So, Hamlet is another adaptation of Shakespeare's, quote: best play ever. I guess it's because of its Christian sayings of Ghosts and Hamlet's speeches about to be or not to be, to live happy or to die hard. He is played by comedian David Tennant. I guess he's good at overreacting or something and that's how he got the part.
And I thought the 1999 Midsummer Night's Dream was bad. You know how Juliet receives a love potion in Act 4 of her play? That's what I wish I had to help me get through this movie. We saw it in English class and saw about an hour of it a day for three days, as this is a three hour movie, and I've felt drained after each portioned viewing of the movie and from the perspective of the rest of the class, so did they. It's not the movie's fault Hamlet is the longest Shakespeare play ever, I know, but it was up to them how they could pull it off. But you know what I was thinking about during this movie? My school put up auditions in September for MacBeth, a play in April, and I thought, "Couldn't they at least choose a real story?" And I mean one that we are unfamiliar with, one that doesn't require a thousand incomprehensible lines from the main character. I went to the auditions and didn't say this of course, but I wasn't really interested in doing the project till April. Some of my friends are in the play, so hopefully they can actually do something worth your time.
So what timeline does this Hamlet take place in? It seems from some of the regal but uncomplex costumes that it is modern day, though there's no iPhone or telephone to be found. There are video cameras in the movie (for no reason other than Ghost view clarifications) so it is never quite clear. Not to mention that this adaptation almost copies the speech word for word. I've come to realize that it can take a great actor with a Jimmy Neutron brain to memorize the lines read from the actors here, but the words don't matter as much as the emotion and delivery of the actors. And about four and a half fifths of the time, it looks like the actors are reading from cue-cards offscreen and they stand still like a national anthem is playing. Not to mention that this movie has basically no soundtrack. Surely the other Hamlet adaptations can't be as plain as this, can they? Whether they are or not, I have no intention of ever seeing them. I read on Imdb that Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of the negatively eccentric overrated play is 246 minutes long where on Rotten Tomatoes it says 146. I do not care to know which is which. But hey! I've seen trailers of that movie and it seems like it actually has colour, actually has real actors, actually leaves its cheap sets.
Not even the major scenes from the play in the movie work. During Hamlet's play The Mousetrap, I couldn't tell what was going on because of his constant babbling just like he does throughout the entire play, overacting to the point where he's the sociopath Hamlet is, but one that would be better off on an Eddie Murphy Talk Show than a Hollywood movie. And the ending massacre has got to be one of the biggest rip-offs I've ever seen, and it's mostly thanks to Claudius and Horatio; Claudius shrugs off when Gertrude drinks from the cup, never giving off the warning he was supposed to give, didn't give any emotion for her drinking, and shrugs, SHRUGS, when he is given the cup to drink as well. What were they thinking? And as for Horatio, he gave off an explosion of emotion but there was never a part in the three-hour play other than his tagging along and arguing with Hamlet to justify their friendship to the point where it is worth crying over. What's really worth crying over is that The Shakespeare Production Company thinks that they are good moviemakers.