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

Incest, Ghosts, Revenge, Death. This movie has it all, and the dysfunctional royal family is the start of it all. Most notably, "King" Claudius. Actually everyone should point fingers at him. Even the ghost did, which is reasonable because the spectre happens to be the real King Halmet. David Tennent is a phenomenal actor because he plays a Hamcrazy character that can turn from serious to "off his rocker" in a matter of a few lines. His soliloquy is lengthy and spot-on with Shakespearean's original motives. Tennent's character, Hamlet, is a Dutch prince bent on revenge for his fathers death. Not only did he suspected the new king, his own uncle, to be the murderer, but he has an extreme distaste for his mother, who was married to the now dead king, to marry his uncle a minute after the original king's "death." So yeah, this family is a dysfunctional as you can get. Speaking of the sinful Claudius, of the devil actually, by him betraying and offing his brother, he sets forth a chain of events that eventually gets everyone that has a name killed. Well, except for two lucky characters but we'll get to that later. Unfortunately, most of the bloodshed happens near the end so save your bloodlust for later. Patrick Stewart, who plays Claudius, already has a strong background in acting with the X-men movie series and the Star Trek TV series on his resume. So he's a very capable actor and it shows in this movie. Playing the role of a kind-hearted king who has dark secrets was not easy and Picard, I mean Patrick pulled it off with aplomb. After Claudius was semi-exposed by semi-crazy Hamlet, he started becoming a big dutchkill and wanted Hamlet gone out of his castle. Penny Downie plays Gertrude that is basically in the movie just for the incest set-piece. Horatio, Hamlet's best friend, is the luckiest guy in the world to live in that castle and somehow not end up dead. Almost (wink). Robert Curtis, who plays Fortinbras, is such a good actor that he was Fortingone for the entirety of the movie. There's no need because he is a Norwegian prince that can do what he wants, wage wars, and take over thrones of other countries. This movie's target audience would be Britons, conquering princes, murdering kings, incestuous Queens, Shakespeare fanboys, the 16th century, and English teachers across the world.

I thought this was an amazing Hamlet. As my theatre company prepares to perform Shakespeare's tragedy, I've watched a LOT of Hamlets starring a variety of different actors set in a variety of different places. I thought this one was the best by far. Some the ultra-modernness I could have done w/o, such as the filming w/ the security cameras. I thought David Tennant was brilliant in this production. Instead of being whiny like most Hamlets tend to be, he was vengeful & strong willed. The only bit of acting that I was thrilled with was I thought the King's (Patrick Stewart) reaction during the play w/in a play could have been much stronger. Over all I loved this production of Hamlet and look to using some of the aspects in our upcoming stage production.

Not having seen the stage performance, I can only comment on the DVD version. And, while having some nice touches, the filmed version just doesn't really work as it seems to be stuck between two mediums: a filmed stage production and an attempt to actually create a film version.Some of the touches that try to exploit the film medium work, such as the CCTV footage, though only at times. It is a neat touch during the first appearance of the ghost and also when Hamlet tears down a camera to be alone during the "Rogue and Peasant Slave" soliloquy. Most other times it seemed an odd interruption used solely to break up the static visuals. Same goes for Hamlet filming the Mousetrap, which just seems like an odd choice thrown in to make it seem more film-y.Having the characters face the camera and breaking the fourth wall sits rather uncomfortably as it isn't done with enough consistency. Implicating the viewer as a direct audience has to have a real good reason and that just isn't given in most of Hamlet's soliloquies or when other characters try to draw us in.The acting, as well, seems to be more for the stage than for the camera and thus seems a bit over the top, such as Hamlet's histrionics and Claudius' elaborate shrug upon drinking the poisoned wine. I am sure this played better on stage. Tennant, especially, is not subtle enough most of the times, hindered by blocking that apparently comes right out of the stage production.What I found intriguing was that it's one of the Hamlets that moves "To be or not to be..." to Act II, an interesting change that can make sense if presented correctly and it made sense here.So, all in all, a credible take on Hamlet, but I feel the director and producers should have decided on either producing a full-scale film version or a filmed version of the stage production. As it is, it tries to straddle both mediums and falls short on either side. Branagh's 1996 version still stands as the ultimate filmed Hamlet for me.