Mike Myrtil Incest, Ghosts, Revenge, Death. This movie has it all, and the dysfunctional royal family is the start of it all. Most notably, "King" Claudius. Actually everyone should point fingers at him. Even the ghost did, which is reasonable because the spectre happens to be the real King Halmet. David Tennent is a phenomenal actor because he plays a Hamcrazy character that can turn from serious to "off his rocker" in a matter of a few lines. His soliloquy is lengthy and spot-on with Shakespearean's original motives. Tennent's character, Hamlet, is a Dutch prince bent on revenge for his fathers death. Not only did he suspected the new king, his own uncle, to be the murderer, but he has an extreme distaste for his mother, who was married to the now dead king, to marry his uncle a minute after the original king's "death." So yeah, this family is a dysfunctional as you can get. Speaking of the sinful Claudius, of the devil actually, by him betraying and offing his brother, he sets forth a chain of events that eventually gets everyone that has a name killed. Well, except for two lucky characters but we'll get to that later. Unfortunately, most of the bloodshed happens near the end so save your bloodlust for later. Patrick Stewart, who plays Claudius, already has a strong background in acting with the X-men movie series and the Star Trek TV series on his resume. So he's a very capable actor and it shows in this movie. Playing the role of a kind-hearted king who has dark secrets was not easy and Picard, I mean Patrick pulled it off with aplomb. After Claudius was semi-exposed by semi-crazy Hamlet, he started becoming a big dutchkill and wanted Hamlet gone out of his castle. Penny Downie plays Gertrude that is basically in the movie just for the incest set-piece. Horatio, Hamlet's best friend, is the luckiest guy in the world to live in that castle and somehow not end up dead. Almost (wink). Robert Curtis, who plays Fortinbras, is such a good actor that he was Fortingone for the entirety of the movie. There's no need because he is a Norwegian prince that can do what he wants, wage wars, and take over thrones of other countries. This movie's target audience would be Britons, conquering princes, murdering kings, incestuous Queens, Shakespeare fanboys, the 16th century, and English teachers across the world.

Adam Stockman The first thing I have to say is that the actors were very clear; not a line was lost. I didn't have any difficulty following the story and understanding the characters. That said I have quite a few critical issues with this particular production:David Tennant's Hamlet was a distraction and a nuisance. In a way, it felt like I was watching Jim Carrey in Ace Ventura. He was incredibly goofy and silly throughout, painting a portrait of Hamlet that more or less resembled a cartoon than a human being. He was very literal in his interpretation of madness… to the extent of going cross-eyed and twirling his finger in circles by his temple with a whistle. In a way, it felt as though all the other actors did plenty of work in developing their characters, and while I have no way of proving such a claim, I felt Tennant simply waltzed into the theatre memorized and disconnected.This particular production was not in front of an audience. It was specially constructed for the camera and the actors did not need to project as they would in a theatre space. However consistency was lacking. At times the actors adjusted appropriately for the intimacy of the camera, while at others they were too extravagant to fit the parameters of the screen (namely, Tennant, along with the actors playing Horatio and Marcellus). The actors playing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were far too coarse with their comedy (I blame the director for this), accompanied by silly music to tell the audience this is supposed to be funny; their scenes came off boring more than anything, and foreign to the play's established style. In a positive critical assessment, I must applaud Patrick Stuart who marvelously brought to life both Claudius and the dead King Hamlet. His presence always filled the room. He wore the crown of royalty as one should… as a regal as a god with the unwelcome humility of a man. His scenes were a breath of fresh air, and served as a healthy balance to counter Hamlet's loopy madness. Additionally, John Woodvine's Player/King, with his deep resonant voice, captivated me along with the characters as he told the tale of Pyrrhus. That too helped bring the play back to earth in an emotionally grounding way. I held my breath for the Woodvine's every word. No tricks or cuts were needed; he was enough to fill every viewer's living room.RSC's Hamlet was really driven and ultimately succeeded because of the powerhouse performances of its two female leads. Penny Downie's Gertrude was spectacular. She was brimming with an unbridled carnal lust intermixed with the nervous guilt that climaxes full force in the bedroom scene with Hamlet. Where one expects Gertrude to weep, she laughs and does so with so much anguish your stomach churns for her. But if anyone's performance could be called truly haunting, it is Mariah Gale's Ophelia. At the top she seems sweet enough; virginal, hopeful and poetic in absorbing the banter of those closest to her. Even as the players play she was complete and commendable for being so after Hamlet's "get thee to a nunnery" nonsense. This is a stark contrast from the Ophelia we encounter after Polonius's death. Her singing and garbled gibberish, intercepted by outbursts of a petrifying scream, was frightening. The messy hair, dark eye shadow, and bloody scratches on her arms helped drive the point, but her performance was enough. Her madness in this production may have been an intentional tool to contrast Hamlet's "appearance of madness" and a mind truly shattered. Her two scenes after Polonius's death, prior to her suicide, were enough to enrich the entire play and atone for it's less than praiseworthy elements.Set in present-day, I would have appreciated more consistency as the atmosphere seemed to jump back and forth from archaic to contemporary. I had expected a polished diamond of a play, being produced by RSC, and what I experienced was a pretty stone caked in crud. Tennant was my biggest problem and to enjoy the play I had to ignore the title character. With that accomplished, the production was top notch and the ensemble was spectacular. It's a shame they didn't showcase a versatile undiscovered talent for the main character instead of casting a commercially recognized name. The play would have been richer for it.

esgaril I checked the spoiler check-box to be sure, but I don't think anyone would be surprised by the bits of storyline I'll reveal. :)I wasn't fortunate enough to see the production on stage, so I was very excited when I found out that they will release it on DVD. I watched it the day when finally arrived till 2 am and totally worth the next sleepy workday. I saw David Tennant in many roles and I think he's one of the most talented actors in his generation. He never fails to connect his character with me and I was curious to see his Hamlet. I wasn't disappointed. I saw quite a few Hamlets over the years, but this was the first when I was able to see the human behind the role. I don't know anything about the inner work of theater, I'm merely one of the audience, I only can say what I feel. Don't get me wrong, Kenneth Brannagh was an amazing Hamlet, but even he couldn't get Hamlet close to me. David Tennant did. He showed me the real meaning and depth of those beautiful words Shakespeare written. He made me feel all of Hamlet's pain and uncertainty, the educated man who not only lost his beloved father, had to see his mother married so close after the funeral, but witness an appearance of a ghost and based on its words he was expected to commit a murder. No wonder he was considering suicide to escape from all of this. I could totally understand, even sympathize with him like I never did before. This version of Hamlet is the most memorable for me because of his powerful performance.Also Sir Patrick Stewart was an authentic and subtle villain, the essence of the "smiling in your face than stab you in the back" type. His Claudius showed genuine love for Gertrude as well which was one of the main reasons why he murdered his own brother. I always felt that many actors (or directors) failed to put some focus on that. After all there should be some very good reason to kill your closest kin and it's not like Denmark was especially powerful or rich at the time with Fortinbras and his army at the borders.I also loved Penny Downie as the clueless, "goes with the flow" Gertrude, even if I wonder all the time that how is it possible that she doesn't suspect anything right until the bedroom scene. Penny made me think that maybe she does, only she choose not to see what happens in front of her eyes.Unfortunately I couldn't love Mariah Gale's Ophelia, I couldn't connected with her like I did with the others. Maybe it's my fault but I couldn't see her as the beautiful and intelligent young woman who worth of the love of the prince and who return his feelings so strongly, that when she lost him to the madness she takes her own first step to that way as well.This review gets quite long so just some quick words about the set: I think the modernization worked very well, the black, mirror-like floor, the security camera system helped me to rethink the play from a new viewpoint and showed it like it would be the first time anyone perform it. It seemed new and fresh to me and I wondered if that was the way (aside from the modern technique of course) they used to perform in the first days before the play was burdened with so much expectation and history.All in all, I highly recommend this movie for those who have never seen Hamlet before and for those who have seen a lot, but are open for some fresh version of it.

LeonardOsborneKael I'm all for new approaches to Hamlet - I truly LOVED Branagh's portrayal of Hamlet as "everyman". And I'd love to see a modern-day version that really works! (Sorry - not Ethan Hawke's). Mel Gibson's Hamlet was nicely filmed and might have gotten at least a B+ if not for his annoying habit of wagging his head from side to side on every line. Sadly, in the Royal Shakespeare Company's version, almost everything that can be done to ruin the play has been incorporated. Hamlet speaks the lines intended to be spoken introspectively to himself - to the camera! And likewise with the Sililoquoy - during which he keeps glancing just off-camera - as if looking at a cue card! And just whose idea was it to play Hamlet as a cross between Pee Wee Herman and Monty Python's "Upper Class Twit Of The Year" anyway? Hamlet comes off as an absolute jerk throughout - first as a goofy 12 year-old figuratively giving the finger to all the adults - later, as a vicious monster out for blood. Although it is clearly part of Mr. Shakespeare's intention that Hamlet be seen by the other characters in the play as very likely addled, I think it unwise to present him as definitely so to the audience. There's a little thing called "audience identification" at stake. The only people I can think of who might possibly identify with this asinine character would be Generation "Z"! Why not just play him as a good kid gone "Goth"? That would be fun! And why not write your own modern day script if you are going to ignore the poetry? This is truly a Hamlet for post-MTV generations - everyone runs or hustles almost ALL the time. Most of the actors rush through the dialogue, apparently to get to the action, with abject disregard for The Bard's poetic genius. Notable exceptions are Oliver Ford Davies (Polonius), Patrick Stewart (Claudius), and Mariah Gales (Ophelia), whose innate sensibilities for great language apparently immunize them from this all-pervasive plague. Every moment and every line of Davies' Polonius is superb - masterful. Stewart's Claudius is excellent, though oddly played as remarkably sympathetic, with measured civility and visceral remorse. In fact, though probably unintentional, it's far more likely that the audience identifies with him as protagonist as opposed to the obnoxious and self-absorbed Hamlet! Inexplicably, this rendition of Hamlet starts off pretty much as a filmed play, with mostly wide-angle master shots - then, somewhere around the midpoint, suddenly and joltingly discovers cinematography - with closeups, high angles, and stark lighting. The sets and wardrobe are a mish-mash of past, present, and future - oddly enough, more like a Doctor Who environment than anything else! The orange t-shirt with the musculature on the front is particularly witless. Sure, slash a few lines out of that damn Sililoquoy and play it squirrel-eyed and flatter than a dental hygiene film. Or is that actually "tongue-in-cheek"??? Hey, I know - let's give Gertrude a cigarette - why not! And, what do you know, Hamlet is recording a performance with a 1940s home movie camera. Yuk, yuk! Ugh. Not witty; not funny; not cute - just ... WHY? Even the blocking is distracting and forced. Your average television commercial is far more fluidly and intelligently blocked. "Critically acclaimed", huh? If he were still around, William Shakespeare would be suing to get his name off this monstrosity. Sorry, but for the benefit of posterity, all copies of this production should be destroyed.