Amazon.com

Perhaps the least important thing about this latest film version of Shakespeare's masterpiece is its setting in modern-day New York. Yes, such locales as the Guggenheim Museum are used wittily; answering machines and faxes are logically worked into the plot; and it was both inspired and entirely appropriate to make the prince of Denmark a moody, introspective filmmaker whose avant-garde collages provide the context for some of his famous monologues. All of which would be so much pleasantly humorous eye-candy if it didn't come hand in hand with a sympathy for and understanding of this remarkable cast of characters. For that, ultimately, is what makes Michael Almereyda's Hamlet such a delight to watch. Forget that the immortal rumination on suicide is placed in a Blockbuster Video aisle and notice instead how Ethan Hawke's own youthful, callow arrogance makes Hamlet's vacillations believable.And how the comical but infantilizing way Bill Murray's Polonius dotes upon his daughter Ophelia (Julia Stiles)--and her mute acceptance of his attentions--lead her to thoughts of a watery grave even before her bout of madness. And also notice how much Claudius truly does love Gertrude (when gazing at her, Kyle MacLachlan's face relaxes from its usual plasticity) and how Sam Shepard's ghost is less vengeful or tortured than stiffened by remorse. These are the shining moments of invention in Almereyda's bold updating of the play, and they are why this will be a film to watch and enjoy long after its setting has made it as much a period piece as Olivier's adaptation, with its broodingly lit castle, or Branagh's, with its gleaming 19th-century court. --Bruce Reid ... Read more

Reviews (100)

"The Play's the thing," but not necessarily this film...
One of Shakespeare's greatest plays gets modernized and transported to New York City in the year 2000, with Ethan Hawke taking on the role of the brooding Prince of Denmark. This version of "Hamlet," written for the screen and directed by Michael Almereyda, initially holds much promise, with what appears to be an outstanding cast through which Almereyda can present his vision of this oft-told tale of murder and revenge. That "vision," however, turns out to be somewhat clouded, and though the basic story remains intact, it comes across as something of a "Cliff's notes" rendition that is less than satisfying. And by the end we realize, too, that not all actors-- even good ones-- are cut out to play Shakespeare.

Hamlet's father, the King/CEO of the Denmark Corp. has died, and within a month his mother, Gertrude (Diane Venora), has married his uncle, Claudius (Kyle MacLachlan), who has also taken over the company. Hamlet, now ensconced in the Elsinore Hotel, grieving for his father, is appalled by the marriage of his mother to his uncle, and moreover, with such haste; but it is done, and there is nothing he can do about it. Soon, however, Hamlet discovers that his father was, in fact, the victim of murder most foul, and vows to avenge his untimely demise. Immediately, he sets a course that will bring the perpetrators to justice; but it is a course that must necessarily end in tragedy for Hamlet, as well.

With his screenplay, Almereyda has retained enough of the basic story that even the heretofore uninitiated will be able to grasp Shakespeare's original intent, at least in regards to the plot. The presentation, however, falls entirely short of providing the full impact of the tragedy. Almereyda's approach is altogether too solemn and lacks the energy needed to truly bring this film to life. And while it's true that the story is inherently introspective and melancholy, the director fails to explore the many possibilities available to him-- especially with the contemporary setting-- that could have made this vibrant and exciting cinema, such as the way writer/director Julie Taymor brought Shakespeare's "Titus" to the screen so successfully. Add to that the fact that Almereyda's adaptation of the play is terribly wanting; the character development is lacking, and though the language of the play remains, Almereyda's judgment of what to keep and what to lose in making the necessary cuts to bring a four hour production down to just under two, are questionable. Hamlet's famous soliloquy, "To be, or not to be," for example, is truncated into oblivion. In the final analysis, this was a project perhaps too ambitious for Almereyda at this point in time; knowing what "happens" in the story is not the same as knowing what it's "about," and in some of the choices the director makes, it's obvious that the "essence" of the play has simply eluded him, much to the detriment of the overall film.

As far as performances go, they range from outstanding to the downright laughable, which is disappointing but not surprising, considering the eclectic nature of the cast. Liev Schreiber, who has one of the best voices in the business and the elocution to match-- custom made for playing Shakespeare-- is nothing less than exemplary in the role of Laertes, and among those assembled here is in a league of his own. A tremendously talented actor, Schreiber has not yet achieved the acclaim he so richly deserves, languishing too often in forgettable films like "Kate and Leopold" and "A Walk On the Moon," though he was perfectly cast as Orson Welles in the made-for-TV film, "RKO 281," in which he was brilliant. Without question, with his masterful interpretation of the material and his natural eloquence, he is the saving grace of this film, in which, alas, he is afforded a less than propitious amount of screen time.

Only two others in the film even approach Schreiber's level of excellence, the first being Kyle MacLachlan, in his portrayal of Claudius. MacLachlan, at least, finds the rhythm and flow in his recitations that make his character believable and convincing, and his scenes with Schreiber are the most interesting aspect of the film. The only other actor in the film who can stand alongside Schreiber and MacLachlan is Diane Venora. Unfortunately, in this offering, Gertrude has been reduced to a role of silent observer in most scenes; when she does speak, however, her words are well spoken and meaningful, and it's a shame that she is so grossly underused here by Almereyda.

Then there are the performances that fall into the "acceptable" category, but are far beneath the capabilities of the actors involved, respectively: As Hamlet, Ethan Hawke adopts a brooding attitude that is effective, but he fails to achieve the commanding presence necessary to make his Hamlet viable. Sam Shepard, as the Ghost of Hamlet's father, is simply unconvincing. And Julia Stiles, as the doomed Ophelia, seems to be grasping at straws in a vein attempt at finding her character, and of the three mentioned here, her performance seems the most strained and unnatural, though it is so with both Hawke and Shepard, as well. All of which points up that, again, not all actors can play Shakespeare. It's difficult; and those who make the attempt should be commended for it, even if the results are less than noteworthy.

Make that "most" of those who make the attempt; because in the case of Bill Murray, someone should have put a stop to it right out of the chute. Murray is arguably one of the best comic actors the screen has ever known, and that is not something to be taken lightly; comedy is one of the hardest genres to master, and Murray is one of the best. But his portrayal of Polonius is embarrassingly laughable; there's no other way to put it. And it's one of the many reasons that make this version of "Hamlet" forgettable. There's just no magic in it.

a very original and pivotal look at Shakespeare
This movie is perhaps the best version of Hamlet put to film. Less melodramatic than either Kenneth Branagh's or Lawrence Olivier's traditional versions of the play, Almereyda has created a film that uses Shakespeares text extremely effectively but at the same time this does not take away from the movie's visual quality. Cinematography and editing are perhaps the most important part in a film and the problem with bringing Shakespeare to film is that Shakespeare is about language not image. In terms of performances, Ethan Hawke offers a new interpretation of Shakespeare's most complex character. He portrays Hamlet as a confused adolescent and young filmaker, who is almost driven mad by what he sees in the world. He sees the world through the lens of his video cameras and Almereyda demonstrates this by adding a very dark and bleached look to the colors of the film.

This review is really just a brief outline of what could really be a long essay about this film's art. In short, the film is a masterpiece and bridges the gap between literal imagery and visual imagery.

Bad
There have been a number of brilliant adaptations of Shakespeare in the past few years which has updated and modernized the settings, but this isn't one of them.

The use of contemporary locations throughout this movie is sometimes clever or witty, but never really hits interesting and always distracts from the play. The main conceit -- Denmark as a corporation, etc -- just doesn't fit the language, and each time someone refers to CEO Claudius as "dread lord" it serves to remind us of just how poorly the metaphor works.

Hamlet spends much of his time with a video camera, and clearly the director thinks he has something very important to say on the media or some such, but I have no idea what.

Ethan Hawke's performance brings out the unenergetic side of the role, as half the film is him muttering iambic pentameter in a dull monotone. There's no straining against his inability to act, he just can't be bothered to. I suppose this is a valid interpretation of the role, but it's deathly boring.

Julia Stiles does not appear to understand most of the lines she is speaking.

I'd have to recommend the 1991 movie starring Mel Gibson over this one. At least Mel Gibson wasn't wearing a stupid hat.

Hamlet as a Rip-Off of Romeo and Juliet
I've seen most versions of Hamlet available on VHS or DVD, and this is absolutely the worst. One reveiwer here has pointed out that the cast's inability to handle the language is most likely the fault of the director; I'd say that's true, but the inconsistency and superficiality of the vision is also the fault of Michael Amlereyda. The source of the problem seems to be that no one involved in the movie (with the exception of Diane Venora, who has played numerous parts in Shakespeare, even in Hamlet, before) has any convictions about the play, their characters, or Shakespeare. Contrast this movie with Baz Luhrmann's innovative Romeo and Juliet, and you'll see Almereyda's inspiration. It seems as if he just wanted to cash in on the Romeo and Juliet craze--he even echoes that film by having Fortinbras' closing speech read by a newscaster on a TV set, as the final speech in Luhrmann's movie is read by a newscaster on a TV set. I'm not opposed to modernizations of Shakespeare--I'm opposed to thoughtless rip-offs.

I'd like to list the movie's redeeming qualities, but can think of none. Diane Venora is always worth watching, but she's much better as Ophelia in Kevin Kline's production.

"You come most carefully upon your hour."
This version is an interesting idea, at best. Instead of recieving letters, in this modern-day world they receive faxes. Some of the dialogue is over the telephone or on cam-corder. Great ideas, all. But it just doesn't flow as well as I had hoped it would. There are better versions of the play out there, my personal favorite being the Mel Gibson version, but the Keneth Branagh version is also superior. Ethan Hawke is the typically introverted Hamlet struggling with unnerving circumstances. He acquits himself with integrity, as do many others in this cast. But there was a strange casting choice in this particular version. Bill Murray plays the character of Polonius. For the most part, he is surprisingly good; but there are moments when it seems he just wants to laugh at the absurdity of the language. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Shakespear. (...) ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Crispin Glover fans beware
I wanted to like this movie, being a Crispin Glover fan. Would "Back to the Future" have been the same without him? Heck, no. And he was absolutely perfect for "Willard." He also does standout work in a number of other movies, such as "River's Edge." But his reputation as a major weirdo is not reason alone to cast him in a movie like "Twister," a film ostensibly about a really weird family which I guess is supposed to be funny and quirky, but winds up being a frustratingly dry bore. And this family isn't particularly weird at all. They're just white trash. I'm sure the director cast Glover because he's the goofiest actor most people can think of, but instead of making the family wacky by his mere presence, he's just stuck in what is essentially a very boring movie.
The plot, such as it is, mostly concerns a man named Chris attempting to reconcile with Maureen, the mother of his daughter, Violet. Why he wants Maureen back in his life is perplexing, to say the least, since within the first fifteen minutes of the movie we have seen that she is a horrible mother and a lazy drunk to boot. Glover plays her brother, a moron named "Howdy". He doesn't have much to do except act like a nutcase. Meanwhile, Maureen and Howdy's father (Harry Dean Stanton), a soda pop/miniature golf tycoon, is busy romancing a young televangelist. Not much else happens. Howdy runs around being irritating. There's also a tornado that arrives halfway through the movie and has absolutely no effect on either the characters or the plot. Tim Robbins, a stellar actor who has no business being within ten miles of this dull mess of a movie, has a cameo; he plays a guy who does what we as viewers have been longing to do, which is punch Howdy in the face.
How did this movie get made? Why did a reputable company like Artisan agree to distribute it? How can anyone watching this movie be anything but disappointed? (Although, I must admit I should have known I was in trouble when I saw that Stanton got top billing in the credits.) It's not that the movie is awful or stupid, it's just plain... well, boring. The acting is fine (with the exception of the miscast Glover; as discussed above, there is the type of movie in which his bizarreness works wonders, and there is also the type of movie in which he is simply grating), but there is no sympathy to be had for any of the characters. The plot is fairly cohesive, but devoid of any interesting conflict. The pace is plodding.
Some poeple enjoy a movie that meanders. Some people like certain movies in which "nothing happens." I can be one of those people. But "Twister" simply fell flat, in my opinion. I can't quite put my finger on why. Oh, well. I'm going to sell my copy to the used book store. Maybe they'll give me a dollar for it. Then I can buy an ice cream cone, which I'm sure will be a much more rewarding experience.

The Best Film About Kansas Since The Wizard of Oz
Crispin Glover fans will be in hog heaven when they see this neglected classic. He chews up the scenery, spits it out, and chews it up all over again. He wears leather jackboots, cracks a whip, and plays echoplex guitar-drenched love songs that don't seem to go anywhere. He also sings a great song called "Daddy Was So Mean". His delivery is so delicate that every line spoken trembles with sensitivity.
Watch out for the million-dollar cameo from Bull Lee, author of "Junky".

Crispin Glover fans be happy
Real excited about this DVD. If we could just get "The Dark Backward," and "Rubin and Ed" to be released on DVD, we could view these strange oddities all the time. "Twister" is a very strange movie with a nice cast. Everyone is pretty damn nuts, it's nice to see all these actors out of their minds. This is Crispin's strangest role to date, and that is a BOLD statement. Be sure to buy this if you like a dose of insanity once and a while. ... Read more

Description

Twin brother and sister vampires struggle against each other - and the ancient curse that binds them - in this stylish, erotic thriller set against the concrete canyons of modern-day Manhattan. Fiendishly seductive Nadja (Elina Lowensohn), and brother Edgar (Jared Harris), spend their days entombed in darkness, and their nights hiding in the heart of the New York afterhours scene. But Edgar is haunted by the painful duality of life lived in the shadows - and troubled by his twin's relentlessly evil nature. Nadja weaves her sensual spell around the niece and nephew of famed vampire hunter Dr. Van Helsing (Peter Fonda), Edgar joins forces with his would-be-assassin, plotting to bring down his sister in an all-out orgy of sex, blood, danger and death that the L.A. Weekly calls "Truly hot! Sex and moviemaking of the unsafest sort." Suzy Amis, Peter Fonda, Jared Harris ... Read more

Reviews (22)

A fresh look at vampires
To begin, when I first rented this film I was so engrossed that I watched it a second time the very next day. It is a small low-budget film that shows what you can do without money or big studio backing. Elina Lowensohn is breathtaking as Nadja, daughter of Dracula. Peter Fonda adds a humourous tone as Prof. Van Helsing. And the rest of the cast is very very strong. This is a thinking persons vampire flick with equal parts 40's film noir and 90's disconnected self exploration. The dearth of a spirituality to call ones own is the major theme here. Combined with the gorgeous soundtrack, kitch humour and glorious black and white film this is a keeper that has not collected much dust since I purchased it. Another film that stars Lowensohn and Martin Donovan from Nadja is Amateurs by director Hal Hartly. It is also well worth watching if you enjoyed this one (or even if you didn't).

Not for everyone, but excellent choice for indie & vampire
This is a flick I'd recommend to two types: the vampire movie fan, and the indie movie fan. For indie fans, they have much originality to expect from the raw style and small budget of Nadja. It is shot with a simple digital camera and uses pixelated effects. The acting is solid. Elina Löwensohn, who plays Nadja, is brilliant. The script is fresh, despite the parallels with the original Dracula.

For vampire fans, Nadja is a must-see movie. That is, unless you prefer recycled goth-style renditions of the vampire story repeated over and over. Nadja is one of the few *modern* vampire movies that does not incorporate a form of martial arts fighting. There is a somber, crisp mood reflected from both the black and white digital film and the character script. It is a modern and fresh story which remains true to the character motives and rarely duplicated creepiness (though many have tried) of Bram Stocker's classic novel Dracula. You'll also find hidden humerous remarks throughout the film referencing aspects of 'dracula culture'.

Also, the dark theme of the music in the film (from such artists as Portishead) adds to the emotional effect the director has intended.

surprisingly good
Its a wild ride well worth watching. Hard work, but at the same time somehow natural in its communication. Dialogue thats beyond simple in places, in others, worth hours of contemplation. I haven't "felt" a film this much in a long time.

Beautiful!
This is definately a classic vampire movie. The story is unique & facinating. The director used a Pixel 2000 when telling the story through Nadja's eyes...hence the pixel usage. (The Pixel 2000 was a toy video camera Fisher Price released in the 80's). Personally, I think it gives a fabulous perspective to the film. If you are into films that are gothic, intense, & have many layers, you will like this film.

Bizarre cinematography ruins potential indie classic
I so wanted to love this film, there's so much in it that could make it a personal favorite, but the director's use of blurred pixelled-up images constantly took me right out of the story. There is great mood, acting, ideas and dialogue, but whenever there is conflict or eroticism brewing the screen becomes murky and thick with large squared pixels that blur action to the point where at times you cannot tell which character is doing what. The screen often remains muddled for two or three minutes and there is an important sequence at the vampire's mansion where the screen remains like this for nearly ten infuriating minutes and I began shouting at the screen. I just can't for the life of me figure out what the director was trying to accomplish by destroying the visual images of his story. A few seconds here and there to indicate the vampire's perspective--though, if anything, a vampire's senses should sharpen when blood and skin are to be revealed--would have been more than enough to make his point. I recently tried a second viewing because I really do want to love this film but ended up twice as infuriated and left wondering what statement thick black squares have to make about eroticism and violence. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Michael Almereyda, whose unusual career finds him bouncing between personal experimental movies and genre pictures, is back in commercial territory with the supernatural thriller The Eternal, which was given the opportunistic yet appropriate subtitle Kiss of the Mummy to cash in on the success of 1999's The Mummy. Alison Elliot and Jared Harris star as an alcoholic American couple who travel to Scotland with their son so he can meet his grandmother and, ostensibly, so they can dry out.("Ale isn't like alcohol. It's like food," she explains to her dubious son as she immediately violates her vow to quit drinking.) Unfortunately, they walk in on their crazed uncle (Christopher Walken), who is in the midst of reviving a centuries-old Druid witch--who looks just like Alison Elliot! Almereyda manages to create some genuinely spooky moments (the underwater photography in particular takes on a dreamy beauty), but much of the film has a slapdash quality, from clumsy special effects to awkward performances. The exception is Elliot, excellent as usual in the double role and conveying more with her eyes alone than many actors can manage with words, while Jared Harris offers a dead-on Walken impression in a humorous interlude. It's a gorgeous film with a marvelously eerie soundtrack, but the story is too slight to carry the tension through to the end. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (19)

Uncle Walken we hardly knew ye...
Disappointing because it had potential. Alison Elliot in the lead is a complete stiff and shows virtually no range. Lots of shots of her in the second half of the movie staggering around (as the wife or the witch) looking distraught. There's your drama and it just ain't enough. Jared Harris does a better job as the husband. Tough to get involved though when the married couple they portray comes off as a bit repellant. Walken does his usual thing (which I like) and breaths a bit of life into the midpoint but the story turns to complete mush after he leaves (too soon). As the site review mentions above, the underwater photography is quite pretty. Not intended as a "serious" horror movie to be sure but Nadja (also an underachieving movie) had the better sense of humor.

Horror,Romance and nice soundtrack.
Released on video in Brazil a month ago,this film mixes horror and romance in a cool way. Walken's character,uncle Bill,gets so fascinated by the female druid mummy and her story through the centuries and falls in love with her in hope she'll suddenly comes back to life to save him from boredom.But her story was so sad although intense that might make you think if it's worthy to leave all plans and purposes behind for a great passion. Yes,there is also blood in some scenes,but I think this a very nice movie and somehow reflective. Walken's performance is as good as ever and the other actors are also alright.The soundtrack is nice,mixing indie guitar and techno bands plus good incidental tunes. Yes,do see this film.

whose your mummy?
this one gave me a sort of chill down the center of my spine. Jared Harris(Igby Goes Down), his wife played superbly by Allison Elliott(dont know whatelse shes played in) and their son go for a vaction in Scotland to where Elliott used to grow up. Their they meet Joe, a guy who Elliott loved back then and her relatives, a eeirly Lois Smith(Minority Report) and a ever so mad frankensteinish Christopher Walken(Catch Me If You Can, Envy). Walken brings Elliott to the basement where a centuries old corpse of a mummy lies. He tells her a chilling tale about love and death. Pretty much what you'd expect from Walken, thought I sort of knew he would die. He looked more like a pale vampireish figure (with one blind eye). Maybe it was the red robed coat that gave it away. The mummy is in the shape of Elliott and it's on the loose when it gets done chopping poor Walken to bits. It goes on, roaming threw the house. Tensions flare and chills fly. Camera work is dizzy and amazing. Almereya knows how to make you feel like your there. Harris does a nice Walken impression...Elliott is sexy as ever and Karl Geary(was in 2000's Hamlet with Ethan Hawke with was also directed by Michael Almereya, forgive me if I spelled his last name wrong), Geary is a nice supportee with his long tied back hair and gun. He was bitchin in this movie. Some people might not like this type of movie but I did really enjoy it and I watched it last night. So I recommend this movie

Nothing to really brag about
Eternal is an OK horror film. The idea is that Nora and her Husband Jim, along with their son Jim, travel to Ireland to visit her ailing grandmother. While there she stays with her Uncle Bill (Christopher Walken) who seems to be as ecentric and insane as he described her Grandmother. FOund this 2000 year old druid witch mummy in the bog and seems to be trying to ressurect her. HE succeeds and he dies. From there the witch is trying to fuse with Nora and live her life out again for another 100 years or so. As it turns out however that Nora Grandmotehr is Good Witch and with Nora help slays the evil witch.

This movie is only Ok and is a weekend rental. There is mild violence and gore, and really the R rating goes for the [f]word ... being said a few times, a slit throat, and a lot of drinking.

Not a horror movie
This is not really a horror movie, more of a psychological
thriller. In fact, it's not even all that heart-pumping
suspenseful. Rather, it has a cool rhythm and sense of
inevitability and growing dread. The camerawork is beautiful,
Almereyda's direction is deliberately choppy to give you a
sense of what the usually drunk) characters are feeling.
The soundtrack is great. I loved this movie, which is why
I went out and bought the DVD. I thought it was lovely and
uplifting, while still delivering B-movie thrills. ... Read more