mistoppi Like I wrote before reviewing Drifting Clouds, the actors in Kaurismäki's movies are very stiff. There's basically no emotion in the acting comparing to Hollywood movies. During Drifting Clouds I wasn't a big fan of that style, but it suits Hamlet Goes Business. It gives a certain contrast to the somewhat theatrical dialogue and the fact that this is based on a play. Also I was surprised to see how good Pirkka-Pekka Petelius was as Hamlet. He's mostly famous for being a comedian in many sketch shows, and this is honestly the first serious role I've seen him play. Of course this is a black comedy, a spoof of Hamlet, so the role is still not entirely serious.While I love most things about this movie, it's that ending that kind of bothers me. After seeing this film several times I'm already used to it, but it still feels very separate from the rest of the movie. It's added by Kaurismäki, which might explain that. I could go into lengths what bothers me about this, but I'd rather not make this review sound exactly like the analysis we did in class, and also I don't want to spoil you. The music chosen for this movie is amazing. The classical music and rock music go very well together. Most of the time there's a great harmony with what we see and what we hear, but even when there's not, it' amazing. And oh, the cinematography... Weird angles and crooked shots are so great. And of course the whole movie being in black and white amplifies the whole feeling. With colours, it wouldn't be the same film.Hamlet Goes Business is an amazing take on Hamlet, and a great satire on business world. While it's clear I will not like all of Kaurismäki's movies, I can appreciate his work and I'm glad I've found a favourite

Graham Greene Hamlet Goes Business (1987) is a number of things. On the one hand, it's a piercing satire on industry and the corporate world of the 1980's dressed up as a spiralling melodrama; while on the other hand, it's an appropriation of the colourless, academic world of Shakespeare slapped around and recast as a lurid film-noir pastiche. For me, it's perhaps the first true masterpiece from Finish auteur Aki Kaurismäki; the one in which his typically unique style of deadpan humour, dry characterisations and idiosyncratic reference-points finally came together to create a unique and distinctive whole. Obviously, that isn't to say that his first three films, Crime and Punishment (1983), Calamari Union (1985) and Shadows in Paradise (1986) don't warrant serious critical attention, because they do; but rather, the subtle shades of character, drama, humour and self-reference that had been slowly developing over the course of those particular three films is finally refined and further developed with this delightful, absurdist joy.The basic story of the film retains the set-up and characters familiar from Shakespeare's adaptation, though with a number of separate abstractions beyond those presented by the general updating of the characters and text. For example, rather than being the noble prince, Kaurismäki's Hamlet is a spoilt, oafish brat; more likely to be getting a hankering for a midnight feast and failing to score with his girlfriend Ofelia than prospering in the cut-throat world of business. In our introduction to the character, a nonplussed Hamlet literally stumbles across the body of his murdered father whilst precociously munching on a large slice of ham. Later in the film, as his step-father and mother conspire to take control of the business, a childlike Hamlet is placated in the boardroom by the addition of his own table with colouring books and felt-tip pens. As a work of satire, both on the idea of industry and on the nuts-and-bolts of Shakespeare's text, Kaurismäki is merciless. However, the film also impresses on a purely stylistic level; with the director adapting certain visual quirks and techniques familiar from post war B-cinema alongside his usual stylistic preoccupations to create one of the greatest pop-cinema pastiches since Godard's Pierrot le fou (1965).As ever with the films of Kaurismäki, Hamlet works as a result of the perfect casting, with a fantastic performance from lead actor Pirkka-Pekka Petelius complimenting Kaurismäki's regular troop of supporting actors, here including Esko Salminen, Kati Outinen, Esko Nikkari, Turo Pajala and Matti Pellonpää. Petelius's Hamlet maintains that typically straight-faced approach shared by many of Kaurismäki's iconic characters, whilst also possessing something of a childlike innocence to set-up the mechanics for that blistering final act. I can certainly see why some viewers would find the more freely adapted elements of the film offensive on a historical level - with Hamlet here recast as a sulky teen bumbling into a conspiracy that he doesn't quite comprehend - but I think it's important to look beyond the presentation of the character found in the more recognisable elements of the Shakespearean piece to see the bold and imaginative use of satire and stark sense of humour that Kaurismäki brings to the project.The final act of the film is incredibly funny and filled with imaginative and inventive elements that demonstrate what a fantastic and highly original filmmaker Kaurismäki is; with a film like Hamlet Goes Business, not to mention subsequent highlights like Ariel (1988), I Hired a Contract Killer (1991) and The Man Without a Past (2002) showing the range and talent of a sadly underrated artist very much the equal to the more widely acclaimed likes of Tarantino and the Coen Brothers. Here, Kaurismäki's film takes the pop references and retrogressive elements of the former and mixes it with the intelligence and humour of the latter to produce an exceptional film that is unique to his particular style and approach. Although the humour might prove to be a little too dry, or the style too eccentric to appeal to those with a broader cinematic taste, Hamlet Goes Business is really an absolute joy that is worth experiencing. A bold, irreverent, imaginative and impeccably acted satire, with great black and white cinematography, a jarring style and a great central performance from Petelius.

winner55 i saw this about a year after it first came out.It has become notorious for being somewhat flippant about it's source material (Shakespeare's Hamlet).Actually, I don't remember finding this very humorous at all. In fact, a darker version of the Hamlet narrative could hardly be imagined.This film represents an important historical turning point; although theatrical directors had been toying with the notion of "updating" Shakespeare, ever since Orson Welles produced a Broadway version of Macbeth with African Americans in the cast back in the late 1930s (When he made his own film version of MacBeth, he chickened out on this, unfortunately). But if the reader has seen the updated version of Romeo and Juliet out of Australia, or the Ethan Hawke Hamlet of 2000, or the recent "O" version of Othello (at last with black actors playing black roles, after all these centuries, for heaven's sake!), it all starts here.Unfortunately, as I say, this film is so incredibly dark, you'll want to know why Hamlet didn't just cut his throat - "To be, or not to be - oh, the hell with it!" Not for every taste, to say the least.

Edgar Soberon Torchia What are you left with if you take most of the psychological motivations away from characters, and turn a story into a social tract? Shakespeare lovers and those who persist on "character development" better beware, as Kaurismaki (in my fourth incursion into his cinema) transforms the Danish prince into a horny, ruthless and spoiled rich heir, who writes bad poetry, is worried about his weight and has a terrible secret. I admit I don't like William Shakespeare much --I believe he's overrated-- so I rather enjoyed Kaurismaki's "irreverence". It is a hint that he does not even give credit to Shakespeare: this story has been told since late 12th century and apparently Thomas Kyd wrote a "Hamlet", before Shakespeare. Kaurismaki is more interested in speculating what may happen to a family like Hamlet's in contemporary settings that seem peculiarly outdated. The first 70 minutes tell the story we know, with a few licenses that in most cases are funny, or simply reveal how the rich and powerful take ruthless decisions without considering their effects on the people they rule. Kaurismaki builds scenes and sequences using resolute ellipsis, a fixed camera, and alienating and ironic music commentaries. Scenes are often resolved in a single take, and to the point (for example, the only time he sees the ghost of his father, Hamlet asks him to talk fast because he does not want to miss dinner, and Kaurismaki cuts to another scene; also there is no famous soliloquy), which made my somewhat uneasy viewing a fast experience. In an aftermath we have never heard of before, Kaurismaki grabbed my full attention, up to his sarcastic end credits against a montage of a factory while a trite tune of hope fills the soundtrack. I found it far more interesting than Brannagh's and Zeffirelli's films.