Mike Myrtil Incest, Ghosts, Revenge, Death. This movie has it all, and the dysfunctional royal family is the start of it all. Most notably, "King" Claudius. Actually everyone should point fingers at him. Even the ghost did, which is reasonable because the spectre happens to be the real King Halmet. David Tennent is a phenomenal actor because he plays a Hamcrazy character that can turn from serious to "off his rocker" in a matter of a few lines. His soliloquy is lengthy and spot-on with Shakespearean's original motives. Tennent's character, Hamlet, is a Dutch prince bent on revenge for his fathers death. Not only did he suspected the new king, his own uncle, to be the murderer, but he has an extreme distaste for his mother, who was married to the now dead king, to marry his uncle a minute after the original king's "death." So yeah, this family is a dysfunctional as you can get. Speaking of the sinful Claudius, of the devil actually, by him betraying and offing his brother, he sets forth a chain of events that eventually gets everyone that has a name killed. Well, except for two lucky characters but we'll get to that later. Unfortunately, most of the bloodshed happens near the end so save your bloodlust for later. Patrick Stewart, who plays Claudius, already has a strong background in acting with the X-men movie series and the Star Trek TV series on his resume. So he's a very capable actor and it shows in this movie. Playing the role of a kind-hearted king who has dark secrets was not easy and Picard, I mean Patrick pulled it off with aplomb. After Claudius was semi-exposed by semi-crazy Hamlet, he started becoming a big dutchkill and wanted Hamlet gone out of his castle. Penny Downie plays Gertrude that is basically in the movie just for the incest set-piece. Horatio, Hamlet's best friend, is the luckiest guy in the world to live in that castle and somehow not end up dead. Almost (wink). Robert Curtis, who plays Fortinbras, is such a good actor that he was Fortingone for the entirety of the movie. There's no need because he is a Norwegian prince that can do what he wants, wage wars, and take over thrones of other countries. This movie's target audience would be Britons, conquering princes, murdering kings, incestuous Queens, Shakespeare fanboys, the 16th century, and English teachers across the world.

Adam Stockman The first thing I have to say is that the actors were very clear; not a line was lost. I didn't have any difficulty following the story and understanding the characters. That said I have quite a few critical issues with this particular production:David Tennant's Hamlet was a distraction and a nuisance. In a way, it felt like I was watching Jim Carrey in Ace Ventura. He was incredibly goofy and silly throughout, painting a portrait of Hamlet that more or less resembled a cartoon than a human being. He was very literal in his interpretation of madness… to the extent of going cross-eyed and twirling his finger in circles by his temple with a whistle. In a way, it felt as though all the other actors did plenty of work in developing their characters, and while I have no way of proving such a claim, I felt Tennant simply waltzed into the theatre memorized and disconnected.This particular production was not in front of an audience. It was specially constructed for the camera and the actors did not need to project as they would in a theatre space. However consistency was lacking. At times the actors adjusted appropriately for the intimacy of the camera, while at others they were too extravagant to fit the parameters of the screen (namely, Tennant, along with the actors playing Horatio and Marcellus). The actors playing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were far too coarse with their comedy (I blame the director for this), accompanied by silly music to tell the audience this is supposed to be funny; their scenes came off boring more than anything, and foreign to the play's established style. In a positive critical assessment, I must applaud Patrick Stuart who marvelously brought to life both Claudius and the dead King Hamlet. His presence always filled the room. He wore the crown of royalty as one should… as a regal as a god with the unwelcome humility of a man. His scenes were a breath of fresh air, and served as a healthy balance to counter Hamlet's loopy madness. Additionally, John Woodvine's Player/King, with his deep resonant voice, captivated me along with the characters as he told the tale of Pyrrhus. That too helped bring the play back to earth in an emotionally grounding way. I held my breath for the Woodvine's every word. No tricks or cuts were needed; he was enough to fill every viewer's living room.RSC's Hamlet was really driven and ultimately succeeded because of the powerhouse performances of its two female leads. Penny Downie's Gertrude was spectacular. She was brimming with an unbridled carnal lust intermixed with the nervous guilt that climaxes full force in the bedroom scene with Hamlet. Where one expects Gertrude to weep, she laughs and does so with so much anguish your stomach churns for her. But if anyone's performance could be called truly haunting, it is Mariah Gale's Ophelia. At the top she seems sweet enough; virginal, hopeful and poetic in absorbing the banter of those closest to her. Even as the players play she was complete and commendable for being so after Hamlet's "get thee to a nunnery" nonsense. This is a stark contrast from the Ophelia we encounter after Polonius's death. Her singing and garbled gibberish, intercepted by outbursts of a petrifying scream, was frightening. The messy hair, dark eye shadow, and bloody scratches on her arms helped drive the point, but her performance was enough. Her madness in this production may have been an intentional tool to contrast Hamlet's "appearance of madness" and a mind truly shattered. Her two scenes after Polonius's death, prior to her suicide, were enough to enrich the entire play and atone for it's less than praiseworthy elements.Set in present-day, I would have appreciated more consistency as the atmosphere seemed to jump back and forth from archaic to contemporary. I had expected a polished diamond of a play, being produced by RSC, and what I experienced was a pretty stone caked in crud. Tennant was my biggest problem and to enjoy the play I had to ignore the title character. With that accomplished, the production was top notch and the ensemble was spectacular. It's a shame they didn't showcase a versatile undiscovered talent for the main character instead of casting a commercially recognized name. The play would have been richer for it.

david-sarkies One wonders if this Shakespeare play has been over done in the film department. If you type it into IMDb it comes up with 73 links under the title (though some may be repeats or attempted sequels). However, the main ones that come to mind are the Kenneth Branagh version and the Mel Gibson version. This version, however, was originally performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company (I have seen their version of a Midsummers Night Dream, and it was brilliant) and they decided to bring the actors from the stage play and make a TV version of it. I didn't know that this version existed until I searched Amazon and what caught my attention was that Patrick Stewart (Captain Picard and Professor X) as well as David Tennant (Dr Who) had taken major roles in the production.We all know about Hamlet, and a lot can be said of the play itself, however I do not intend to go over old ground here but rather focus on the production itself. I must say that it was brilliant. While it has a modern setting, the setting actually takes a back seat to the play itself. This, to me, is a sign of a brilliant production as the setting simply takes a backdrop and adds colour to what is essentially one of Shakespeare's most popular works. This is something that did not happen with Ian McKellan's Richard III.There were a number of aspects that attracted me to the film, one of them being the extensive use of security cameras. It almost created a similar feel to Paranormal Activity, though the cameras were used sparingly. The second aspect was the shattered mirror. It was the shattered mirror that really caught my attention, and then after Polonius is shot, the shattered mirror seems to dominate the play from that point. We are constantly taken past it and to me this is suggestive of one of the major themes in the play, and that is how Claudius' world is falling apart. His dream of stealing the kingdom from his brother is shattered by Hamlet who is burning up inside with anger towards Claudius. Once again, it is not that Claudius stole the throne, but rather that he killed his father and married his mother.One of the reviews that I read suggested that David Tennant successfully shed the character of Dr Who in this film, however I must disagree. While I thought Tennant played the role very well, in a number of cases his madness reflected the eccentricity of the doctor. This is not surprising as I suspect that each of the actors that play the Doctor tend to bring bits of their own personality into the role so while they may go off and do other things, that aspect of their character that they took into the role of Doctor Who will tend to stick to them. However, with the exception of Peter Davidson, many of the actors that played the Doctor never really went onto anything afterwards.As for Patrick Stewart, he is brilliant. He plays a very calm and collected Claudius. While at first when Stewart began to take on other roles after Star Trek one would chuckle and think, 'gee, Captain Picard', I do believe he does not carry that stigma with him. Further, when one realises that Stewart is a Shakespearian actor more than the star of a Science-fiction soap opera, one begins to appreciate his acting skills.When it comes to Hamlet, it is not the play, the plot, or the theme that will carry the movie because we all know the play (or I hope we do). No, it is the actors and their portrayal of the characters that carries the plays. As mentioned about, the background can help, but in many cases the background should really stay in the background, unless it helps to emphasise and reflect the themes in the way that the shattered mirror in this version does.

pdwebbsite Being an American rather new to Shakespeare, I have come to discover that Hamlet is my favorite play, and as of today the David Tennant and Patrick Stewart version provides the breakthrough to understanding this complicated play. I have watched all versions of Hamlet available and was quick to check out the newest one; however, Patrick Stewart was the only familiar actor to me. I have not a clue who Dr. Who might be. Just as well, as that might have tainted my view of Mr. Tennant's acting. Most contemporary productions of Shakespeare border on silly (Leonardo D's version of Romeo and Juliet) to ridiculous (Ethan Hawke's Hamlet), but this version rocks, to use an overused phrase.I thought the juxtaposition of Shakespeare Old English in a Modern Setting worked amazingly well. The talents of the cast came together superbly (wished for a different Ophelia though). Polonius reminded me of a more dignified version of Bill Murray's treatment, but still caught the pompous drift of the character. Horatio played the devoted and loyal friend to great satisfaction. His Roman to the death speech had me crying all three times I watched the dramatization. I thought Tennant's version of Hamlet contained a measured lunacy, the intelligent fool who had mostly everyone fooled. The To Be soliloquy had the right intensity and then in a moment Tennant switches to Guarded Lover with Ophelia and Knave of Fools to Polonius.I'm up for another view after writing this. Three hours spin by as I absorb new nuances and understanding. What a marvelous way to spend the afternoon.