Hamlet (2000)

Overrated

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Really. This is a load of crock. The only market I can see for this is perhaps high-school students who really can't get a grip on Shakespeare's text. If you're hoping for a movie that stands on its own merits, or, alternately a Shakespeare text done well in feature film format you're bound to be very disappointed. In fact, you're bound to be disappointed no matter what. Unless of course, you have an all-blinding respect for one of the many famous lead actors. Maybe, just maybe, then you might have enjoyed it. As I'm sure many have. Perhaps a more apt title for this film might be "Hamlet - the guy who really got upset because the action section at Blockbuster was simply too limited".

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.

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.

It was very exciting to FINALLY have someone more age appropriate portraying Hamlet. The modernized setting intrigued me. But there are just some things that do not transcend to the modern world - avenging a father's death, a prince getting away with multiple murders and "Get thee to a nunnery...", for starters.This is a strong cast that was hampered by the direction, screenplay and editing. Ophelia was too childish, Polonius too silly, and Hamlet too unimpassioned.If you're a Shakespeare freak, give it a whirl. But this is NOT the one to show in English class!