I'm glad to see that IMDb users were not fooled by Almereyda's ultimately empty, though pretty, adaptation of Hamlet. In reading press for the film, visions of mass delusions and payola danced through my head. This is a lush, beautifully paced film that fails miserably, because the director forgot that you must make a movie do more than look good.<br /><br />I've read that the director did copious research on the play, watching other adaptations, etc. before embarking on his own journey. Apparently he didn't watch closely enough. His script relies heavily on a viewer already familiar with the play, and cuts or rearranges some of the most important scenes. The bulk of the scene between Polonius and Hamlet which begins with Hamlet calling the elder a fishmonger is gone. The final scene is so chopped up to fit Almereyda's modern conceits that it is virtually unrecognizable. That scene is also hastily and sloppily filmed. When does the King poison the wine? A viewer who does not already know that it is poisoned is lost. As was this production.<br /><br />Problems with Almereyda's ham-handed script and spotty direction aside, the real problem here can be reduced to three words: acting, acting, acting. I haven't seen Shakespeare handled this badly since high school. Kyle MacLachlan shines above the rest in his role, and Diane Venora and Leif Schreiber are passable and sometimes even good in their roles. Steve Zahn appears to have the best handle on how to effectively play Rosencrantz as a modern day drinkin' bud, but unfortunately Almereyda has cut most of his role. But aside from them, much of the rest is embarassing and laughable. Julia Stiles comes off as a rank amateur; the cringe factor in her readings is off the meter. The coup de grace is the scene when she fully goes mad and goes cross-eyed as she's flinging polaroids about. She looks more like she's trying to approach a slapstick approximation of drunkenness than a despair-filled descent into madness. Bill Murray, who I love, and who I think is one of the most underrated actors around, is completely out of his depth. Afraid that by playing Polonius too funny, people will accuse him of putting his "stamp" on it, he plays it dry and manages to rip all the laughs out of the funniest character in the play. Polonius is a clown, and should be played as such. Ian Holm's definitive performance in the less-than-definitive Mel Gibson Hamlet is the high watermark, and Holm plays him like a proper court jester. Even Sam Shepard seems a little lost. Granted, Shakespeare isn't really his area of theater, but one would have thought he'd have a better handle on it. And then we come to Ethan Hawke, who I generally think is a very talented actor as well. But his sullen, brooding Hamlet is a one-note prince, and a pretty tedious note at that. While the much-talked about To be or not to be speech is wonderfully conceived in that monument of indecision, Blockbuster, with the not-too-subtle "Action" signs passing by our mirthless heir, Hawke reads the speech without ever getting out of first gear, without ever giving a hint of meaningful inflection. In my Brit.Lit. class in high school we had to memorize and recite this monologue...there were better readings in my class than Hawke offers up here, and his entire performance pretty much follows suit. His jovial, consoling advice to Ophelia to "get thee to a nunnery" is laughable, and while he hits the right note in the also well-conceived, but displaced finish to the scene, leaving the rest of the speech on her answering machine, we're still so busy laughing that the rage loses it's power.<br /><br />This Hamlet is style lacking substance, as Almereyda tries to bind the limitless space of Shakespeare's text within a nutshell, only to find that there's nothing left inside when he's done.