Watch Hamlet For Free

I love this movie so much

Very disappointing...

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

WARNING: If you want to spoil Shakespeare forever, see this movie!Almereyda both directed and adapted the play for the screen. Shakespeare's script is butchered. Some famous soliloquies are missing; some cut up and thrown all over the place; and some cut off mid-stream. The directing was okay, but I cannot forgive this man for taking Shakespeare's words and defecating all over them. He shows absolutely no respect for the originals, not that adapting is bad. I've seen wonderful adaptations of Shakespeare's plays, but this one is a true abomination.Some aspects of the screenplay make absolutely no sense. For example, what is the purpose of the Bill Clinton news clip in the middle of one of Hamlet's soliloquies? And one of the last shots, a vapor trail of a jet flying over some statue! Was that supposed to be one of the "flights of angels" singing Hamlet to his rest? Granted, artistic license and freedom of expression, but good grief! This was pathetic.

A terrific updating, using Shakespeare's language, but set in modern corporate New York City. Beautifully shot, on a shockingly low budget for it's lush, complex look, with amazing use of New York locations. Hawke is very good, and most of the rest of the cast, including Bill Murray (to my surprise, doing Shakespeare), Kyle MacLachlan, and Diane Venora are first rate. More important this is a re-telling that really uses the film medium, and makes us re-think a classic in a new way, while being terrifically entertaining along the way. It makes the simple humanity and complex ideas under the Shakespearian poetry as clear as any production I've ever seen, on stage or film.Obviously controversial, and not for purists, but well worth seeing to decide for yourself.

A truth I think is often overlooked when it comes to regarding movies is that a good movie is more than a good idea. Sometimes I get the feeling that people will indulge themselves with certain movies, and very eagerly try to convince you of their greatness, by enlightening what, in theory, is so good about them. There can be all these things going on inside of a movie, all these themes and many original ideas. Yes, certainly, but is it any good? I get the feeling that some movies will get critical and audience approval, sometimes even hail, just because most movies aren't that original.This Hamlet strikes me as such a movie. The Shakespeare tragedy, in unaltered words though heavily cut, set in a modern New York City with all suitable alterations you'd imagine. As far as I can see, these alterations is the only attraction given. The kingdom of Denmark is now a corporation called Denmark, the young prince is now the kind of quasi- intellectual, very post-MTVish kind of sad puppy (Ethan Hawke) that plays with his video editing equipment all night long. His speeches take place not within castle walls but along the shelfs of a video store and, yeah, I don't know... really? Some of these modern translations work better than others: the best ones tend to be smaller details, like the doorbell with Ophelia's name written on it by her apartment building. The worst are fairly laughable - the finale is specially anti-climactic and that must be the most unspectacular vision of the ghost of Hamlet's father ever (he vanishes by a Pepsi machine in some random corridor).But these alterations are besides the point, or at least I feel they SHOULD be besides the point. But if I stop taking notes about these alterations and focus on the movie in itself - I find that I don't really know what I'm watching. What was the point of making this movie? Most Hamlet adaptations - be it Branagh's 4 hour epic or Zeffirelli's weird adventure/thriller spin - has the guts to take the source material more or less by the roots and try to make something new out of it. This one does very little (dare I say nothing at all?) for the actual play. This Hamlet is obviously one of those Hamlets done for the sake of it being Hamlet. It's like "you see that! That's 'to be or not to be' in the video store! And that is James Dean, basically, as the Player King". But the self-referencing lacks any kind of substance other than being a, sometimes pretty, visual trivia game. It lacks a rhyme and reason of it's own, which becomes very clear when our Hamlet is watching a stage play of Hamlet himself! That is not cool, that is just stupid. Talk about self-referencing gone overboard!The absence of clear ambition and direction is even more tangible when we get to the acting department. Rarely have I seen a more disjointed group of actors. There exists almost no convincing chemistry between any of the characters and the actors themselves are stale and awkward, as if they really don't know how they are supposed to do this. You remember Jack Lemmon in Branagh's Hamlet? That's the entire ensemble here. Ethan Hawke is merely reading lines with a theatrical voice, Diane Venora does a professional but totally automatic sob-sob performance as Gertrude, Liev Schreiber takes on another ambitious role in Leartes but ends up performing very little of it anyway, I really don't know what Jula Stiles was doing and who provided Horatio with whatever he's on? I liked Kyle MacLachlan the most, just because I couldn't detect any visible failure in his performance and I was surprised that Bill Murray actually tried to play Polonius instead of, well, playing Bill Murray. I'm not sure if his performance is good, but at least it's ambitious.All in all, 'tis strange - Why was this movie made? For whom? What was the point? If you are familiar with the play, there is no need to see this movie except for the trivial reason of having seen a modern adaption - and I sense most Hamlet-fans are obsessive enough to check this out just for the sake of it (after all, I did). And if you're not then I can only imagine what a confusing and incoherent ordeal this movie must be to sit through. The best thing you can say about this piece-by-piece shifting of Shakespeare's Mideval Denmark to New York in 2000 is that it's "hum, hum, kinda cool I guess". But then what?

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.