User reviews

Being an American rather new to Shakespeare, I have come to discover that Hamlet is my favorite play, and as of today the David Tennant and Patrick Stewart version provides the breakthrough to understanding this complicated play. I have watched all versions of Hamlet available and was quick to check out the newest one; however, Patrick Stewart was the only familiar actor to me. I have not a clue who Dr. Who might be. Just as well, as that might have tainted my view of Mr. Tennant's acting. Most contemporary productions of Shakespeare border on silly (Leonardo D's version of Romeo and Juliet) to ridiculous (Ethan Hawke's Hamlet), but this version rocks, to use an overused phrase.

I thought the juxtaposition of Shakespeare Old English in a Modern Setting worked amazingly well. The talents of the cast came together superbly (wished for a different Ophelia though). Polonius reminded me of a more dignified version of Bill Murray's treatment, but still caught the pompous drift of the character. Horatio played the devoted and loyal friend to great satisfaction. His Roman to the death speech had me crying all three times I watched the dramatization. I thought Tennant's version of Hamlet contained a measured lunacy, the intelligent fool who had mostly everyone fooled. The To Be soliloquy had the right intensity and then in a moment Tennant switches to Guarded Lover with Ophelia and Knave of Fools to Polonius.

I'm up for another view after writing this. Three hours spin by as I absorb new nuances and understanding. What a marvelous way to spend the afternoon.

I lived in the UK during the production of this Hamlet, but, alas, tickets were sold out. When I found it was filmed, I was ecstatic. A long time fan of Patrick Stewart and David Tennant, I had high hopes. However, I was blown away by this film. Those who have complained about Tennant's acting skills are treating him as the Doctor starring in Hamlet. Tennant's portrayal is one of my favorites. Here is the Hamlet I've read, a young man with a terrible knowledge searching for answers and guidance. His "To be or not to be" was chilling. Patrick Stewart as Claudius is soft-spoken and deadly. He gave me shivers. Here is a man who looks like your uncle (to use one reviewers words), but would kill you in a moment. If I had one complaint, the actress portraying Ophelia was an obvious let-down. I'm not a big fan of Ophelia and this actress seemed to be struggling with the character. Her "mad" scene was painful to watch. So, I had to give this 9 stars. Excellent production. Great set, acting, and atmosphere. I loved it.

This is great. When one is such a passionate Shakespeare appreciator as I am - and even one who rarely has the opportunity to attend theater performances - the coming of a major new Hamlet production is a Great Event. I anticipate it with excitement, I pre-order the DVD, and I prepare to let the Royal Shakespeare Company work its dependable magic and sweep me off my feet with a stunning new production. And with Tennant's Hamlet I am not disappointed. It's fresh and it's delightful and every single moment of it held me utterly captivated.

It is in modern dress which worked well in most scenes, but less well in a few others. Taking place inside some aristocratic castle with black walls, marble columns and black shiny floors, it certainly achieved the requisite darkness that this play must have (although I found it didn't make sense pointing out clouds in an in-door environment. I also found the lack of paintings, which would comprise such an obviously effective device in a setting like this, rather strange) - which is good, because Tennant himself never quite conveyed a convincing sense of brooding menace and inner turmoil. I am a big fan of David Tennant, esp. his Doctor Who, but there's no doubt he can pull off a much wider range of roles, although I do think comedy is his main strength. And he wasn't a bad Hamlet - just not a great one either. He might have been, under different circumstances, but not in this incarnation. Tennant being Tennant, however, he was still splendidly entertaining to watch, even if Claudius, Polonius, Horatio and Gertrude all out-acted him quite a bit.

In this version, the early scene where Claudius is addressing the court, turns to Hamlet, saying, "Now...", and then arrogantly turns around to address Laertes instead of Hamlet was for me the greatest single moment. It succeeded in making me consider something I never had before, namely how odd and deliberate it is that the king in this situation addresses Laertes before Hamlet. This is quite a stunningly thought-provoking detail. Hamlet being the crown prince, etiquette should demand that he be honored with the earlier mention at such an official function. Laertes should not take precedence there. Clearly, Claudius is actively belittling Hamlet, consciously treating him with less dignity than his status demands. Well done there, Mr. Doran!

This is overall a good Hamlet, but it is not a seminal one. It is probably true that it worked better on stage than on television, and I also felt that several actors, incl. those playing Laertes and Ophelia, fell short of the necessary charisma. Even Tennant himself, in most scenes, was not quite intense enough to convince me that he really was Hamlet, and I was a bit disappointed with many of the soliloquies, which in most cases are recited almost without gesture, without animation and without the action that would have directed us towards some subtle interpretation of each speech. One marvels at a director who has this rare opportunity to produce the greatest speeches in all of literature, and then does not seize it. Maybe he had no opinion about them? A bit odd, I find. I'm probably missing something, though.

Also, having the same actor play Claudius and Old Hamlet, essentially making them twins? I dunno. One of the play's most major points is how different the two brothers are. The main difference between them, perhaps, is in character, but Hamlet also makes a point out of pitting them against each other physically, when he describes them to Gertrude. If they look the same, this scene becomes a bit dubious. Still, having secured someone like Patrick Stewart for the parts, one does rather like to see him in as many roles as possible, so I'd be something of a deadbeat if I belabored this point any further. :-)

Having mentioned these shortcomings, I must admit to being quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this Hamlet after all. One of the most successful scenes was Hamlet's final "absent thee from felicity" plea to Horatio, which I thought was quite a bit more powerful than most other scenes in this version. All in all, I think this must be said to be the best Hamlet to come out on DVD since Branagh's, which however it falls significantly short of matching. Gregory Doran is no Ken Branagh, and the Tennant Hamlet will probably not, however fresh it feels today, endure the coming decades without acquiring some air of staleness. Still, for speaking loudly and clearly to a current audience that may be justifiably fed up with the loftier kinds of Shakespeare productions, it deserves high marks indeed.

On the one hand it is difficult to do a good Hamlet, but on the other hand it is also difficult to foul up such resplendent material. The RSC being the RSC, most of this Hamlet does hold the attention and does make the mind work. Shakespeare is such a passion-filled author that most productions, in my opinion, actually fall short of fulfilling the dramatic potential of the text. It is a continual puzzle to me why producers don't seem more awed by Shakespeare's words than they do. But I guess that just gives us so much more to look forward to in future productions. What luck that Shakespeare is never too old to be dusted off and renewed for a new generation of literature lovers!

7 out of 10.

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.

I've seen many productions of this play on screen - Olivier, Branagh, Plummer, Chamberlain, Williamson. I've also studied the play and am used to thinking of Hamlet as severely depressed. He's the "gloomy Dane," is he not? Tennant's Hamlet is much more manic, say, than Olivier's or the agonized melancholic in my mind, and it took some getting used to. He embodies the ambiguity about Hamlet's madness. Is Hamlet crazy with grief, or is he feigning madness to distract from his plans to revenge his father's murder, or is the line between those two perforated? This is a great production, and I recommend it enthusiastically.

For an iconic story that has been adapted into books and films, and other mediums of entertainment. And even though many film snobs like me complain about the lack of originality in cinema. The countless remakes and sequels being generated, especially with the Shakespeare classic Hamlet. However, among so many other adaptations of the classic, this 2009 TV movie aired on BBC, really stands out.

This 3 hour film surprisingly got Patrick Stuart in the role of Claudius/The Ghost of Hamlet's Father. And even though it's 3 hours, it's not boring. And though this film has a 3 hour runtime, it isn't too long.

It's the classic tale from Shakespeare in its purest form, a well written tragedy. More people might remember the 1948 version, or the 4 hour 1996 film, Mel Gibson's shot at it, as well as countless others. And while those are astonishingly good movies, this one is much better, and possibly the best ever Hamlet adaptation of all time. And not it's British, or only got a television release. It's because it was simply the best acted and written.

It's a chilling drama, that's able to keep you 100% invested. David Tennant adds so much to Prince Hamlet, he plays the character with such emotional range. Playing a man that was clearly broken on the inside by traumatic events, evident by the scene where the prince looked at his reflection in a broken mirror. But plays him with such lunacy, and such attention to his chaotic nature, jumping from one crazy thing to another with such effortlessness. Evident by lines of dialogue such as, "I do not understand that. Will you play upon this pipe?" The performance is down to Earth and believable. And at the same time, Tennant is able to never be boring, either in an over the top moment, or a quieter moment where he expressed more sadness in his acting. Whatever he was doing in the film, he always brought something to the film no other actor that has played Prince Hamlet of Denmark has done. Really helping in contributing to the movies different feel and style from other adaptations of its kind. Just look at other actors do it.

At the same time, Patrick Stewart as Claudius and Hamlet's father is also amazing. He is able to perform both roles with such ease. Delivering all his dialogue with astonishing attention to his emotions he's supposed to be feeling. I mean, watch this... Amazing, right? Now, look at him play Claudius... Again, the same great delivery, sometimes I just can't explain how stellar a performance is, and I can't just talk about it.

The movie is also, might I add, a visual spectacle. The sets are pristine, well crafted, and interesting to lay your eyes on. The shots are eye-catching and always something to rest your eyes on. Everything has a polished and stylized look to it, possibly representing Hamlet's view of the world. Seeing everything through that kind of lenses, but it collapsed as the film continued. Either way, it looks nice, and also convinces me this is the home of a king.

There's so much good in this film, that choosing my favorite scene in the film is a daunting task. There are scenes like The Death of Prince Hamlet, Patrick's Stewart's monologue to Hamlet in ghost form, or Hamlet's "To be or not to be" speech. All these scenes feature acting, excellent visuals and great Shakespearean writing. Dialogue that sounds sophisticated, natural and on point. Characters I enjoyed watching, and a movie I adore.

The movie is heartbreaking, as well as of course...tragic. Ending on quite the downer with everyone dying. It keeps the themes of the story of Hamlet. Hamlet's iconic, and this film is iconic. What else can be said? It has compelling drama, stunning visuals, some of the best acting of any film period, and it adapts a Shakespearean tale with the utmost respect.

For American audiences who love Shakespeare (an oxymoron at best!) and Harry Potter, the casting of David Tennant as Hamlet is an intriguing one. Tennant, who is wildly popular in the UK in the Doctor Who series, is also known to fans across the Isles as Barty Crouch Jr. from Harry Potter fantasy franchise.

Pairing David Tennant with Patrick Stewart, who is a double foil as both the slain ghost king father and Hamlet's uncle Claudius is masterful casting in this version from the Royal Shakespearean Company. As a result, Stewart was nominated for an Emmy as Best Supporting Actor.

Besides this quirky casting choice, director Gregory Doran propels this oft-told tale through the tone and inflection that each character brings to the all too familiar silted language of the Bard. One could easily close their eyes and simply bask in the joy of the rise and fall of phrases and words spun into this delightful audio experience.

Yet another pleasure is watching Sir Patrick Stewart literally play against himself - mano y mano - as Hamlet's mournful ethereal specter and the greedy, selfish brother. Pennie Downie, Mariah Gale, and Oliver Ford Davies provide an excellent counter-point to the brash and bold Tennant/Steward duo.

This is a fine minimalist production that should be added to any Hamlet FANatic's collection.

There are a million and one Hamlet's so I will briefly list the merits of this one: --Interesting camerawork and staging make a very long and exhausting play dynamic and supportive to the intellectual rigour required of the audience --David Tennant is technically an excellent Hamlet, portraying the full range. But he perhaps never quite makes himself vulnerable enough to invoke as much pathos as he should.

--A complete version of the play but the pacing is quick and energetic meaning it fits into 3 hours.

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.

No matter how many times I see Hamlet (and I've seen it a LOT), I always seem to be in directorial mode, mostly to the detriment of what I'm watching. This is one of only two Hamlets where I was capable of actually watching the PLAY, rather than the director's mistakes. Tennant's very tense and tightly-wound Prince exhibits a pain and obtusion almost excruciating to watch. The contemporary gloss (LOVED those black interiors, shiny floors, endless reaches of doors and columns and the infinite dark starkness) doesn't feel superficial and does not distract at all from the text, unless you're one of those Renaissance Purists. Patrick Stewart's Claudius was slick, smooth, menacing, and (oddly enough), almost touchingly revealing. This production's Queen Gertrude had that haggard, 'wanna be young' angst seen in so many truly beautiful women once they hit fifty -- and I liked that she seemed to age as the battalions of misfortune kept coming in waves. Most importantly, I liked that the director allowed the TEXT to take center stage, rather than some radical new interpretational agenda. For once, a director that allows the audience to draw their own conclusions.

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.

"The Tragical History of Hamlet Prince of Denmark" and not only the prince but also his family. Not only his family but also his friends. Not only his friends but also all though that came before him and are told to those that came after him.

A quick synopsis is that Old Hamlet conquered Old Fortinbras seizing his land. Now that Old Hamlet is dead, Young Fortinbras wants his land back and is willing to take it by force. Meanwhile back in Dänemark Young Hamlet who is excessively grieving for the loss of his father, gets a new insight from his father's ghost. It looks like he was a victim of a "murder most foul"; it looks like his uncle was responsible for his father's murder.

The dialog is the only thing good about this presentation. The hand full of true Shakespearian actors at least can say their lines well. The other actors just squeak it out. I was never a fan of modernizing Shakespeare unnecessarily. Moreover, this is a perfect example of why. Hamlet (David Tennant, 'Barty' Crouch Junior) reminds me of Monty Python. Too bad Patrick Stewart plays Claudius/Ghost here because it reminds me that he played in better versions of "Hamlet."

I was fortunate enough to see one of the previews this production on stage while David Tennant was still fit. It was spellbinding , every actor on the stage was immaculate in their performance, the audience laughed and cried openly. The DVD version is a very good representation of the stage version but it lacks the magic of watching a live production, the interaction that the characters have with the audience, the emotional responses of a theatre full of people that allows you as an individual to show greater emotion than sitting in front of a TV. I also feel that the nature of filming in close up and multi angle sometime gets the viewer too close to the characters. All that said, this is a tremendous production, the comedy is brought to the fore which makes the tragedy even more profound. The cast is absolutely superb and I do mean the entire cast, not only the big name leads.The delivery of the dialogue is so beautifully done that even a Shakespeare novice will understand what is being conveyed. I have seen Hamlet performed live a dozen times and have left before the end on at least six occasions. This version when performed live is by far and away my favourite. My favourite film version is still the 1948 Laurence Olivier version....but this is a close second

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

Clarification of a long, elaborate and often confusing tale of revenge is a must for any production of Hamlet, and on this point this Royal Shakespeare Company production can be rated as excellent; the spartan settings seem to clear the boards, giving way to the language, which is expertly managed from everyone in the cast, especially the three leads; Hamlet's madness, always a point of debate, is neatly handled by David Tennant, who veers always on the side of madness, but allows the audience to participate in his essential sanity--I loved how he was able to keep Rosencrantz and Guildenstern on edge, revealing them to be the mealy-mouthed corporate stooges that they are--not just comic figures, but dangerously loathsome in their compliance with requests from Claudius, played with chilly finesse by Patrick Stewart. One can always find a few quibbles with almost any filmed version of this classic, but I found this one edifying, entertaining, and thought-provoking--and one of the most comprehensible of film versions--without unnecessary gimmickry.

If you are one who has only seen Hamlet as a melancholy Dane who can't pull himself together, watch Tennant's version and understand what's going on.

Another actor who lets us see what's up with Hamlet is Adrian Lester, and I expect Andrew Scott's version, once released on film (hint, hint) to be just as clear.

Thanks to all of them for not proclaiming at us.

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

This modern-set Hamlet was enjoyable. It was cool to see Tennant's Dane as an adolescent. It put his relationships with his friends into those teenage years. Adult friendship is different. The scenes with all the friends were clear and distinct.

Laertes' reactions to his family tragedies were touching. Edward Bennett deserves credit for his part. Also, the elder of the acting troupe John Woodvine was mesmerizing. Patrick Stewart was as good as always.

The behind the scenes video included with the DVD answered some questions about the production. Without understanding the theatre-based set designer refurbished an old building, I would have thought this was filmed in a black box stage, with some scenes shot on real locations. The special feature also clued me in on the theme of mirrors, which now I see even more carried throughout the movie.

The mirrored floor was a challenge for the lighting crew, and also created echoes. As others have said, the sound design was inconsistent. Sometimes the microphones captured the room or outdoor noises, and sometimes they were focused only on his voice. Some of the footfalls were very loud. That said, there were some incredible moments of silence to emphasize the emotion.

My one question about direction regards the asides. The actors talked to the camera to voice their unheard thoughts, except in one scene his thoughts were a voiceover recording. I didn't understand that choice.

It was interesting to watch how they used the mirror theme along with the CCTV cameras. That brought it closer to modern times. Now I wonder if there's a Hamlet who takes selfies and makes TikTok videos.

This Hamlet is not definitive, but it gives some unique perspectives on the classic play.

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.

There were a lot of good things about this production - my favorite was Polonious' angrily plucking a handkerchief out of Laertes' pocket as he said, "But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy; ....". Another of those little touches (like Claudius' speaking to Laertes before Hamlet, as a previous reviewer noted) that speak volumes about the director's skill.

"Hamlet," however, no matter how good the direction or the other performances, revolves around its star as few plays do. And this Hamlet by David Tennant is ... how do I start? Over-acted nearly continuously; almost completely humorless (it puts me in mind of a particularly dreary, and also humorless, Hamlet I once saw in a Russian version); and more evocative of Tennant's portrayal of Dr. Who than of a Danish prince. Hamlet should be the source of the humor in the show, not the cause of it.

The 6 I gave the show was for the direction and the other actors. If Tennant had been up to their quality, I would probably have given it an 8 or a 9. Sigh.

To watch this production was more painful than having a tooth pulled. Not only was Mr. Tennant terribly miscast (and my how he over acted. What was he and the director thinking?)as Hamlet, but the modern dress was an intrusion and it was in constant conflict with the language. Priorities appeared to be more bent on calling attention to the production than to the story and language. And what a shame that the audio was so poorly recorded. I watched it on a theatrical 5:1 system, and the poor audio micing muffled much of the Bard's poetry. In the long shots, the voices echo because production design used hard surfaces and did not take into account acoustics when building the sets. The Brits also do not know how to capture sound in both long shots and close-up so that the audio quality matches. The wide shots sounded totally different from the close-ups. Very amateur. Fortunately there were outstanding performances by all others--otherwise, this production should go down as a tawdry exercise.