One can see why 'Hamlet' is one of Shakespeare's best known and acclaimed plays with such memorable characters, some of the most deservedly famous in all literature, and text often quoted and referenced. It is long and not easy to perform at all (namely physchologically),but the characterisation, language and complex emotions and psychology have always riveted me and it has always been one of my favourites from Shakespeare. Royal Shakespeare Company's Shakespeare productions are always worth a peek, whether traditional or not.

Even if not every "live" production of theirs has completely worked. Despite preferring traditional productions myself, as there is less of a risk of distaste and unnecessary touches, that has not stopped me from appreciating things done differently as different can work. Whether this is the best filmed 'Hamlet' ever is up for debate. For me, although it isn't quite perfect, this 2009 production fares favourably and is not just the best 'Hamlet' seen in some while (since seeing the BBC Television Shakespeare production) but the best of all the viewed modern-dress productions of the play (better than both National Theatre Live performances).

Some people, well those not familiar with the play namely, may be at times perplexed by having some actors playing more than one character. This has been done more than once in Shakespeare and while it has always been interesting when it's done the execution has been variable.

Likewise with the CCTV style filming, which did confuse me at times and didn't always seem necessary. The production should have stuck with either doing it filmed play style or as a film, instead of seemingly trying to do both. There are times where it is very effectively atmospheric and clever, at others it's on the gimmicky side.

On the other hand, this was a modern dress Shakespeare production that actually looked appealing. The costumes look tasteful and aren't too much of a mishmash and the sets aren't drab or too simple with a shimmering look that is quite striking on film. The staging is always involving and the drama easy to follow, always worry in modern dress productions for anything that there would be gratuitous distaste going on or if there are things happening that don't make sense. Some of the National Theatre Live Shakespeare productions had this, such as 2018's 'Macbeth', but not so much here. The re-ordering of some of the text even makes sense, even moving the "to be or not to be" solliloquy to earlier.

The performances are on point. Some have criticised David Tennant as overacting, personally disagree respectfully. His interpretation is more manic than one usually sees from this difficult title role, but he balances inner turmoil and sarcasm movingly and intensely. Of the cast, Oliver Ford Davies is a big standout in one of the best interpretations of Polonious seen in a while, a very powerful performance that brings out every one of the character's characteristics. Patrick Stewart is a noble looking but suitably deadly Claudius, also effectively spooky as the Ghost. It was great to see Penny Downie again (it's been a while) and her Gertrude is touchingly conflicted and dignified. Mariah Gale's Orphelia, not an easy part to make interesting as it is potentially passive, is both brittle and affecting.

Concluding, very good and nearly great. 8/10

I guess it only fits that William Shakespeare, being British would have one of the best versions of his plays being on the BBC! This movie stars none other than the beloved David Tenant from "Doctor Who". We get Patrick Stewart as well and it's great to see these great actors being actual Shakespearean actors. It's just great to hear all the classic lines and scenarios from these people. At three hours, it's by no means a short film and it might even be the longest TV movie I've ever seen. With "Hamlet" I'm used to long adaptations.

I actually remember seeing the image of David Tenant about to kill Patrick Stewart being featured on the Fandom Rivalry on TVTropes. Yeah, I love that website. I was actually able to follow the story better than many other Hamlet versions. This appears to be set in modern times, but it makes no major changes to the story. That's why a true work of art is timeless. Yeah, it probably is a little too long, but it's still great. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are really growing on me. I love you as Scrooge McDuck, David! ***1/2

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.