That was an excellent one.

How sad is this?

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

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

The first thing I have to say is that the actors were very clear; not a line was lost. I didn't have any difficulty following the story and understanding the characters. That said I have quite a few critical issues with this particular production:David Tennant's Hamlet was a distraction and a nuisance. In a way, it felt like I was watching Jim Carrey in Ace Ventura. He was incredibly goofy and silly throughout, painting a portrait of Hamlet that more or less resembled a cartoon than a human being. He was very literal in his interpretation of madness… to the extent of going cross-eyed and twirling his finger in circles by his temple with a whistle. In a way, it felt as though all the other actors did plenty of work in developing their characters, and while I have no way of proving such a claim, I felt Tennant simply waltzed into the theatre memorized and disconnected.This particular production was not in front of an audience. It was specially constructed for the camera and the actors did not need to project as they would in a theatre space. However consistency was lacking. At times the actors adjusted appropriately for the intimacy of the camera, while at others they were too extravagant to fit the parameters of the screen (namely, Tennant, along with the actors playing Horatio and Marcellus). The actors playing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were far too coarse with their comedy (I blame the director for this), accompanied by silly music to tell the audience this is supposed to be funny; their scenes came off boring more than anything, and foreign to the play's established style. In a positive critical assessment, I must applaud Patrick Stuart who marvelously brought to life both Claudius and the dead King Hamlet. His presence always filled the room. He wore the crown of royalty as one should… as a regal as a god with the unwelcome humility of a man. His scenes were a breath of fresh air, and served as a healthy balance to counter Hamlet's loopy madness. Additionally, John Woodvine's Player/King, with his deep resonant voice, captivated me along with the characters as he told the tale of Pyrrhus. That too helped bring the play back to earth in an emotionally grounding way. I held my breath for the Woodvine's every word. No tricks or cuts were needed; he was enough to fill every viewer's living room.RSC's Hamlet was really driven and ultimately succeeded because of the powerhouse performances of its two female leads. Penny Downie's Gertrude was spectacular. She was brimming with an unbridled carnal lust intermixed with the nervous guilt that climaxes full force in the bedroom scene with Hamlet. Where one expects Gertrude to weep, she laughs and does so with so much anguish your stomach churns for her. But if anyone's performance could be called truly haunting, it is Mariah Gale's Ophelia. At the top she seems sweet enough; virginal, hopeful and poetic in absorbing the banter of those closest to her. Even as the players play she was complete and commendable for being so after Hamlet's "get thee to a nunnery" nonsense. This is a stark contrast from the Ophelia we encounter after Polonius's death. Her singing and garbled gibberish, intercepted by outbursts of a petrifying scream, was frightening. The messy hair, dark eye shadow, and bloody scratches on her arms helped drive the point, but her performance was enough. Her madness in this production may have been an intentional tool to contrast Hamlet's "appearance of madness" and a mind truly shattered. Her two scenes after Polonius's death, prior to her suicide, were enough to enrich the entire play and atone for it's less than praiseworthy elements.Set in present-day, I would have appreciated more consistency as the atmosphere seemed to jump back and forth from archaic to contemporary. I had expected a polished diamond of a play, being produced by RSC, and what I experienced was a pretty stone caked in crud. Tennant was my biggest problem and to enjoy the play I had to ignore the title character. With that accomplished, the production was top notch and the ensemble was spectacular. It's a shame they didn't showcase a versatile undiscovered talent for the main character instead of casting a commercially recognized name. The play would have been richer for it.

It was more out of curiosity than anything else that I rented this DVD from Netflix. I have always adored Patrick Stewart and have recently been introduced to David Tennant as the Tenth "Doctor Who". I think everyone is somewhat familiar with the story. Uncle Claudius(Stewart) kills the king and usurps the throne by marrying the widow. Hamlet(Tennant), the son finds out about the duplicity and plots to kill him. Stewart's "Claudius" is distinctly kindly and menacing at the same time. Stewart is always exceptional and his cool performance stole the show. It was difficult to know what to make of Tennant's "Hamlet". I made it a point to try not to think of "Dr. Who". It's always easy to see an actor as one character and not another. At the beginning I found his performance rather scattered, but after the "...to be or not to be..." speech the performance settled down. Although a bit long, I thought it a great movie, very tense and somewhat melancholy.

ACTING! Tennant is so bad that the otherwise so-so production is rendered ludicrous. The CCTV touches are foolish, but only mildly annoying compared to Tennant's banal, manic interpretation of his role. He renders Hamlet a clown, a caricature, a ridiculous figure to be cringed at. No nobility, no dignity, just a mad fool. Hyper-active, ADHD-driven, he needs some Ritalin to calm him down. There's not a single scene he's in that he does not ruin with his childish antics and wild grimaces and twisted gestures. Otherwise this production is just acceptable. The supporting cast is so overshadowed by Tennant's hysteria that they seem stunned, dismayed and disbelieving. There are scenes – Hamlet absent – that work well enough, but their effect is soon lost. Embarrassingly bad.