patrickmead138 the way Patrick Stuart and David Tennant portray their roles as superb role in this production. another Hamlet. decent, interesting. but far to seduce. the acting is OK and the new elements are not bad but scene by scene something seems missing. the pressure of role for David Tennant, the filming angles, Patrick Steward who is not more than a Cladius as too many others are causes for to define it only as a good job. such a good TV film. Both actors are both really good at portraying different roles with in the film. Hamlet is one of the best productions made for the BBC and it is diffidently a 5 star out of 5 star

arlene bradley The best production of HAMLET, That I have seen. The sets were amazing, the acting especially by David Tennant and Sir Patrick Stewart was brilliant. David Tennant's performance was nothing less than extraordinary, and if you don't believe me, then believe Sir Patrick Stewart who stated in interviews that David was the finest and most talented young actor in England today. David brings the tortured soul of Hamlet to life. He runs the gambit of emotions from deep depression over his father's death to anger over the too quick marriage of his mother to his uncle - to revenge for his fathers murder by his uncle, to self pity and self doubt. David was very capable of the pretense of madness by Hamlet in front of the king, queen, and court while he plots his revenge.Other reviewers have not understood the use of the surveillance cameras, but this is to show how everyone was always under watch by the King or his men, using the cameras or hidden rooms to spy on all. At one point Tennant breaks a camera and states "Now I am alone". Plus the use of camera's and modern clothing, and the use of a helicopter by the Norwegian army against Poland give the audience of today a better understanding of Shakespeare and grounding in today's society. And what's the difference of what costume is worn as long as those beautiful words of the Bard are used, they are the important thing.I thought the supporting actors who played Laretes, Horatio, and Gertrude were great, but I thought the actors who portrayed Ophelia and Polonius were a little too one dimensional.Anyone thinking of buying this movie, will more that get their money's worth. And it's a great way to introduce your children to the beautiful prose of Shakespeare.

LeonardOsborneKael I'm all for new approaches to Hamlet - I truly LOVED Branagh's portrayal of Hamlet as "everyman". And I'd love to see a modern-day version that really works! (Sorry - not Ethan Hawke's). Mel Gibson's Hamlet was nicely filmed and might have gotten at least a B+ if not for his annoying habit of wagging his head from side to side on every line. Sadly, in the Royal Shakespeare Company's version, almost everything that can be done to ruin the play has been incorporated. Hamlet speaks the lines intended to be spoken introspectively to himself - to the camera! And likewise with the Sililoquoy - during which he keeps glancing just off-camera - as if looking at a cue card! And just whose idea was it to play Hamlet as a cross between Pee Wee Herman and Monty Python's "Upper Class Twit Of The Year" anyway? Hamlet comes off as an absolute jerk throughout - first as a goofy 12 year-old figuratively giving the finger to all the adults - later, as a vicious monster out for blood. Although it is clearly part of Mr. Shakespeare's intention that Hamlet be seen by the other characters in the play as very likely addled, I think it unwise to present him as definitely so to the audience. There's a little thing called "audience identification" at stake. The only people I can think of who might possibly identify with this asinine character would be Generation "Z"! Why not just play him as a good kid gone "Goth"? That would be fun! And why not write your own modern day script if you are going to ignore the poetry? This is truly a Hamlet for post-MTV generations - everyone runs or hustles almost ALL the time. Most of the actors rush through the dialogue, apparently to get to the action, with abject disregard for The Bard's poetic genius. Notable exceptions are Oliver Ford Davies (Polonius), Patrick Stewart (Claudius), and Mariah Gales (Ophelia), whose innate sensibilities for great language apparently immunize them from this all-pervasive plague. Every moment and every line of Davies' Polonius is superb - masterful. Stewart's Claudius is excellent, though oddly played as remarkably sympathetic, with measured civility and visceral remorse. In fact, though probably unintentional, it's far more likely that the audience identifies with him as protagonist as opposed to the obnoxious and self-absorbed Hamlet! Inexplicably, this rendition of Hamlet starts off pretty much as a filmed play, with mostly wide-angle master shots - then, somewhere around the midpoint, suddenly and joltingly discovers cinematography - with closeups, high angles, and stark lighting. The sets and wardrobe are a mish-mash of past, present, and future - oddly enough, more like a Doctor Who environment than anything else! The orange t-shirt with the musculature on the front is particularly witless. Sure, slash a few lines out of that damn Sililoquoy and play it squirrel-eyed and flatter than a dental hygiene film. Or is that actually "tongue-in-cheek"??? Hey, I know - let's give Gertrude a cigarette - why not! And, what do you know, Hamlet is recording a performance with a 1940s home movie camera. Yuk, yuk! Ugh. Not witty; not funny; not cute - just ... WHY? Even the blocking is distracting and forced. Your average television commercial is far more fluidly and intelligently blocked. "Critically acclaimed", huh? If he were still around, William Shakespeare would be suing to get his name off this monstrosity. Sorry, but for the benefit of posterity, all copies of this production should be destroyed.

oldgirl No matter how many times I see Hamlet (and I've seen it a LOT), I always seem to be in directorial mode, mostly to the detriment of what I'm watching. This is one of only two Hamlets where I was capable of actually watching the PLAY, rather than the director's mistakes. Tennant's very tense and tightly-wound Prince exhibits a pain and obtusion almost excruciating to watch. The contemporary gloss (LOVED those black interiors, shiny floors, endless reaches of doors and columns and the infinite dark starkness) doesn't feel superficial and does not distract at all from the text, unless you're one of those Renaissance Purists. Patrick Stewart's Claudius was slick, smooth, menacing, and (oddly enough), almost touchingly revealing. This production's Queen Gertrude had that haggard, 'wanna be young' angst seen in so many truly beautiful women once they hit fifty -- and I liked that she seemed to age as the battalions of misfortune kept coming in waves. Most importantly, I liked that the director allowed the TEXT to take center stage, rather than some radical new interpretational agenda. For once, a director that allows the audience to draw their own conclusions.