Watch Hamlet For Free

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Redundant and unnecessary.

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.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

If you can't stand the idea of a Shakespeare play being staged outside of it's historical context, then perhaps this is the exception that proves the rule. It's mostly down to the sets, and presumably the lack of acquaintance for most audiences anywhere with the country in which it is supposed to take place, in the time it is supposed to take place, but mostly just the very beautiful sets, which place it in a strange, elegant landscape of the internal workings of the characters, but it's not abstract, it's not in limbo, and it works very, very well. Though I suppose the nature of the play helps just a little bit.It isn't without any historical specificity at all, it seems to have a World War One feel to it, as a point of reference. David Tennant is very watchable. Occasionally it becomes a little too modern, some of the CCTV shots are annoying (though the idea is is used very nicely on the whole), and the business with the home-movie camera is a little jarring. The interpretation of the dialogue and content is excellent; nothing in any way pretentious or forced about it.Surprising, riveting, very enjoyable, proper full on Shakespeare.

Not having seen the stage performance, I can only comment on the DVD version. And, while having some nice touches, the filmed version just doesn't really work as it seems to be stuck between two mediums: a filmed stage production and an attempt to actually create a film version.Some of the touches that try to exploit the film medium work, such as the CCTV footage, though only at times. It is a neat touch during the first appearance of the ghost and also when Hamlet tears down a camera to be alone during the "Rogue and Peasant Slave" soliloquy. Most other times it seemed an odd interruption used solely to break up the static visuals. Same goes for Hamlet filming the Mousetrap, which just seems like an odd choice thrown in to make it seem more film-y.Having the characters face the camera and breaking the fourth wall sits rather uncomfortably as it isn't done with enough consistency. Implicating the viewer as a direct audience has to have a real good reason and that just isn't given in most of Hamlet's soliloquies or when other characters try to draw us in.The acting, as well, seems to be more for the stage than for the camera and thus seems a bit over the top, such as Hamlet's histrionics and Claudius' elaborate shrug upon drinking the poisoned wine. I am sure this played better on stage. Tennant, especially, is not subtle enough most of the times, hindered by blocking that apparently comes right out of the stage production.What I found intriguing was that it's one of the Hamlets that moves "To be or not to be..." to Act II, an interesting change that can make sense if presented correctly and it made sense here.So, all in all, a credible take on Hamlet, but I feel the director and producers should have decided on either producing a full-scale film version or a filmed version of the stage production. As it is, it tries to straddle both mediums and falls short on either side. Branagh's 1996 version still stands as the ultimate filmed Hamlet for me.

It was more out of curiosity than anything else that I rented this DVD from Netflix. I have always adored Patrick Stewart and have recently been introduced to David Tennant as the Tenth "Doctor Who". I think everyone is somewhat familiar with the story. Uncle Claudius(Stewart) kills the king and usurps the throne by marrying the widow. Hamlet(Tennant), the son finds out about the duplicity and plots to kill him. Stewart's "Claudius" is distinctly kindly and menacing at the same time. Stewart is always exceptional and his cool performance stole the show. It was difficult to know what to make of Tennant's "Hamlet". I made it a point to try not to think of "Dr. Who". It's always easy to see an actor as one character and not another. At the beginning I found his performance rather scattered, but after the "...to be or not to be..." speech the performance settled down. Although a bit long, I thought it a great movie, very tense and somewhat melancholy.

I enjoyed the modern setting of this production, which, lacking period frills, brings across more of the daily life of the palace than is usually shown; I enjoyed the clarity of the readings, especially in the interactions between Polonius and his children; and I enjoyed Penny Downie's atypically neurotic Gertrude.On the other hand, Patrick Stewart seemed to me a very dull Claudius. When he played the part opposite Derek Jacobi in an earlier TV production, he did it in his earlier, blood-and-thunder mode; this time it's in his post-STNG, mild-mannered mode, as everybody's nice uncle (who just happens to have murdered Dad). And to me the conceit of everyone's being on surveillance video all the time just became a nuisance.Then there was David Tennant. I can't see Hamlet as being at all the same character as the Doctor (Who) in any of his incarnations, and so he probably shouldn't be played in the same way. Moreover, a lot of what Tennant carries over isn't really the Doctor, but the actor doing whatever he feels like, which usually is to play the prat. He could get by with it on the series, and might as one of Shakespeare's fools, but how could Hamlet be anything like this? I begin to understand better how the expression "ham" came into being.