I've read over the comments of other IMDB users and I have to say that a Hamlet which doesn't provoke disagreement and controversy is a rarity indeed...
The cast is solid but, for the large part, not very memorable. Hawke glooms and mopes his way through the part, but doesn't seem to have any particular insight - or even opinion - about Hamlet's motives. I understand Kyle MacLachlan has his roots in Shakespeare, but even he wasn't particularly stellar. The applause for Bill Murray is, I think, a "waltzing bear" situation - it's not how nicely the bear waltzes that matters, but that it waltzes at all... Ditto for Liev Schriber, although I thought her sullen Ophelia was a pleasant break from the traditional reading of Ophelia as a prissy schoolgirl. Overall, a competent cast, but not a breath-taking one.
The overall adaptation *is* a challenge for the purist. I'm one, myself, and it took me most of the first act to relax and accept Almereyda's vision. But if person is going to watch another person's interpretation of a play, then the viewer must be willing to accept that there might be a difference of opinion 'twixt themselves and the director.
I wasn't entirely happy with some of the decisions made when it came to cutting the text and presenting certain scenes - I'll agree with some other users' comments that the final scene, in particular, seems careless and rushed - but it's an unfortunate truth that to keep Shakespeare accessible to modern audiences, some cuts have to be made. Purists will gladly sit through Brannagh's 240 minutes of uncut melancholy-Dane, but not everyone is a purist - far from it.
The surprising strength of this adaptation was the complete use of cinema in telling the story. Critics might call some moments coy - soliliquies to video journals and bitter messages left on answering machines instead of true dialogue - but cinema exists to take such things as a centuries-old play *beyond* the stage - rendering it more accessible to a contemporary audience. Yes, the occasional quick-cuts and abrupt scene shifts mean you have to pay attention to the visuals, whilst relishing the language but... cinema is a visual medium. And, surely, Hamlet deserves close attention?
Providing you are willing to concede that "Hamlet" is a flexible enough story to be told in a truly cinematic way, then this production can be enjoyed.
The cast is solid but, for the large part, not very memorable. Hawke glooms and mopes his way through the part, but doesn't seem to have any particular insight - or even opinion - about Hamlet's motives. I understand Kyle MacLachlan has his roots in Shakespeare, but even he wasn't particularly stellar. The applause for Bill Murray is, I think, a "waltzing bear" situation - it's not how nicely the bear waltzes that matters, but that it waltzes at all... Ditto for Liev Schriber, although I thought her sullen Ophelia was a pleasant break from the traditional reading of Ophelia as a prissy schoolgirl. Overall, a competent cast, but not a breath-taking one.
The overall adaptation *is* a challenge for the purist. I'm one, myself, and it took me most of the first act to relax and accept Almereyda's vision. But if person is going to watch another person's interpretation of a play, then the viewer must be willing to accept that there might be a difference of opinion 'twixt themselves and the director.
I wasn't entirely happy with some of the decisions made when it came to cutting the text and presenting certain scenes - I'll agree with some other users' comments that the final scene, in particular, seems careless and rushed - but it's an unfortunate truth that to keep Shakespeare accessible to modern audiences, some cuts have to be made. Purists will gladly sit through Brannagh's 240 minutes of uncut melancholy-Dane, but not everyone is a purist - far from it.
The surprising strength of this adaptation was the complete use of cinema in telling the story. Critics might call some moments coy - soliliquies to video journals and bitter messages left on answering machines instead of true dialogue - but cinema exists to take such things as a centuries-old play *beyond* the stage - rendering it more accessible to a contemporary audience. Yes, the occasional quick-cuts and abrupt scene shifts mean you have to pay attention to the visuals, whilst relishing the language but... cinema is a visual medium. And, surely, Hamlet deserves close attention?
Providing you are willing to concede that "Hamlet" is a flexible enough story to be told in a truly cinematic way, then this production can be enjoyed.