Review of Hamlet

Hamlet (2000)
7/10
It works, but just barely
23 July 2009
I've always been a fan of Hamlet but I find myself always searching out a version that isn't either 4 hours long or starring Kenneth Brannagh (sp?) or Mel Gibson. So, seeing a version set in New York circa 2000 seemed like an interesting (if not questionable) choice. And for me it works for the most part. While I'm sure Shakespeare purists would cry foul, and maybe rightly so, the simple fact of the matter is that Shakespeare needs some new fans and the best way to grab a younger audience is to present it in a way that doesn't seem antiquated. So long as that's done with respect to the source material, I see no problem with that.

The only real problem I have with this version is some of the casting choices. Obviously the script is the same as about any other version and only the setting and time period change...but Bill Murray as Polonius? Not that I don't like Bill Murray, but I've never seen him doing Shakespeare (and still don't, really). Steve Zahn as Rosencranz? Seriously? I thought Ethan Hawke would totally bomb the performance, but he did well enough. And Liev Schrieber as Laertes was surprisingly good...especially given the last thing I saw him doing was playing Sabertooth opposite Hugh Jackman. Not exactly high quality material.

All in all this isn't a fantastic adaptation of what is arguably Shakespeare's most popular work, but it's definitely a good effort and a bit of a shot in the arm for what many people believe is an outdated style of writing. I've never really understood that...just because you need a moment to process the meaning of something doesn't mean it's bad. It just means you're using your brain. But in any event, I would put this up against Mel Gibson's Hamlet any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Especially for the younger audiences.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed