All the best archetype literature, and Shakespeare's Hamlet is one of the top five pieces of literature in human history, deserves an examination of its archetype's roots. In fact there is nothing wrong taking an archetype and telling the story any way, for any ends. I am glad Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Eugene O'Neil and Sartre have told completely different stories with Orestes and Electra, that Ovid, Milton and Shelly have used Prometheus to very different ends. And of course going back to the Ur, the root of Hamlet is worthwhile as well. But at a certain point, if the portrayal has no art, if the acting is, well terrible despite an amazing amount of cast talent, then the exercise is useless. such is the case with this portrayal of the legend that Shakespeare used. That Shakespeare used it to create monumentally stunning work of drama on the human mind, justice, revenge does not mean the original he used is compelling, or that are ridiculously bad telling of that original has merit. It does not. Also I can not fathom that the writer/director of this dog is also the writer/director of Babette's Feast, which while not a great film, is a very good film. Skip this dog. if you want to know about the history of the Amleth/Amled archetype, get a non fiction work on it, and then rent one of the dozen available Shakespeare versions, or go afield and spend some time with Stoppards Rozenkrantz.sometimes going back to the roots, the original, is worse than disappointing, as is the case with this.

Before I watched this movie I quickly checked the user reviews, as I usually do, and was excited to see that it came from the source material for Hamlet. So I settled down with the dog and the popcorn. Half-way through I paused the movie and came back here to see if I could find out what the people who posted positive reviews were drinking or smoking because the movie I was watching was awful. From what I can tell it really, really, really, REALLY matters which version you are seeing. If it is not a very long movie, run away. Run. Very. Far. Away. The short version is a hacked up mess that makes no sense and the actors (except Byrne and Mirren and sometimes Bale) look wooden. And the 'crowd' scenes. Oh dear. (By the way this review would have been a lot shorter except for this odd length rule. Hope you weren't bored.)

There was a 5 catalog titles for a dollar special, but the selection was terrible and I couldn't find a 5th title I hadn't seen that looked watchable. Finally, I stumbled across this movie. I'd never heard of it, but considering The Usual Suspects, Miller's Crossing, & The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, & Her Lover are some of my favorite movies, and Bale is also talented, I figured this should be a winner. Big mistake!The writing was all around horrible. Generic 4th grade script where some things happened, but you could see them coming a mile away and even if you couldn't you still weren't given any reason to care. The movie was half over before Bale was sent off and it became remotely interesting. Bale did a great job considering he had nothing to work with, but that was the only positive of the movie. Byrne gave his usual professional performance, but the weakness in the scripting of his lines undermined it. Mirren tried, but her only scenes that could have had potential were in the first half when there was no emotion to be found anywhere else, so she almost seemed insincere in trying to bring some. Kate Beckinsale also made an appearance, but her part was basically just smiling at Bale, who quickly married her. Aside from the script, the movie was also filmed with all the style of the various Saturday WPIX TV series. 2/10

Good movie, but basically, it's Hamlet from another viewpoint. I rented it as "Royal Deceit" thinking it was of the same level of "First Knight," what with deceit and royalty and all. I already knew the Hamlet storyline and was disappointed to see it again and felt misled by the tape cover at the video store.