play that I have ever seen. As with most film versions Fortinbras was glossed over. Bill Murray's Polonius, while a good try, just was not up to it. I kept seeing visions of SNL. Ethan Hawke's Hamlet left much to be desired. He reminded me of the Ricky Fitts character from American Beauty, with his video camera recording every aspect of his life. Over all it was not worth the $3.50 I spent at Blockbuster.

I cannot recommend this film enough. Although I can see where the abridged text might put purists off of this very stylistic modern interpretation one of the bards most famous plays, I found it to be the most poetic and honest cinematic Hamlet yet. Ethan Hawke plays hamlet much like he plays his other roles, with over sensitivity, intelligence, and a strong sense of futility. His talents are aptly used in this version of Hamlet where instead of seeming like an ancient warrior prince Hamlet seems to be a fairly normal, if rich, art student caught up in an impossible circumstance.

The acting overall is worth noting as is the ingenious use of technology. However since the films praises have already been well sung on those counts by others, I'll mention how the film felt. It took me a little while to suspend disbelief. As the film establishes itself with mentions of "Denmark" corp. and "Elsinore" condos it leaves you very aware that you are watching an unusual production of the famous play. Likewise, at the begining of the movie I found myself identifying all of the actors like a tourist, "That's Bill Murray, Hey is that Kyle McLaughlin?" etc... but it didn't take as long as one might think to become totally caught up things. And I did become completely caught up even though I'm fairly familiar with the play. The best way I can describe it is to say that in other versions of this and the bards other plays one is often more familiar with the speeches and the poetry than with the characters as living breathing people. Hamlet 2000 made me feel genuine hatred for Claudius and sorrow for Hamlet. The Elizabethan English with American accents and cadence seemed more natural to the ear than the bold theatrical speak that most Shakespearian films seem to think is a requisite.

I think the people who take their literature like medicine because it is good for them will be sorely dissapointed by how enjoyable this movie is but in my opinion it is an excellent balance between the beauty of Shakespeare's text as text and the exciting story contained within.

I was surprised to see so many negative comments here. The movie wasn't perfect, but it was well-played and the NYC settings and media involvement gave it some visual interest that is lacking in more traditional versions. The liberties that were taken with the script didn't really bother me very much.

Things I especially liked were the excellent soundtrack and Bill Murray's Polonius. Murray can be very hit or miss for me but here he was spot-on perfect. Kyle MacLachlan was also quite good. He was suitably threatening as Claudius, yet still handsome enough to make Gertrude's interest in him plausible.

All in all, an interesting variation on a classic and an entertaining way to spend a couple of hours.

I mean, let's face it. These days any movie that doesn't have a car chase automatically gets at least a 5 or a 6 from me.

Gobble, Gobble. This movie is one big turkey.

Shakespeare is tricky. Do him well and you have a thing of beauty. But don't do him well and you are left with something that is almost painful to watch.

The idea of this version of "Hamlet" is interesting: Transport the story to modern day New York City. Unfortunately, the creativity stopped right there. The modern day NYC idea was only half thought out and the movie was cast very poorly. The end result looks and feels at times as if it were a Saturday Night Live comedy sketch, not a genuine attempt attempt at Shakespeare.

Ethan Hawke is okay as Hamlet. Not bad, but he certainly won't make you forget about Laurence Olivier. Kyle McLaughlin looks as though he'd much rather be tracking down Laura Palmer's killer. Bill Murray is lost. And Julia Stiles wanders around pouting and wondering how in the world she's supposed to say these poems so that they sound like lines.

Rent this if you are curious to know how a production of Shakespeare can go seriously wrong. But if you really want to see a good version of "Hamlet", rent the 1948 version instead.