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

david-sarkies One wonders if this Shakespeare play has been over done in the film department. If you type it into IMDb it comes up with 73 links under the title (though some may be repeats or attempted sequels). However, the main ones that come to mind are the Kenneth Branagh version and the Mel Gibson version. This version, however, was originally performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company (I have seen their version of a Midsummers Night Dream, and it was brilliant) and they decided to bring the actors from the stage play and make a TV version of it. I didn't know that this version existed until I searched Amazon and what caught my attention was that Patrick Stewart (Captain Picard and Professor X) as well as David Tennant (Dr Who) had taken major roles in the production.We all know about Hamlet, and a lot can be said of the play itself, however I do not intend to go over old ground here but rather focus on the production itself. I must say that it was brilliant. While it has a modern setting, the setting actually takes a back seat to the play itself. This, to me, is a sign of a brilliant production as the setting simply takes a backdrop and adds colour to what is essentially one of Shakespeare's most popular works. This is something that did not happen with Ian McKellan's Richard III.There were a number of aspects that attracted me to the film, one of them being the extensive use of security cameras. It almost created a similar feel to Paranormal Activity, though the cameras were used sparingly. The second aspect was the shattered mirror. It was the shattered mirror that really caught my attention, and then after Polonius is shot, the shattered mirror seems to dominate the play from that point. We are constantly taken past it and to me this is suggestive of one of the major themes in the play, and that is how Claudius' world is falling apart. His dream of stealing the kingdom from his brother is shattered by Hamlet who is burning up inside with anger towards Claudius. Once again, it is not that Claudius stole the throne, but rather that he killed his father and married his mother.One of the reviews that I read suggested that David Tennant successfully shed the character of Dr Who in this film, however I must disagree. While I thought Tennant played the role very well, in a number of cases his madness reflected the eccentricity of the doctor. This is not surprising as I suspect that each of the actors that play the Doctor tend to bring bits of their own personality into the role so while they may go off and do other things, that aspect of their character that they took into the role of Doctor Who will tend to stick to them. However, with the exception of Peter Davidson, many of the actors that played the Doctor never really went onto anything afterwards.As for Patrick Stewart, he is brilliant. He plays a very calm and collected Claudius. While at first when Stewart began to take on other roles after Star Trek one would chuckle and think, 'gee, Captain Picard', I do believe he does not carry that stigma with him. Further, when one realises that Stewart is a Shakespearian actor more than the star of a Science-fiction soap opera, one begins to appreciate his acting skills.When it comes to Hamlet, it is not the play, the plot, or the theme that will carry the movie because we all know the play (or I hope we do). No, it is the actors and their portrayal of the characters that carries the plays. As mentioned about, the background can help, but in many cases the background should really stay in the background, unless it helps to emphasise and reflect the themes in the way that the shattered mirror in this version does.

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.

oldgirl No matter how many times I see Hamlet (and I've seen it a LOT), I always seem to be in directorial mode, mostly to the detriment of what I'm watching. This is one of only two Hamlets where I was capable of actually watching the PLAY, rather than the director's mistakes. Tennant's very tense and tightly-wound Prince exhibits a pain and obtusion almost excruciating to watch. The contemporary gloss (LOVED those black interiors, shiny floors, endless reaches of doors and columns and the infinite dark starkness) doesn't feel superficial and does not distract at all from the text, unless you're one of those Renaissance Purists. Patrick Stewart's Claudius was slick, smooth, menacing, and (oddly enough), almost touchingly revealing. This production's Queen Gertrude had that haggard, 'wanna be young' angst seen in so many truly beautiful women once they hit fifty -- and I liked that she seemed to age as the battalions of misfortune kept coming in waves. Most importantly, I liked that the director allowed the TEXT to take center stage, rather than some radical new interpretational agenda. For once, a director that allows the audience to draw their own conclusions.