I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Too much of everything

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

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

The most memorable part of this movie was when Hamlet was walking around the video rental store. Wow, this really does come off as an old story. Anyway, this movie is an updating of Hamlet in modern times and it wasn't quite handled that well. It's probably because they try to use the old dialogue in the modern times. It does come off as awkward. I still thought that the pacing was pretty good. I think Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are becoming my favorite Hamlet characters. We get the ghost of Hamlet's father and everything else.It's just that there was nothing unique about this version. I guess the longest movie I've ever seen in my entire life that adapts the same story would be a tough act to follow. It's still faithful to the original story. The actors aren't bad. It's just that they aren't bringing anything particularly interesting to the table. I guess when you see the same story over and over you get a bit tired of it. It's still interesting to see a modern version. **1/2

Michael Almereyda's Hamlet gets one major thing right and that's being a near-perfect representation of its respective time period - the 2000's. The film looks like most of its props were donated from a closing down Circuit City, as tube Televisions, Polaroid cameras, video rental cases, VHS tapes, and other odds and ends of technology populate the film almost as ubiquitously as beloved characters like Ophelia, Gertrude, and Claudius.Watching Hamlet, often billed as Hamlet 2000 for good reason, in the present day is fun because it seems like the direction Almereyda wanted to take got lost in the mix of keeping Shakespeare's original play dialog in the screenplay. From the opening minutes of the film, where Hamlet sees the ghost of his father on closed-circuit Television, it's almost as if the film is playing the story of Hamlet like a technological thriller - an undoubtedly subversive move for the anthologized play. The problem with this is because Shakespeare's original dialog is kept as the screenplay, Almereyda muddles any kind of concept and believable modernization potential this story had.The same sort of bastardization took place with Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, which had actors like Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes spouting Shakespeare's original play dialog whilst holding handguns and driving cars glossed with candy-colored paint. The concept was intriguing, but the fact that no attempt was made in efforts to modernize or alter Shakespeare's original words to mesh with the appropriate time period and perhaps add a clearer focus on the story's themes resulted in a frustrating and ultimately lackluster slog through dialog that frequently seemed impossible to discern and follow during much of the film's action.Hamlet makes the same mistake; when reading Shakespeare, one can stop and reread and go back and analyze what exactly is being said, something even I, a committed English major, have difficulty doing in one sitting. Watching a play of Shakespeare's acted before you helps showcase character emotions better than if you just read the words to yourself, but watching a film that makes an attempt to subvert the material while making you sit through and analyze the film's classically written dialog and multitude of character relations is a frustrating chore on part of the audience.Because of this, one can't really appreciate the obsessive brooding of Ethan Hawke, who plays Hamlet here in a way that is defined by slicked-back/unkempt hair, black sweaters, and a bitter, unforgiving facial expression sustained throughout most of the film, nor can they really admire the sinister Claudius played by the underrated Kyle MacLachlin. The relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia (Julia Stiles) is also criminally shortchanged, to the point where the famous "nunnery" scene doesn't even seem to hold waterweight because of the sterile dialog that doesn't fit the time nor the setting.Certain moments of Hamlet more-or-less send sputters of originality, especially when the technological side plays into the story. The storyarch made to connect Hamlet with the year 2000 is how Claudius took over Hamlet's father's and his brother's company, Denmark Corporation. Just from that detail, combined with an increasingly technological landscape often appearing to haunt and toy with Hamlet's psyche, one would expect a biting tech thriller defined largely by Hamlet's deteriorating mental state in the face of complex equipment.While that theme is certainly embedded in Almereyda's film, it's practically smothered underneath the frequently impenetrably delivered dialog and stunted performances. Bill Murray's Polonius and Liev Schreiber's Laertes are brutally miscast and seem to be struggling at delivering the period-specific lines of Shakespeare in a retelling of Hamlet that is largely defined in reference and depiction by the year in which it takes place. The result is a misguided rehash of one of the most beloved stories in history, succumbing to traditionalism rather than pushing boundaries of complete and total revisionism; it's like having everything from a camera, a quality condenser microphone, a boom, and some of the nicest sets to shoot a movie and opting for a picture collage with no audio-track instead.Starring: Ethan Hawke, Kyle MacLachlan, Diane Venora, Liev Schreiber, Julia Stiles, Bill Murrary, Karl Geary, Steve Zahn, and Sam Shepard. Directed by: Michael Almereyda.

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.

Hamlet (2000) was adapted to the screen and directed by Michael Almereyda. This Hamlet is set in contemporary New York City, but Almereyda has retained Shakespeare's language. Naturally, this makes for anachronisms and awkward moments. However, the transformation from Denmark as a nation to Denmark as a giant corporation worked for me. (Normally, I like Hamlet to be set in medieval Denmark, Romeo and Juliet in Renaissance Verona, etc. However, this particular leap over the centuries was interesting and effective.)For example, Hamlet's soliloquies work brilliantly on the stage, but they're a daunting challenge to a film director. Almereyda solves the problem by having Hamlet speaking into a video camcorder, so that we can hear him, although he's literally talking to himself.Ethan Hawke as Hamlet was excellent. He's a talented, solid actor in any movie in which he appears. He's even better in Hamlet--sullen and disaffected, with scorn for his mother's corporate lifestyle. Kyle MacLachlan plays Claudius, obviously a no-nonsense executive. With his cold demeanor and Cary Grant good looks, you can understand why Gertrude was drawn to him.To my mind the acting honors belonged to Julia Stiles as Ophelia. Stiles was 19 when the movie was made, and she was able to combine the eye-rolling behavior of an adolescent at one moment with the hurt, betrayed feelings of a young adult at the next moment. (One decision that Almereyda made didn't make sense to me. It looked as if Ophelia lived alone in a rough tenement building, which doesn't fit Shakespeare or NYC in the year 2000.) However, Stiles, with her exotic good looks, carried off her role like a seasoned professional.I greatly enjoyed this movie, and I was amazed to see that it has a truly dismal IMDb rating of 6.0. Why? In my opinion, the film's much, much, better than that. My suggestion--rent or buy the DVD, see Ethan Hawke as Hamlet, and then judge for yourself.