Hamlet: Ian McKellen

Cut to pieces, and reshaped, making this their very own version of Hamlet, which isn't unusual, and delivers in spades.

I particularly loved the setting, using the theatre in a very interesting way, not on stage, not really, but quite literally all over the theatre, including the box office, wash rooms, the roof, and backstage. It does take a little getting used to, as does Ian playing Hamlet in this production, in addition to other reportedly "blind" casting choices, and there's no doubt the audience won't be blind to these choices for the most part, but thankfully, upon settling in it's less problematic than it could have been. It does however feel a bit strange, aspects of which have made it difficult for me to rate it higher than a 8/10, mainly because it does make it a little difficult to completely immerse yourself in the story, on account of noticing all these things.

This may not be quite so challenging on the stage, but everything is rather up close here, as such the "blind" casting approach doesn't lend itself so well to film in this case. It's helpful to remember that when this was first performed, a great many years ago, women were played by men, as such much of this stuff is par for the course in many respects, however some of these choices just don't lend themselves to the big screen as much as they might a stage production.

It is however great in all other respects!

I don't understand what this is trying to say. The costumes, the setting, the casting--they all add up to nonsense. Ian McKellen has never looked so much like he's phoning in his performance. Maybe that's just how an older Hamlet is supposed to be played, but that's where better casting would have helped. He's so old compared to everyone else onscreen (and has so obviously given every soliloquy a million times) that the other actors fail to match up with him. McKellen's sullen, sunken, lived-in performance clashes with the more vibrant and 'modern' styles of the younger actors. I don't really see why this exists unless it's to keep up someone's membership in one or another actors union (which is perfectly fine). Very bizarre.

Just came home from a Cineworld showing of Hamlet and even though I knew it was a retelling from modern times, I have seen some of the directors previous work an I expected something decent. The only positive was the wardrobe even though that wasn't consistent for Sir Ian and he had what looked like Adidas sportswear at one point. Colour codes for royals with the green teal was nice.

Now the bads. Sir Ian McKellen acts with his eyes. He's a man of few words but he knows how to make a poignant speech. So, when faced with a deluge of a monologue in Ye Old English, he starts of strong and towards the end he mumbles. He speaks into his chin, he doesn't enunciate! That actor from his play had better delivery while yelling of poison and gesturing with his hands.

I wanted subtitles.

I wanted more effort with the location choice - not just a theatre and the dingy staircases.

Ophelia's singing was cringe. I saw some old people near me look doubtfully at each other and shake their heads. I get that they're trying to get the youngsters into the cinema but today, me, in my 40s, was the youngest one in the room.

It won't fly.

Also major dissonance with setting and Thy and Thou. If you're speaking Shakespeare's tongue at least have some period costumes or a castle.

Didn't like it, don't recommend it and hope they don't make anymore.

The 'hook' of the latest big-screen version of the play "Hamlet" (which like all other 'Shakespeare' works was btw actually written by Christopher Marlowe) is that it's set around various rooms, passages, etc in an old theatre - rather than in Denmark or even on stage... oh, and Ian McKellen (superb actor but 85yrs old) plays the titular young Danish prince driven to madness by grief, anger, & frustration at himself after his uncle Jonathan Hyde kills his father and marries his mum Jenny Seagrove. The likes of Frances Barber support, but the 'star' is director Sean Mathias for his fresh interpretation. It's still 'Shakespeare' (Marlowe), so not for all, but with an interesting new tone.