BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

jmar1978 There are a number of things I like about this adaptation of Hamlet. The setting in yuppie New York works well, and a couple of the performances are strong. The play with technology -- the lines coming over answering machines and phones, the wire on Ophelia in 3.1, and the play in 1.1 with security cameras was clever.But in the end, Shakespeare is about language, and that's what sinks this film. The cast's enunciation and diction are so weak that they sap the life out of the play. The worst at this, hands down, is Bill Murray as Polonius, who has no business in a show like this (he's great in his own idiom, and this is not his idiom).I recall that when Joseph Mankiewicz cast Marlon Brando as Mark Antony in his splendid Julius Caesar (1953), he had Brando work for weeks with John Gielgud (who played Cassius) to get his diction in order. The actors in this film needed some coaching of the same sort.

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.

sarastro7 There has never yet been a Shakespeare movie that took place in the present day which worked well artistically and aesthetically. In opera, modern productions frequently work well, but it's harder with Shakespeare, because he is so poetic that the surroundings need to reflect it, lest they undermine the poetic integrity. The milieu can't be pedestrian, and the words can't be casually and mumblingly delivered. In Almereyda's Hamlet, everything is pedestrian. There are great actors on hand, but they are never given the opportunity to shine. There is no depth of either intellect or comedy here (as Stanley Wells has remarked, Hamlet is the most comical of all the tragedies), and as others have mentioned it is particularly ironic to cast Bill Murray in the role of the play's comic relief character and then have him be serious throughout. Sigh. There is occasional decent acting from Schreiber, Styles and Venora, but I have nothing good to say about the rest. They can do much better, but the director must have failed to inspire them.The movie is a mess. All right, so it is trying to make some analogous points about a struggling film-maker, but it doesn't work well. To replace the medium of the play with the medium of the film as the thing in which the king's conscience will be caught is not a very interesting point, as plays and movies are so similar anyway.There were a couple of things I liked. I liked having the "To be or not to be" speech in the "Action" aisle of the video store, because that speech really is much more about action than about death. I also liked how Julia Stiles made it very apparent that the cause of Ophelia's madness was her powerful love for him, which he didn't requite. I don't think this is necessarily the best interpretation of what happens, but at least it is a clear one.But a main reason the movie is a mess is that the text is so chopped up. Omissions are inevitable lest the movie runs 4 hours, but it should be done with great care. Using the text selectively, and moving it around, always runs the risk of seriously undermining Shakespeare's points and messages, and one therefore needs a tremendously detailed understanding of the text (and its best interpretations) in order to edit it sensibly. Sadly, Almereyda does not possess such understanding.The movie is not completely awful; it is watchable, but most things about it just aren't very good. The characters often don't speak clearly, which debases (yes, debases!) Shakespeare's language, and the modern surroundings tend to be dull, dull, dull. Of the twelve different Hamlets I have seen on DVD, I'm afraid this one is nothing less than the worst of the lot.4 out of 10.

Heislegend 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.