St-Georges

Hamlet's my favourite Shakespeare so I was dubious but I have to say the story suited a modernization like this... especially enjoyed the monologues to digicam and of course Bill Murray as Polonius stole the scene and maybe the entire film.

8/10
marcella_munro@ - first review
24.9.2003 - age: 26-35

Yeah I did and it was great- I very much like the Hamlet book only difference is the time period and few other stuff.

10/10
isha_wiana@ - first review
13.4.2002 - age: 18-25

They could of changed the language...

6/10
magic_boyoo@ - 6 reviews
15.2.2002 - age: 18-25

To be or not to be... I thought this was a really interesting & cool way to do the Shakespeare classic. Close to the play, but totally modern. And no one does angst like Ethan Hawke. My favourite part? Bill Murray doing Shakespeare, now that, that amused me to no end. Oh what a rogue and peasant slave am I, unfortunately, too true...

7/10
parkerd891770802@ - 117 reviews
8.5.2001 - age: 26-35

[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
After having read, studied, and seen numerous adaptations of Hamlet, I expected more from this film. Also, after hearing how it compared to that other modern-day adaptation of Shakespeare, Romeo + Juliet, I expected a similarly MTV-influenced film. Sadly, while there were some clever ideas, and certain wonderful performances--Gertrude, Laertes, and Ophelia were marvelously portrayed--this film lacked direction and coherence. The spirit of the play was lost, and only strands of the narrative functioned. True, Ophelia's plight finally rang true. But this is only one element in a complex play that is deprived of its sense since the actors often seem merely mouthpieces, mouthing their lines without the meaning or poetry that they deserve. This film suffered from ill direction. It is the first time that I have been relieved when everyone falls down dead in the end of this great tragedy.

5/10
melanie_mortensen@ - 5 reviews
31.7.2000 - age: 26-35

This movie was the worst! I didn't understand a thing of it! I am sorry but I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone! Don'T go see it! Bye!

1/10
aymouni@ - 2 reviews
24.6.2000 - age: 13-17

What is all the fuss about? I don't understand the critical praise that is being bestowed on this film. It was long (even though it was only 2 hours) and slow with but a few glimmers of the greatness that is being bestowed upon it. Ethan Hawke... Enough already. But I would have to say that many of the supporting cast members were wonderful especially Julia Stiles, Liev Schreiber, and Kyle MacLachlan. Other than these performances, the movie is not worthwhile. I went home after watching this and re-watched Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead just to see a good adaptation of Hamlet.

5/10
area94@ - 14 reviews
16.6.2000

You cannot cut up Hamlet!! Do the writers think they are better than Shakespeare? Guess what, their not! Every word of this play is crucial to the plot that by ripping it apart they have completely destroyed any hopes for this movie. Scenes are missing, dialogue is not anonciated, and I bet half the actors don't understand what they are even saying.

1/10
hidden_aura@ - 3 reviews
11.6.2000 - age: 18-25

This movie may be true to the story of Hamlet in itself, however in itself is quite tedious. Slow. Photography not so hot. As for the dialogue, it spoils the whole plot or concept that wanted to be rendered. The quality of the sound makes the dialogue at certain points almost unintelligible, aside from the fact that, as mentioned by another opinion, of Elizabethean English, with hardly if any change in the text. So, very briefly, if you have no idea of what the real Hamlet is about, you don't know what's happening. Personally, knowing the story, I walked out after about 40 minutes of struggling to understand what the characters were saying. I think this sums it all!

4/10
nona@ - 3 reviews
10.6.2000 - age: 50+

First recommendation: Read HAMLET by Shakespeare. Then determine if the movie is true to the play. I have found it so. Altough the language was Elizabethan English, they have eased the usage to fit the times, and Hamlet's madness just shines through. Of course the movie may not have as much depth as the play, but it has to be the most skillful modern adaptation of a Shakespeare play I have ever seen. I could truly empathize with the characters and understand what drives them to their desperate situations. There's more that can be said, but it is better if you see the movie and judge for yourself.

10/10
msobha@ - 4 reviews
6.6.2000 - age: 18-25

[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Since the early '90s, there have been several attempts to bring Shakespeare's plays to the screen, updated to our post-modern age and basically for a teenage audience. After Men of Respect, Romeo+Juliet, A Thousand Acres, My Own Private Idaho, 10 Things I Hate About You, Romeo Must Die, the upcoming O, Michael Almereyda's Hamlet (in this case, the mother of all Shakespeare's plays) is the latest attempt. Although one should give this film credit for succeeding in its parts, it does not adequately capture the essence of Hamlet. My first complaint is the mouthing of Shakespeare's words: almost no one in this film makes any effort to articulate or pronounce them in an urgent manner. It's as though the plot has replaced the poetry of the lines. Some actors are even incomprehensible: Sam Shepard's Ghost, Horatio, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, are all examples of this, especially the latter's messages left on the answering machine. On the other hand, one should give high marks to Julia Stiles' Ophelia: never in recent memory was there an actor on film who said so little yet conveyed so much. She is excellent! So is Liev Schreiber, whose Laertes bristles with all the right emotions. As Hamlet, Ethan Hawke is fine because he looks so sullen and morose all the time. Kyle McLachlan is menacing enough as Claudius, but I thought Diane Venora's Gertrude looked a little too young to be Hamlet's mother. Finally, Bill Murray: all the reviews I've read of this film praise his acting, but I didn't see what all the fuss was about. He was good is one scene ("Brevity is the soul of wit"), but then almost everyone is good in one scene or another in this film, and that is what makes the film watchable most of the time. Hamlet's scene in Gertrude's bedroom, for example, works, but the fencing scene at the end does not, because it is difficult to imagine anyone settling a bet in this century in this fashion. This said, the use of electronic media in the film is very effective and clever, because video and computers are so much a part of our lives. For this reason, making Hamlet a filmmaker was ingenious, but changing Denmark to a corporation and Elsinore to a hotel was not; we are not told the corporation's business, what's at stake, or why should Claudius want to kill his brother (lust for Gertrude? ). Why do these people live in a hotel? Why is this film set in New York? Except for some aerial shots, the Guggenheim Museum, (another scene that works well, by the way), the city is almost nonexistent as the setting of the film. The choices made by the filmmaker leave unanswered questions. As a result, individual scenes are good, but the sum of Hamlet is much less than its parts.

6/10
tufenkjian.viken@ - first review
3.6.2000 - age: 36-49

An Excellent Shakkesphere movie to watch. I owuld recommand this movie to any ages viewers. It is interesting and it has a great story, just as good as the book itself. I really enjoyed it alot. Great Movie! :))) Actors were also great.

10/10
nayagirl@ - 112 reviews
1.6.2000 - age: 18-25

Note: The user reviews posted on this page are personal opinions of our visitors. We are not responsible for their content.