Casey Duggan
It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny
Bumpy Chip
It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.
Monique
One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.
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.
john-156-886426
The majority of reviews of this wonderful production of Hamlet by the Royal Shakespeare Company are positive, and offer many reasons to watch this filming of the play. However I noticed that there are a few horribly low reviews, ones and twos, that bring down the rating of this film. I read them to see why, and would like to offer counter-arguments to some of the statements. The setting: some reviewers, and I respect their opinions, found the sets,costumes, etc., unworthy of this play. It is a modernized version, though at times it seems like it is taking place long ago. However, I feel that the touches of modernism and the touches of the past go a long way towards demonstrating that this is a work that transcends time periods, it doesn't really matter when it happens. Also, for example, Tennant, as Hamlet, wears an orange, skeleton t-shirt. Many found this out of style and bad. But it depends on how you look at it, I, an English major who is familiar with dissecting Shakespeare's works, found it a sneaky foreshadowing of future events, as well as demonstrating Hamlet's attribute of wearing his heart on his sleeve.David Tennant: though most found his portrayal unique and intriguing, some say it is horrible and over the top. They also make the complaint that he is rude and makes the audience side with the villain, who never seems evil. This, however, was done on purpose. Patrick Stewart plays the counterpart, the exact opposite, of Hamlet. As well as this, there is debate over whether Hamlet was genuinely insane, or acting insane to hide his true doings and intentions. The RSC definitely chooses the second option, and David Tennant fills this role exactly, being so mad that the audience just knows its all an act to fool the King. That is not to say he isn't deeply affected by his father's death. I had never heard the lines of Hamlet spoken in this type of tone, but after finishing the play, I couldn't believe there was any other way of saying them- from Tennant the words are natural and don't sound recited at all. All in all, the acting from all of the actors is fantastic, and it is a thoroughly entertaining and riveting version of Hamlet. Even my friends, who deplore Shakespeare, were captivated until the last frame.
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.
staceyisu
I lived in the UK during the production of this Hamlet, but, alas, tickets were sold out. When I found it was filmed, I was ecstatic. A long time fan of Patrick Stewart and David Tennant, I had high hopes. However, I was blown away by this film. Those who have complained about Tennant's acting skills are treating him as the Doctor starring in Hamlet. Tennant's portrayal is one of my favorites. Here is the Hamlet I've read, a young man with a terrible knowledge searching for answers and guidance. His "To be or not to be" was chilling. Patrick Stewart as Claudius is soft-spoken and deadly. He gave me shivers. Here is a man who looks like your uncle (to use one reviewers words), but would kill you in a moment. If I had one complaint, the actress portraying Ophelia was an obvious let-down. I'm not a big fan of Ophelia and this actress seemed to be struggling with the character. Her "mad" scene was painful to watch. So, I had to give this 9 stars. Excellent production. Great set, acting, and atmosphere. I loved it.
