david-759-586558 I was fortunate enough to see one of the previews this production on stage while David Tennant was still fit. It was spellbinding , every actor on the stage was immaculate in their performance, the audience laughed and cried openly. The DVD version is a very good representation of the stage version but it lacks the magic of watching a live production, the interaction that the characters have with the audience, the emotional responses of a theatre full of people that allows you as an individual to show greater emotion than sitting in front of a TV. I also feel that the nature of filming in close up and multi angle sometime gets the viewer too close to the characters. All that said, this is a tremendous production, the comedy is brought to the fore which makes the tragedy even more profound. The cast is absolutely superb and I do mean the entire cast, not only the big name leads.The delivery of the dialogue is so beautifully done that even a Shakespeare novice will understand what is being conveyed. I have seen Hamlet performed live a dozen times and have left before the end on at least six occasions. This version when performed live is by far and away my favourite. My favourite film version is still the 1948 Laurence Olivier version....but this is a close second

idreamedmusic 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.

spinzgirl After seeing Branagh's version years ago, I honestly never thought it could be improved upon. However, while that version relied heavily on pageantry, this one thrives on the script. I may have minimal theater experience, but I do have an English degree and felt that this was a wonderful interpretation of the play. The difficult thing for many people is, having seen it performed before, cannot re-imagine it any other way. It's a shame to hear some of the reviewers bash the actors when we all know that no two Hamlets are (or should ever be) the same. Who's to say how it was performed during Shakespeare's time? That's the beauty of the play. In a time of constant Hollywood remakes where the original is available to be seen and borrowed from, the RSC has made it fresh and new again. I hung on the words as if hearing them for the first time, and in some cases thought of them in an entirely different fashion. Plus, as a long-time Dr. Who and Star Trek fan, it didn't feel as if I was watching the Doctor or Captain Picard performing. The staging was quite brilliant as well; it didn't distract or become a character in and of itself. The rest of the cast performed quite well and should be celebrated also.

derekph-1 ACTING! Tennant is so bad that the otherwise so-so production is rendered ludicrous. The CCTV touches are foolish, but only mildly annoying compared to Tennant's banal, manic interpretation of his role. He renders Hamlet a clown, a caricature, a ridiculous figure to be cringed at. No nobility, no dignity, just a mad fool. Hyper-active, ADHD-driven, he needs some Ritalin to calm him down. There's not a single scene he's in that he does not ruin with his childish antics and wild grimaces and twisted gestures. Otherwise this production is just acceptable. The supporting cast is so overshadowed by Tennant's hysteria that they seem stunned, dismayed and disbelieving. There are scenes – Hamlet absent – that work well enough, but their effect is soon lost. Embarrassingly bad.