The Dead Don't Die

Spoiler-free!

*Puts some Sturgill Simpson on Spotify*

In this plotless and super dry zom-com, Adam Driver, Bill Murray, and Chloë Sevigny are small town cops in way over their heads when the dead come back to life... due to the Earth being thrown off its axis... due to fracking on the poles. It's always the fracking. Tom Waits as a woods-dwelling hobo man and a strange-acting Tilda Swinton seem to know what's going on though. And Adam seems to get it too: This is gonna end badly.

Doesn't mean you can't have a good time until then...

To say it's dry and has no plot isn't a criticism, though. I quite liked director Jim Jarmusch's last film (also with Adam Driver) Paterson, which was similarly dry and similarly without much happening plot-wise. Where that movie excels though, is in character. The Dead Don't Die is more about the zombies' character than the living people's. And that's where it falls apart for me. The movie wants to draw a parallel between the fictional zombies and real humans who are slogging through life, not much more than animated bodies. Sure; 90% of zombie movie in existence make that comparison. This movie only seems to believe that the only viable solution is to... not... be... human... anymore.

Like as humans we're doomed to be "zombies." And it's cool for a horror film to be fatalist of course, even a comic one, but it sure does put a lot of effort into showing the fate without showing the alternative. Of the three people who can "see behind the curtain" which is the role-model? If there is no role model, then how is the message expected to come across? There's a warning sermon, but no helpful applications offered. The characters are completely undeveloped to the point of self-awareness when the movie point-blank refuses to give one a backstory. Other times you think relationships and dynamics will be developed... but then the zombies intervene.

It's like the whole movie was a neat set up that ends before it ever gets going.

Still the cast is great fun as they have a competition over who can make their face the most dead-pan as they deliver punchlines. For my money, Adam Driver wins, but Bill Murray is never second-rate in a dry delivery either. The real problem with the comedy is that there simply isn't enough of it to go around. With such a big cast and so many irrelevant characters but a normal shortish run time, you barely get a taste of your favorite before the credits roll and it's all over. Plus, only about a third consists of comedy when there's a gruesome zombie murder quota to fill and a message to chuck across.

Overall it was very much what I expected so I was able to enjoy it as it came -- only one point was a surprise, and that was an element of the tone. It gave off an impression of being a project done out of a desire to goof around and have a little fun over trying to be a "real" movie. Basically no story, no character arcing; just a lot of wandering around and seeing where you are, then going off the rails to try something else. With that in mind, it's hard to blame it for not being a serious movie that plays by the rules. If it didn't even want or try to. It's not saying, "I'm great because I'm different"; it's saying, "I'm different because I was doing my thing," and never claims any level of greatness at all.

So I'll take what I enjoyed and forget the rest!

The Dead Don't Die has a reputation for being politically charged, and it's clearly made out of frustration over the current Presidency, but goes so far over the top that no particular ideology is required to enjoy. Fracking is an easy fictional troublemaker, and Steve Buscemi's hat hilariously and nonsensically reads, "Keep America White Again" as he awkwardly explains to Danny Glover that when he said the coffee was too black, he meant it was too strong. When he bites the dust, Tom Waits muses that you reap what you sow, and then takes a bite of a chicken he stole from him. Political satire? Or parody of political satire? Take it as you like.

When you're a movie character in the zombie apocalypse, you let off steam by killing zombie heads; when you're a film director, you do it by writing it into your movies starring your friends. When you're famous, the finished product gets into theaters. And when you're a film fan, you can see it, and maybe get a kick out of it too. It might end up badly, but even so, it's not the end of the world.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - June

Last month, all I saw was Detective Pikachu. It's was a good and fun time (review!). I haven't even gotten to my Netflix show The Rain yet, but I will. I skipped John Wick 3, Aladdin, and so far have skipped Godzilla too, but that just came out so we'll see.

The movie slump seems to be continuing into June. There are a few that look interesting and a few that I feel mildly obliged to see, but there's only one that I'm really excited for. And it's summer now, so that's kind of sad. Does anything look better to y'all than it does to me?


Dark Phoenix
In theaters June 7th; PG-13
Any chance this movie doesn't turn out to be anticlimactic? And now that the characters are destined to be rebooted and recast by Marvel there seems even less reason to be interested. It's a good thing, really. Most of these young actors are very good and extremely wasted on these chopped-up half-roles where they barely even are allowed to act. Since I've seen all the X-Man movies so far, and since I do like the cast, I'll be seeing this, probably even in theaters, but my expectations will be set low.




Katie Says Goodbye
Limited release and streaming June 7th; NR
Very likely to be very heavy on the mature content (the trailer is not appropriate for all audiences, just a warning) but I can't help but be intrigued. The tone is different, the plot seems sincere, and the cast of Olivia Cooke and Christopher Abbott sounds great. So I will keep an eye on it.




Men in Black International
In theaters June 14th; PG-13
Ugh. The trailer looks bad, and I didn't even like Thor Ragnarok, so there's very little appeal to this paring for me. That's all I guess.




The Dead Don't Die
Limited release June 14th; R
The first and only movie this month that I'm extremely excited for, and the only one I'm determined to see ASAP. Adam Driver. BIll Murray. Low-key comedy. Zombies. Sold. Sold, sold, and sold! Some people have been saying it's underwhelming, so maybe I'll wind up disappointed, but it's a risk I just plain HAVE to take because there's no way I'm passing this up.




Being Frank
Limited release June 14th; NR
Logan Miller finds out his dad is leading a double life and has two families. Hijinks ensue. The trailer starts out interesting but the longer it plays and the more it gives away the less it seems to be advertising a good movie... but I still kinda want to find out. I liked Logan in Escape Room earlier this year anyway, and it's a teen comedy -- does it really need to be great to be worth watching? I dunno, maybe.




Toy Story 4
In theaters June 21st; G
This whole thing is such a big, giant, "No thank you" for me that I didn't even want to watch the trailer. Because I won't be seeing it, but who am I to pass my biased "I saw these movies when I was a kid and now they're made for today's kids and that's dumb" opinions on people inclined to enjoy it? So yeah, live and let live. Thanks but no thanks Pixar, I'll wait for Onward.




Anna
Limited release June 21st; R
A movie I'm more interested in because of who's involved than out of being convinced by a trailer. The trailer makes it look oddly cheap to me, but it's Luc Besson, so maybe it'll be better than it looks. I did like his last movie, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, and the lead girl here (Sasha Luss) is the same who played the alien princess in that movie via mo-cap. So that's cool. Helen Mirren, Luke Evans, and Cillian Murphy are also here and Cillian and Sasha appear to have a quiet competition going over whose eyes are bluer.




Yesterday
In theaters June 28th; PG-13
In this movie a Beatles fan hits his head and when he wakes up The Beatles don't exist anymore. But he still knows all their songs so he pretends to have written them himself and takes all the credit, throwing him into a classic rom-com trope of getting something good out of a giant lie that you know will eventually come crashing down but it'll be okay because he'll end up with the girl in the end -- and that girl is Lily James, so I'll watch the movie.




Ophelia
Limited release June 28th; PG-13
This is the most frustrating thing I've ever seen? Daisy Ridley as Opheilia. George MacKay as Hamlet. Tom Felton as Laertes. Clive Own as Claudius. Naomi Watts as Gertrude. I would watch this Hamlet adaptation in half a heartbeat. But it's not a Hamlet adaptation, it's a re-imagining. It's everything from Ophelia's perspective. Why? Beats me. I haven't seen all the actual Hamlet adaptations that I'd like to, so I don't want to bother with spin-off type material that likely doesn't include the lines Shakespeare wrote. But I probably will anyway at some point. And I'm sure I'll be disappointed.

The Jungle Book (2016) & Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle

Spoilers.

Or: The Jungle Book v Mowgli: Which is Worse? 

They were announced at around the same time, and trying to one-up each other with their casting at the same time, but Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book beat Andy Serkis' Mowgli to release by two years. Still, I've always thought of them as competing movies, and never saw The Jungle Book, so once Mowgli released, I figured it was time to give them both a shot and see which is the winner.

They're both losers. Thanks for reading.

Nah -- I sat through both of them, so I'm gonna review and compare them, and I have a few things to get off my chest so hang tight.

Like questions. For example: Why does this elephant have moss growing on it??? (From Mowgli.)

The Jungle Book = the Disney live action remake. Mowgli = Warner Bros. sold to Netflix.

Cast:

Mowgli: Neel Sethi -- Rohan Chand

Bagheera: Ben Kingsley -- Christian Bale

Baloo: Bill Murray -- Andy Serkis

Shere Khan: Idris Elba -- Benedict Cumberbatch

Kaa: Scarlett Johansson -- Cate Blanchett

King Louie: Christopher Walken -- N/A

Wolf Mother: Lupita Nyong'o -- Naomie Harris

Also in The Jungle Book: Giancarlo Esposito.

Also in Mowgli: Peter Mullan, Tom Hollander, Eddie Marsan, Jack Reynor, Matthew Rhys.

Some casts, am I right? It's an impressive list of names, and beside the two kids, there's not a one I'd hesitate to say is talented. They're all terrible. No okay, fine: the actors in themselves do as well as they could be expected to do. Some, like Murray, Serkis and Walken are woefully miscast, and others just do what they do. The real problem here is that the characters are bad because they have confused characters. And the characters are confused because the writing is confused, BUT -- award one point to Mowgli, because the writing there is much cleaner and more straightforward.

Even though we were already familiar with this one's plot. Sorta. (From The Jungle Book.)

The Jungle Book had the disadvantage of being a remake, saddled with a nostalgia checklist and new things to bring to the table. As a result, things like this happen: King Louie, a character invented by Disney for the animation, who was named after "The King of Swing" Louis Prima, now doesn't sing a jazzy song or dance, but is monstrous and meant to be scary -- but is counterintuitively played by Christopher Walken. Or, they needed Mowgli and Bagheera to be separated so Mowgli can meet Baloo, but it doesn't make sense that Bagheera would leave, so he gets knocked out in a fight with Shere Khan. Or, since Shere Khan's the bad guy he needs to be present from the beginning, so flesh out his threat to kill Mowgli. And he needs a backstory reason to kill Mowgli. And the wolves shouldn't give up Mowgli so easily. And there has to be mini adventures to pad the run time since there's no musical numbers, but no horsing around with military elephants. Elephants have to be taken seriously. Also, forget Mowgli going to the man village in the end. Who'd want that anyway?

(From The Jungle Book.) I mean... WHYY??

Mowgli, without the Disney template, does what it wants so the plot is just about Mowgli trying to be a wolf, but then having to leave because of Shere Khan's threat, living in the man village, and then saving the day from both Shere Khan, and the evil white hunter who's visiting the village to pretend to be nice while he breaks off elephant's tusks, and beheads wolf puppies. Wow, that degraded a little. But overall, it's considerably more streamlined and has a mildly clearer message, I guess. Neither hit the neat and simple plot and arc of the 67' animation though, of Mowgli searching for a home, wanting it to be the jungle, and finding out it's the village after all. Of course not.

(From Mowgli.) He has to complete a race to be an official member of the pack.

Let's talk about Baloo. Easily the best thing about the animation film, and no one really knows what to do with him now. The Jungle Book makes him a lazy bum who has to learn to care for Mowgli and at first only uses him to get honey for him. Most of the film he's careless and dismissive. And I've never seen Bill Murray be so droll and unfunny. I doubt it's his fault, but it was depressing to see. Serkis' version has Baloo work as a trainer for the wolves, so he's around for longer, but even more useless, and UGLY. Why they thought making Baloo ugly was a good idea I will never fathom. But Serkis does at least makes him expressive. I wonder if they used any motion capture for it. (Yes, I've discovered they did.)

(From Mowgli.) Just look at how weirdly ugly he is. This movie gave all its animals humanoid eyes, too.

The animation is an interesting subject, actually. The Jungle Book is two years old and the animation has already dated a bit, but it's still objectively better than Mowgli, I'd say. But what Mowgli lacks in budget and quality it makes up for in style. The creature characters have an extra kick of personality, like an amalgamation of caricatured cartoon and photo-realism. So animals are naturally more expressive, readable and recognizable, BUT, at the cost of them seeming out-of-place whenever humans other than Mowgli are in the same scenes. Mowgli spends a chunk of time alone in the man village, and it's like a completely separate movie -- and jarring when animals show up again. Still I prefer that to the characterless designs that happened in The Jungle Book.

They totally failed Baloo by making him walk on all fours. (From The Jungle Book.)

What else? Well, all my favorite things about the old animation were missing from the live action. Too silly for them probably, but that little movie lived of its snappy jazz tunes and 60's pop culture. I figured if they were gonna remake it they'd have some particular reason, but it really was just the original -- stripped of everything that made it original, fun, and meaningful. Bagheera was always my favorite and I missed him being that lovable grump. Neither film commits anything atrocious against him though, so that's good, I guess. In the remake I liked how Mowgli would drone on and on about nothing like kids do, and the final action sequence was a creative change. And I liked in Serkis' version how he put a little bit of unique style in there. Favreau's capable of style, but I doubt he was allowed.

If the original 67' animation wasn't a factor, the choice of which is better would be much harder -- but it is, and I can't not consider it. I watched it again after these two to cleanse my palate, and was instantly swept up in its nostalgia, enjoying its quirks, and noticing a few new things that went over my head last time (it's been a while). So I wonder, why do a remake at all? The nostalgia was much stronger rewatching the original, the hand-drawn cartoons will hold up much longer than computer animation, which becomes obsolete as improvements in the art are made, and all the memorable details are in the original, because the remake is afraid to push any boundary, yet is required to adhere to a more serious and realistic tone.

(From The Jungle Book.) "Keep two of the songs, but... sing them badly? I guess??" "Okay sure." -- Pitch meeting.

Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle wins automatically from that perspective. Quality-wise it's an arguable fight, but Mowgli has a different plot and new characters; and the familiar characters are utilized differently. It may not be good, but it earns its existence by being something unique. The Jungle Book (2016) is neither unique nor the best version of its story. It definitely had a bigger budget to work with, but for me, that's worthless without a soul, and that it lost along the way. Mowgli bored me after a while, but did seem to possess a soul, however weak a one.

So, The Jungle Book is worse. But the best isn't Mowgli -- the original, 1967 The Jungle Book is the best. I don't care that it wasn't supposed to be in the competition. As the only version of this story I've seen that I'd even consider recommending, it's the clear winner. And though I struggled to get through these two other films, I'm glad I did, since it inspired me to revisit this charming little classic that can still hold its own.

This is where it's at.

The Jungle Book (2016) -- 2 stars.

Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle -- 2 stars.

The Jungle Book (1967) -- 4 stars.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - April

Last month I surprised myself, and saw a movie in theaters that I didn't even include in my March roundup. I was planning to mention 10 Cloverfield Lane, but decided against it just as I was about to watch the trailer, because I realized I didn't have anything to say about it. I didn't know anything about it, and didn't want to -- I didn't even want to see the trailer -- I just had an interest in seeing the movie. So one night I was like, "Hey guys, wanna watch Cloverfield?" and my brothers were like, "Sure." So we did. And once it was over I was like, "Should we go see 10 Cloverfield Lane tomorrow?" and they were like, "Heck yes." So we did. And you can read my spoiler-free review of it here, but honestly you shouldn't unless you've seen it already. I'll just say that it's the kind of movie that reminds me of why I love movies in the first place. So I guess I should have mentioned it, but at the same time, I'm glad I didn't -- and didn't look into it too much.

Usually looking through the new releases of the month introduces me to a few lesser known releases that pique my interest, but not so much this time. And the bigger releases aren't hugely exciting either. You never know, but right now it looks like I may be saving my money for Civil War!

My thoughts on one of these is not true -- for April Fool's Day -- guess which one?


Hardcore Henry
April 8th: R
It stars my personal favorite Sharlto Copley, it's exclusively shot from first person perspective, and it's currently getting lots of praise for it's unique and fun non-stop and innovative action and impressively involving plot line. It is the only movie on this list that I'm currently planning to see, but the only problem is that the rating is too much for me. So I'll wait until I can watch it cut, when I plan to enjoy the heck out of it!




High Strung
April 8th: PG
About a ballet dancer and a violin player who "don't fit in" and go up against the odds, this looks like a nice, appropriate dancing movie with a slight music-twist that will be very appealing to fans of the genre. It looks predictable, a little sentimental, and not terribly deep, but hey -- that's the way these kinds of film's work best.




The Jungle Book
April 15th: PG
The new, live action Jungle Book. Well, so far it's been a lot of showmanship. It's got a good-looking cast, and obviously takes much pride in the appearance of its realistically animated jungle animals. (Am I the only one wondering why they're so disproportionately large jungle animals though?) This trailer shows that the film seems to actually have a plot, and there's a lot of hype, but I still need to be convinced that it's gonna be, you know, a good movie.




The Green Room
April 15th; R
"Strong brutal graphic violence" the rating explanation says. I've never seen a violence rating look so foreboding before! Anyway this one's a horror film staring Patrick Stewart as the villain, and among others, Anton Yelchin and Imogen Poots as his victims. I like Anton Yelchin a lot, but this one looks too scary for me. I'm not pulled that far into the horror genre! It's getting high reviews though, so it looks like a hit for those who are...




Paradox
April 15th(limited); NR
A murder mystery with time travel? Sounds like my kind of mash-up. There's not much to find out about this film (it doesn't even have a rating yet) and it doesn't have to look of a really great film, but if it delivers on the promises it makes in the trailer and is decent enough, and can definitely see myself watching it someday.




The Huntsman: Winter's War
April 22nd; PG-13
Uuuuuhhh. Well, at least there's no Kristen Stewart! That means it has to be better than the other one, right? Honestly this prequel to Snow White and the Huntsman does look better. It focuses on more interesting characters and doesn't have the pretense of following a fairy tale. Of course since it's a prequel, we know more or less how it will end -- with the villain undefeated -- which will probably be unsatisfying. Anyway, even if it is better, that by no means guarantees it'll be good.



APRIL FOOL! I lied about lying about one of the movies. I know. I'm such an evil April Fools genius. Or I'm just lazy. One of those. Happy April Fools Day everyone! Don't write with strange pens and be sure to check under your seat cushions!

The Monuments Men

Some mild Spoilers.

World War II is beginning to come to a close as the Allies slowly and surely beat the Nazis back out of the cities they've invaded. But a new problem that many didn't see coming arises: as the Nazi troops leave, they take with them whatever they want, and often destroy the city as they go. Cities full of old buildings and monuments of historical and artistic value. And they take whatever they can move; statues and paintings by the thousands. One man did see it coming, and he pulls together a group of rag-tag men who are willing to risk their lives. Their mission? To protect the art they can, and retrieve what was already stolen.

Damon and Clooney in a "old man" movie. What is the world coming to...?

Besides having the adapted screenplay written by him and being directed by him, The Monuments Men cast is led by George Clooney. Matt Damon is his right-hand man, Bill Murray is an architect, John Goodman is a sculptor, Bob Balaban ran a ballet; Jean Dujardin is a Frenchman whose initial purpose I've forgotten, Hugh Bonneville is the British team member, and Dimitri Leonidas is a young Jewish German who fled Germany before the war and serves as an interpreter. There's also Cate Blanchett present, as a French woman who keeps tabs on the art she witnesses being moved, but has a hard time trusting anyone with her knowledge. Of all these characters I was surprised to enjoy Jean Dujardin's the most. He had a natural charisma that the film's lackluster style couldn't drag down.

And with that remark I'm going to go ahead and say right now: I did not enjoy this movie. In fact, it bored me silly. I won't go so far as to say that it was a bad movie, because technically it was well-made, and I'm pretty sure it succeeded in doing exactly what it wanted to, and I want to give it credit for that. However, I have issues to take, and jaded insults to toss. So let this serve as a disclaimer, and let's get to it!

Please direct your attention to the front of the class.

I'll start with the boringness of it all. I haven't been this bored by a movie since I grew out of being too young to "get" some movies. And I have never been this bored during a Matt Damon movie. Lately I've been examining the building intensity before resolution of each act in a three-act story format, and over the past few weeks I've become very aware of it while watching movies. Well, Monuments Men was so boring that I couldn't tell what was supposed to be the act changes because it was all the same droning, dull, plodding tone. Looking back, I suppose the end of act one and two were deaths, which was... a bad idea. It was not a good idea. And even at the end when they find that one piece of art they've been looking for the whole time, I knew (and I was relieved) that it was finally the end, but it didn't feel like an end; it was just as anti-climactic and completely devoid of excitement as the rest of the movie.

Damon and Blanchett watch paint dry. Or this movie. It's tough to tell.

One of the film's main themes -- actually it was the main theme -- was the question of whether or not it was worth risking human lives to retrieve art that had been formed by human hands. Two of the Monuments Men die while protecting and searching for the stolen art. And both deaths are accompanied by sad monologues about the importance of their mission. But with each death and monologue I was less and less convinced. They kept saying it was about the history and the culture and I kept thinking that knowingly giving up human lives for memorabilia from the past is not a good trade.

Not to disparage the people who thought it was worth it and took the risk, I do respect them, but this whole movie was trying to justify that mindset as something that is always true and right, and it never won me over -- and not just because I disagreed with it. I watch movies all the time that proclaim things I disagree with, and I usually find myself having suspended belief for the movie's duration. It's not like I wasn't willing to briefly suspend my opinions in favor of those of The Monuments Men; it was just never able to pull my mind out of reality and into its story. I just spent the whole two hours sitting on the living room couch, bored, waiting for the action that never came, while rolling my eyes at the miles of spark-less conversations, the calm attempts at humor and the overplayed death scenes.

Okay, pack it up -- show's over!

Once in a while there was a moment or two that edged briefly onto the memorable and enjoyable side, and then there were the few things I actively disliked, but for the most part this film never touched me at all. Neutral. Sometimes a movie being careful and winding up neutral is worse than its taking risks and failing in the eyes of some. What am I saying? It's always worse. It seems to me that this movie could have learned a thing or two from its brave and committed title heroes.

Hamlet (2000)

This review is Spoiler-free.

After reading Hamlet for the first time with fellow blogger Hamlette's read-along, I was very excited to win this DVD in her giveaway, and have finally watched it!

This poster though... is beautiful.

Ethan Hawke becomes the first film version of Hamlet I've seen. The turn-of-the-21st-century Hamlet adapted and directed by Michael Almereyda is modernized to fit the day -- Denmark is a company; Elsinore is a hotel; and everyone certainly dresses like it's the year 2000. But Shakespeare's script is still used almost exclusively. The king has been murdered by his brother for his "throne" and for his wife, and the prince, Hamlet, is out for revenge.

The most obvious thing about this adaptation is it's modernization. I always have, and imagine always will enjoy modernization's of stories. They appeal to me; I'm not exactly sure why, but they do. I get a kick out of seeing the way small (and some larger) things are tweaked to fit the new era the story is set in. This movie is no exception. However, I was very early struck by the idea that this film should have actually been futuristic. Maybe it's because the year 2000 unfortunately thought it was futuristic though it was quickly proved otherwise. (Or, maybe it was just because I liked Ethan Hawke in Gattaca so much.) The tone of the film was very suppressed and understated, which is often found in science fiction dramas, and some things, like the architecture of the Hotel Elsinore, was beautifully modern. But then there were some obvious thing that are easily dated to the 2000's -- Hamlet's knitted hat, and yellow sunglasses, the women's hairstyles, and Ophelia's costumes -- all date the film, and ruin the ageless effect.

The next thing that left an impression was the tone -- like I said, very similar to a sci-fi drama, and I often do really love that kind of tone. Here I appreciated it, but often wished to be given more. But the characters usually delivered their lines with such repressed emotion that I couldn't tell any more what they were thinking any more than I could while reading.

... why did he need to be in a Blockbuster?

One of the things that excited me most about watching film adaptations of Hamlet was that I wanted to see what other people's interpretations of the story looked like. This one didn't give me as much to chew on as I expected, and most of the things left open to interpretation in the original script were also left open here. Like, when Hamlet accuses his mother of murder, I was sure she was innocent; but when she asks the king to pardon her after drinking the wine, she seems definitely guilty. Which is it? I suppose the filmmakers want us to decide, but I wanted to be convinced.

Hamlet himself took most of the change that the heavy tone created, and was almost nothing like the Hamlet I imagined. I enjoy Ethan Hawke's work, and there no one who does the kind of character he does here like he does -- the inner passion that you can see boiling under his stony face -- but he spends the movie in that state, brooding, silent, angry. Not utilizing the outward fire, or the wit, or the liveliness that Hamlet had in my mind's eye. Hawke speaks very deliberately always, and in monotones, and when he'd monologue to himself, I could never grasp the depth or the meaning behind what he was saying.

Not to say it was a bad character, but just, I thought, a bad adaptation of a character.

The best, I thought, was the king, Claudius. Kyle MacLachlan came across well through more simple, honest, easy to understand line delivery, and a natural theatricality. Horatio (Karl Geary) was more of a side character than I wanted. My impression of him from the book was that he was the noble character that witnesses everything (sort of like Nick Carraway of The Great Gatsby), so the story is more or less through his eyes. There wasn't anything to dislike about Geary's performance, so I wanted to see more of him. Liev Schreiber I enjoyed, but I had less preconceived notions about Laertes, and I am biased toward liking Schreiber.

I didn't particularly like Julia Stiles' Ophelia. I am currently not sure if I really like Ophelia at all, but while Stiles' lines were said convincingly, I never felt much for her. Well, I never felt much for any of the characters -- a side effect of the tone. Everyone else -- The Queen (Diane Venora), Polonius (Bill Murray), Rosencrantz (Steve Zahn) and Guildenstern (Dechen Thurman), were all not very impressive, but honestly, as far as my liking as appreciating characters goes, they all were none of them very high, or very low.

I wish I could put a photo of Liev Schreiber here, but alas, I could not find a single good one.

Before I actually sat down and watched this, I was kinda worried that I wouldn't feel qualified to judge it. I'm certainly a relative newbie to Shakespeare's Hamlet. So I was rather surprised when I immediately began to noticed things that I liked and didn't like about this adaptation. I wouldn't be surprised if after watching more adaptations my opinions on this one change slightly, and I definitely judge it more from the standpoint of understanding film than understanding Hamlet. But I suppose that's just it -- Hamlet, no matter how overwhelming and complicated on page, is still a film once it's put on film. And this one strikes a square balance between good and bad, by having some qualities that I really liked, and some that were disappointing.

As a film, it was engaging and enjoyable, and successfully made to suit a certain style. As an adaptation, it wasn't what I would hope for; though I'd imagine it was the adaptation someone would hope for. The coolest thing, I found, is that seeing this brought me to a full understanding, that I know what I want to see in a Hamlet adaptation, even if this isn't it. And that makes me even more excited for all the other Hamlet's I will see it the future. I doubt it will be my favorite once I have the luxury of multiples to pick from, but I am more than glad to have taken the journey.