Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

patrickmead138 the way Patrick Stuart and David Tennant portray their roles as superb role in this production. another Hamlet. decent, interesting. but far to seduce. the acting is OK and the new elements are not bad but scene by scene something seems missing. the pressure of role for David Tennant, the filming angles, Patrick Steward who is not more than a Cladius as too many others are causes for to define it only as a good job. such a good TV film. Both actors are both really good at portraying different roles with in the film. Hamlet is one of the best productions made for the BBC and it is diffidently a 5 star out of 5 star

Hidup_bisa_aneh If you can't stand the idea of a Shakespeare play being staged outside of it's historical context, then perhaps this is the exception that proves the rule. It's mostly down to the sets, and presumably the lack of acquaintance for most audiences anywhere with the country in which it is supposed to take place, in the time it is supposed to take place, but mostly just the very beautiful sets, which place it in a strange, elegant landscape of the internal workings of the characters, but it's not abstract, it's not in limbo, and it works very, very well. Though I suppose the nature of the play helps just a little bit.It isn't without any historical specificity at all, it seems to have a World War One feel to it, as a point of reference. David Tennant is very watchable. Occasionally it becomes a little too modern, some of the CCTV shots are annoying (though the idea is is used very nicely on the whole), and the business with the home-movie camera is a little jarring. The interpretation of the dialogue and content is excellent; nothing in any way pretentious or forced about it.Surprising, riveting, very enjoyable, proper full on Shakespeare.

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.

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.