Macbeth (2015)

Introduction:

I enjoy a good Shakespeare adaptation. Blame all those literary courses I took in college. Perhaps my favorite of the Bard’s plays is Macbeth. I really like the supernatural imagery, the battle of reason against ambition, and all the crazy medieval Scotsman yelling at each other. You don’t see too many adaptations of the Scottish play (could it be the curse?) so I relish the ones I do get. I was pretty excited to see a new version featuring Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard and sticking with the medieval setting was music to my ears. Could this be the adaptation I’ve been waiting for?

Summary:

Macbeth (Michael Fassbender) is the fearless vassal to King Duncan (David Thewlis). After engaging in a battle against a traitorous clan, Macbeth and his brother in arms Banquo (Paddy Considine) encounter three witches. These weird sisters prophesize that Mabeth will soon be king and Banquo will be the father of kings. Macbeth finds the idea interesting but maintains his loyalty. However, Lady Macbeth (Marion Cotillard) does no such thing. She believes they can make the prophecy happen, with a little push. Soon enough murder is committed, princes are blamed and Macbeth is crowned king of Scotland.

Once he tastes power and understands the means to obtain it, Macbeth begins to see enemies all around him. He targets his old pal Banquo as well as the steadfast lord Macduff (Sean Harris). But Macbeth’s fury and obsession start to look like insanity to those around him and soon an army forms to depose this tyrant. But Macbeth seeks out the witches again and they provide him with three pieces of information that convince the king he is invincible. Is it fate or will that determine the destiny of Macbeth?

Good Points:

• Some gorgeous cinematography and visual compositions
• Some unusual and effective twists on the execution of elements of the play
• The cast really seems to be engaged in the roles

Bad Points:

• Thick accents may make some of the dialogue difficult to follow
• The music is distracting and ineffective
• The pacing is glacial and the whole film lacks any energy

Overall:

Ouch. This movie hurt, and I really like this play, but man was this a misfire. It all comes down to the directorial choices. Justin Kurzel tries to imbue every line of dialogue with meaning and portentousness. This results in long gaps between lines, meaningful staring and everyone speaking as if they are so deep and serious that there is not a drop of passion or energy on the screen. When the story should deliver impact it just shambles toward you with no power at all. Such a disappointment.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 3

Acting: 3

Script: 4

Music: 1

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 1

Total:  1

In Depth Review

A showdown in a personal hell.

What is Macbeth really about at its core? It is about a man who lets his desire for power overwhelm is judgment. Once he has this power, he fears to lose it, and starts to destroy everything and everyone around him in the effort to keep the power. Folded in and around this is the concept of free will. Is Macbeth a pawn of God (or the devil) or does Macbeth forge his destiny at the suggestion of the witches?

So at the very least an adaptation of Macbeth must capture these two elements and deliver them with a punch. We should see something of ourselves in the Thane turned King. But Kurzel manages to defeat both of these elements and renders the story inert. And Shakespeare should never be inert.

Let’s focus on the positive elements first. Visually, I really love where Kurzel was going with this interpretation of the play. He puts it in a medieval world that seems to still be crawling out of the dark ages. Much of the costumes, sets and armor appear to be inspired by Viking elements, giving everything a rough and earthy feel. There is no pageantry here. It is a gritty and roughhewn world these characters inhabit.

Lady Macbeth: shrouded in death.

The lighting in the movie has a very natural look, reminding me strongly of Zefferelli’s Hamlet from 1990. And like that film it brings a sense of humanity to the setting. But it also adds an interesting chill to the proceedings in this version of Macbeth. Not only does the land feel frosty cold, but the chill seeps into the performances and music. It is an interesting and effective visual style.

The two battle scenes that bookend the film are also wonderfully realized. The first occurs in a fog-shrouded heath. Shapes of armed men emerge and melt into the mist and it as the struggle plays out it creates this wonderful uncertainty to the events. The screen is bathed in blues and greys. It also reminded me of the final battle in Excalibur where Arthur faces Mordred for their apocalyptic showdown. In many ways, this battle is the start of the apocalypse for Macbeth.

The climax of the film occurs on a battlefield enshrouded by the smoke of the burning Birnam wood. Once again the figures of warriors appear and disappear in the smoke. But this time the world is a blazing orange. The fires of hell are all around Macbeth, a hell of his own making or a hell always destined for him?

These scenes are striking and will probably stick in my mind whenever I think about this version of Macbeth.

The witches see all, but what do they know?

I also liked how Kurzel took some of the supernatural elements of the story and twisted them in unexpected ways. In this version, Macbeth has two sons who die, leaving him without heirs. And don’t worry purists, Kurzel tells their stories through pure visuals, no new lines were added. The eldest boy dies during the opening battle. Macbeth is helpless to save the boy. This lad appears during the film. He is the one offering his father the dagger to slay Duncan in the famous “Is this a dagger I see before me?” monologue. He also appears as the blood-stained ghost that tells Macbeth that “none of women born may harm Macbeth”. I really like this take, as it gives a personal touch to the action, and allows us to understand Macbeth’s madness.

Even Lady Macbeth’s “out damn spot” speech is impacted by the appearance of her youngest child, whose death opens the film. Using these ghostly children is eerie and adds to both characters in a way I’ve never seen done in this play before.

But I can’t avoid it any more. I gave this film a 1, and there is a very good reason for that. I wanted to turn it off. Honestly, I was so frustrated with the viewing experience that I really considered stopping the film. But I kept hoping it was going to improve, that Kurzel was setting up his film in an unexpected way and I’d see what he was doing by the end. But nothing changed and the film limped along.

No time to enjoy our new found power. Let's
plot more murders!

There is very little passion in this version of Macbeth.  This is the story of a man who is driven by his desire for power. But Fassbender’s performance is cold and aloof. I see some simmering emotions appear here and there in the first act of the play, but they didn’t convince me of his desire for power. After the murder of Duncan, Fassbender plays the king as insane and paranoid. But it is a performance that still feels cold. A few moments allow us to feel the fear, horror and rage that the character goes through, but Fassbender often underplays them.

Lady Macbeth fares little better. Her key scenes in the first third feel distanced as well. I wasn’t feeling her desires. A few moments worked well, especially her torment when she sees the fate of Macduff’s family. But once again these moments were so few.

Both Fassbender and Cotillard have delivered excellent performances in previous films. So what happened?

Either Fassbender's falling asleep or I am.

It was the direction. Nearly all the lines are delivered slowly, with huge pauses after each sentence ends. The camera holds on the actor and then switches to the other. You get another ponderous delivery with so much gravity given to each word you wonder that the whole film doesn’t turn into a black hole right there. Then another pause as meaningful looks are shared.

I get it. You’ve got a movie dealing with murder for power. You’ve got characters who are living in a harsh and cold world. You’ve got fear dripping from every moment of the story. I can see how tackling certain key scenes in this manner would work well. But not every scene.

Case in point. The murder of Duncan takes forever to unfold. Not only are all the lines delivered in the slow style, but Macbeth takes his sweet time wandering over to Duncan’s tent and killing him. The murder itself is brutal and violent (as it should be) but lacks impact because it took so long to occur. Was Kurzel attempting to build tension? I’m not sure, but I didn’t see a man destroying his humanity for the sake of power. I just saw a really slow moving guy suddenly lash out. Didn’t know he had it in him.

Don't just stand there, do something!

To compound the problem is the issue of the accents. I appreciate that everyone went for the Scottish accent and we got plenty of Scottish actors in the film. Macbeth is the Scottish play so that is great. But even speaking this slowly I had trouble understanding some characters, and I know this play really well. My wife is less versed in this play and she had a real hard time figuring out what they were saying. To be clear, we both watch a lot of films and television from the British Isles, so accents are not usually that big of a problem. But man, this was a tough one. I really wonder if it was the sound mixing that made some of the dialogue sound so muddled.

One thing that I really think contributed to the issue was the score. Modern film scoring preferences rear their ugly head again. I don’t want to sound like a Film Score geek whining here, but we get an atmospheric score instead of a thematic one. Fine, that can still work. But instead of something that supports the film we get these odd long drawn out cello performances. They are dissonant reminding me of work for a horror film. They permeate the score adding additional weight and dourness to the whole thing. You get moments of lots of low-end string instruments churning away, creating some tension, but also distancing us from the emotions. The music feels like oppressive fear from the first moment and stays oppressive throughout. The result is that the atmosphere has no arc, it is flat and turgid. Worse it is distracting. I got pulled out of the film many times wondering what the heck the composer was going for with all that droning.

I will say the adaptation of the play works fine. This version of Macbeth has scenes removed and shortened. I didn’t notice anything vital missing, and this isn’t one of the longer plays to begin with. But the execution makes this feel like it is ten times longer than it is.

Yeah playing with your sword might be more
fun than watching this.

I’m not sure what Kurzel was going for here. He has some wonderful imagery and some really interesting concepts for executing the supernatural elements. I even like how he handled the witches. They can be tricky. Go too over the top and the whole play feels silly. But he keeps them very low key and mysterious. I think he could have gone a bit further with that idea, but what we do get works fine.

The ponderous execution of the dialogue, the dreary dourness of all the performances (the entire run of the film) and the overwhelming atmosphere of oppression and importance crushes the viewer. I didn’t feel a connection here. I didn’t feel any passion here. By trying to keep things low key, gritty and important, the life is sucked out of the story. Compare this to Ralph Fiennes powerful and passionate take on Coriolanus and the difference is clear. You can make a Shakespeare adaptation of Macbeth work if you embrace the lust for power, embrace the deep fear, embrace the paranoia and embrace that final moment of nihilism that sends Macbeth into the blade of Macduff. The emotions are what deliver that final catharsis. Without them, the story is hollow. Give this one a pass and see Akira Kurosawa’s take on the same story samurai style. Throne of Blood captures everything Macbeth is about.

You want to see Macbeth? I'll show you Macbeth!

Avoid being foul. Be fair and click an ad before you go.

Hamlet (1990)

Introduction:

You know what is kinda weird when you look back at it? The 1990s gave a little renaissance of Shakespeare adaptations. I’m not sure if this all started because of Kenneth Branagh’s wonderful adaptation of Henry V in 1989, or maybe because independent studios were flourishing. Who else but an independent studio was going to take a chance on a Shakespeare adaptation? Well Mel Gibson would. Who would have thought? Franco Zeffirelli apparently.

Summary:

So stop me if you’ve heard this story. Prince Hamlet (Mel Gibson) has a major case of depression because his father has died. To add to this, his mother Gertrude (Glenn Close) has remarried the new king Claudius (Alan Bates), who was her brother in law. Ouch. Then the ghost of Hamlet’s father (Paul Scofield) appears and tells him the horrible truth: Claudius killed him to steal the crown!

Hamlet desires revenge, but must tread carefully. So he feigns insanity to hide his plotting. Unfortunately his sweetheart Ophelia (Helena Bonham Carter) doesn’t know that to make of this, even though her father Polonius (Ian Holm) has some definite ideas. Eventually tempers will flair, rash and bloody deeds will abound and poison will be imbibed. The only question at the end of all this is whether Hamlet will get his revenge.

Good Points:

• Some solid and excellent acting by the whole cast
• Amazing details in set and costumes bring the medieval setting to life
• The film moves at a quick pace building up to the finale

Bad Points:

• Purists beware, this version of the play has been trimmed and edited to suit film and modern storytelling conventions
• Sticks with the standard interpretation of characters and events
• Gibson goes a bit over the top at times

Overall:

This version of Hamlet focuses on the story and making the most crowd friendly version of the story. The film drives forward as Hamlet moves from key scene to key scene but with some dialogue (and monologues) moved around, and some scenes shifted or omitted completely. Production elements are wonderful and some of the camera work and visuals are masterful. But this film version will appeal more to people who don’t take every word Shakespeare wrote as gospel. Well worth seeing for some excellent performances and the visual style Zeffirelli brings to the movie.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 5

Sound: 3

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Music: 4

Direction: 5

Entertainment: 5

Total:  4

In Depth Review

Alas poor William Wallace?

In some ways I think this movie has been forgotten. I remember when it came out there was a huge buzz about Gibson playing Hamlet, because most viewers only knew Mel from his roles in Mad Max and Lethal Weapon. But this movie really showed audiences that Gibson had acting skill, and that he wanted to do more than action flicks. Hamlet was as much an adaptation of a classic as it was a defining moment in Gibson’s career. So when Braveheart came around, we knew Gibson could carry a historical drama.

Because really that is what Zeffirelli has given us, Hamlet as a straight up historical drama. This is not a delving into the text, like the Kenneth Branagh version, or a modern revision like the version Ethan Hawke starred in. This is the bard’s play streamlined down into its basic plot, with everything clearly mapped and executed. If you are open to that concept, then you’ll enjoy the film. If you feel that Shakespeare is all about the language and the subtext, then you’ll find this film disappointing.

Polonius explains it all.

It’s a shame to write this movie off because of that perception, because there is a wealth of good performances in this film. Alan Bates brings a dangerous cunning to Claudius. I love Ian Holm’s stuffy and befuddled take on Polonius, a bit of humor in a dark story. Carter brings frailty to Ophelia, so that when we see her break down into madness, it is believable and touching. Paul Scofield brings gravitas to the role of Hamlet’s father. Even small but key roles of Horatio (Stephen Dillane) and Laertes (Nathaniel Parker) are well acted.

If I have any criticism it is with Gibson and Close. Gibson tries his hardest and that may be the problem. When he is on, he’s very good. Hamlet’s melancholy and anguish feel real and palpable. But there are moments where his rage seems too fiery and too intense. Hamlet is a thinker, not a man of action. I always felt he had a slow burning cold rage. Still it is a minor issue and for the most part Gibson delivers in the role.

This scene goes into whole weird area.

Close does a fine job too. But there are a few moments where I’m not sure if she takes the incest angle a bit too far. You almost get the feeling that Gertrude is lusting for her son as well. It is an odd acting choice and one that Gibson seems to play into at times. Aside from those odd moments, Close does a good job, especially when she starts to lose faith in Claudius.

One of the main reasons to see Zeffirelli’s version of Hamlet is his visual presentation of the story. He keeps the setting of medieval Denmark, with it’s cold dark castle, broadswords and earth colors. David Watkin’s cinematography uses shadows and natural light to amazing effect. Location shooting in Scotland and Kent provides some amazing backdrops to the action. During the burial scene for Ophelia, the vibrant green grass contrasts with the pale white skin of the dead girl and the black outfits of the mourners. But it is the darkness of the castle that seems to swallow Hamlet and many of the other characters up. Warm torchlight or candlelight provides pools where characters seem to be isolated from the background and each other. It really is a wonderful look, something Zeffirelli excelled at in his version of Romeo and Juliet back in 1968.

Ophelia is shocked to see she isn't in a Tim Burton movie.

Speaking of the previous Zeffirelli film, Romeo and Juliet featured a wonderful score by the gifted Italian composer, Nino Rota (who also gave us the music from The Godfather). This time Zeffirelli turned to another Italian film music master, Ennio Morricone. For Hamlet, Morricone keeps things dark and moody, matching the visuals of the film. The music fits the movie well, but it is actually sparsely used, coming in only when it is really needed. The final result is a score that doesn’t really stand out, but always works well within the film. Composer Patrick Doyle took a very similar approach (but with a less heavy style) when he worked with Branagh on the 1996 version of the film.

I’ve seen many Shakespeare fans deride this film for all the changes to the script and scenes. To them, the Bard is untouchable. But I think the film that Zeffirelli constructed here works wonderful as a straight film. The pacing is perfect, and actually builds up to the climax with each scene feeling like it adds to the momentum. Compare this to the Branagh version, which is the entire play filmed in its entirety. Branagh’s film moves in fits and starts, even though the energy is high and the acting impeccable. But the goals of the two films are very different. And I actually enjoy both of them for different reasons.

Hamlet watches for the conscience  of the king.

Zeffirelli gives us a Hamlet that is easy to digest, and is very accessible to anyone new to the story. It gives you a taste of all the key elements, all the important speeches and dialogue, all the character interaction. It never really delves into some of the more offbeat interpretations I’ve seen in other films or productions, but plays things very straight (with the excepting being Gertrude’s odd moments). To me this is the perfect version for students studying this for the first time in Lit class. But it also works as a version of Hamlet that you can just throw on when the mood strikes, and you can enjoy for all its visual splendor as well as its entertaining story. This is far from the dud, that some reviewers make it out to be. Believe me, it could have been a whole lot worse. And yes I’m looking at you Mr. Schell.

Coriolanus (2011)

Introduction:

William Shakespeare wrote a lot of plays, but the same few are picked for adaptation to the silver screen. We’ve seen Hamlet a million times, Romeo and Juliet gets made every decade or so. Even Julius Creaser seems to be a favorite. But outside of some TV presentations, Coriolanus has never been on the big screen, until Ralph Fiennes helmed his version.

Summary:

Caius Martius (Ralph Fiennes) is a modern soldier in a country that calls itself Rome. His duty is to the aristocratic senate. He is a ruthless man, confident in his abilities, and scornful of anyone who does not measure up to his standards. But Martius is as good as he claims, and soon defeats Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler) and his army of Volscians in the city of Corioles. After his amazing victory Martius is given the title Coriolanus, and asked to stand as consul.

Unfortunately he has many political enemies, and they know just how to play him. Soon Coriolanus finds himself the object of scorn and hate by the people of Rome, no matter how valiant he is in battle. He spurns the advice of his mother Volumnia (Vanessa Redgrave), his wife Virgilia (Jessica Chastain) and an old friend and senator Menenius (Brian Cox). After an eruption of hateful speech Coriolanus is banished from Rome. But the man is not broken, not even close. He seeks out his enemy Tullus and joins forces with the Volscians. Coriolanus has a new goal in life, to watch Rome and all her people burn.

Good Points:

• The setting of the play is effectively modernized
• Includes powerful performances by Fiennes and Redgrave
• Moves at a brisk pace 

Bad Points:

• Not much of a catharsis for a very unlikable lead character
• The musical score is distracting at times
• Purists will not appreciate the edits and modernization of the play

Overall:

A really admirable effort all told. It feels and moves like a war film in the first half, and then turns into a dark character study in the second half. The surreal dialogue dealing with ancient Rome merges with some really clever modernizations of the setting. The performances are all passionate and powerful Even Gerard Butler (who I can take or leave on most occasions) was really good. My issues with the character come from the play itself, not the performances. Coriolanus is not a sympathetic man at all. But in a way, that is the whole point. If you don’t mind your Shakespeare being modernized and edited, this is a very good adaptation.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 4

Acting: 5

Script: 4

Music: 2

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total:  4

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.

Hamlet (1961) - MST3K Review

Summary

Alas poor Hamlet (Maximilian Schell)! His mother Gertrude (Wanda Rotha) has married his uncle Claudius (Hans Caninenberg) after the untimely death of King Hamlet Sr. One night the ghost of Hamlet’s father appears to Hamlet and declares that Claudius not only stole the queen, but also murdered the king. Now Hamlet must determine if the ghost is telling the truth all the while dealing with his grief. This causes him to act very strangely – disturbing his fragile girlfriend Ophelia (Dunja Movar). Several monologues later, Hamlet decides to spring a clever trap to reveal is Claudius is the killer. If the guilt falls on Claudius, Hamlet will exact his revenge. But if Claudius is blameless, then the ghost is obviously a demon. Who will be left standing after revenge is complete for Hamlet – The Prince of Denmark?

Movie Review

Shakespeare is universal. His stories and the way he tells them have inspired productions across the globe. Sure we are familiar with some of the more famous film attempts – Olivier, Branagh or Zefferelli. But even legendary Japanese director, Akira Kurosawa, found the story of Hamlet inspiring enough to adapt it into a twisted tale of Japanese politics and business for his film The Bad Sleep Well. So it really should come as no surprise that there is a German version of the play, with Maximilian Schell in the role. On the surface it sounds like a good thing – an interesting take inspired by Germany post World War II.

I’ve seen poor productions of Shakespeare (and have performed in a couple too). One of the worst I’ve seen was a version of Macbeth that was inappropriate on every level – from the acting down to what I will loosely call costumes. I’ve never wanted to riff a production as badly as I wanted to that night. But I held my tongue, in case family members wouldn’t have appreciated my comments.

This version of Hamlet is slightly worse than that version of Macbeth I experienced. Mostly because this version of Hamlet goes out of its way to make slow moving play crawl even slower. You want an example of dreary lifeless Shakespeare than this is the version for you.

Filmed entirely in black and white for German television, everything about the film is depressing. The set is abstract, with ramps rising here and there. Blocks of what look like concrete and rebar approximate thrones (that description sounds much more interesting than what you see). A dais here, a cross over there, and mostly shadows and black curtains. I can see what they were trying to do, allow the acting and faces of the characters to stand out more against the darkness and sparse set. That works fine if your actors can keep things compelling.

That just isn’t happening here. The first huge problem is that the entire film is dubbed. I’m still not sure if the film was recorded with the actors speaking in German and then dubbed into English, or if they were speaking the lines in English and then dubbed again in English. Either way they’ve almost all been dubbed by another actor. Maximilian Schell’s familiar voice is the exception to this; he appears to have dubbed his own lines. But take Claudius, for example. If that isn’t Ricardo Montalban doing is voice – well then I’ll throw back my head and yell “Khaaaaaaaaaaannnn!” This dubbing is half hearted at best and just droning at the worst. One of the funniest parts of this film (not on purpose) is to hear the voices of the play within the play. These people don’t care, don’t’ know what they are saying and just spout out the Bard’s lines like they are reading ingredients off the back of a candy bar wrapper. Hamlet and Claudius are the best of the lot, but even their work is very poor.

Then there are the odd camera choices. I’ve mentioned the lighting before, but there are other odd things. During the whole encounter with the ghost, the camera stays on Hamlet – the whole time. The ghost talks on and on and on, in a dubbed voice sounding like doped out Yogi Bear. We see Hamlet, um reacting I suppose. But it looks more like Schell thought the camera was going to be on the ghost, so he’s just kind staring for a while and then looking mildly anguished – or maybe it was indigestion. Why the ghost isn’t shown during this scene is beyond me. You do get to see the ghost earlier and even if he is dressed like a drag queen, it would make things more visually interesting than staring at a close up of Hamlet’s un-emotive mug. The play within the play pulls the same thing. We see Claudius and Gertrude watching the play and Hamlet leering like an imbecile behind them. The droning actors go on and on and Claudius looks more and more constipated – but other than that it’s as dull as dull can be.

Are there any good points? Schell has moments where he isn’t over acting or under acting. They are few, but they are mildly effective. He is a huge fan… of… the… dramatic… pause. As we know Hamlet gets a ton of long speeches – well Schell manages to make them even longer. I wanted to keep this positive, so I’ll say that when he’s on, he’s not bad. Also not bad is Movar as Ophelia. She’s cute and does a good job in the role, both in the early scenes when she’s obviously pining for Hamlet and later when she’s gone off the deep end. Her dubbing is passable, but runs into the issue of sounding bored or just reciting words at times. I feel bad judging her too much since she died a couple years after this was made, and rumor has it that she killed herself. Franz Schafhetlin as Polonius has some funny looking hair. Dieter Kirchlechner as Laertes looks like Duran Duran singer Simon Le Bon. And then there’s Gertrude with her clown hair and bugged out eyes has to be seen to be believed. Was this supposed to be a surreal horror film?

Shakespeare can be tough to perform and Hamlet is often considered one of the tougher plays to do well. You need all your aspects to work together and to keep in mind that you want to entertain the audience as well as deliver that cathartic pop that all good tragedies can deliver. This film has none of those elements. It’s supremely dull. It’s dreary. It’s full of itself. It’s really the opposite of entertainment. It’s a challenge that Mike and the bots couldn’t resist.

Episode Review

This has to be the most controversial episode of the entire run of Mystery Science Theater 3000. This episode divides people as no other does. When the worst episodes of the show are discussed, this one is always added to the list, if not at the front of it. Those who dislike it site the dullness of the movie, the fact that it’s Shakespeare and that makes it too interesting to riff, or that it goes against the very concept of the series.

For the most part, those that enjoy the episode tend to really enjoy it. Maybe not putting it in the top 10, but certainly in a place as one of the most unusual and entertaining episodes of the season and the whole run on the Sci-fi Channel. I fall into that camp. For me, Hamlet is a favorite episode.

This episode has simple gags like the moment where Laertes and Hamlet give each other the evil eye and the bots grumble “Loosertes”, “Craplet”. And it has ones that play on the words of the Bard themselves. Such as inserting extra phases into the famous “To Be or not To Be” speech. As Schell pauses dramatically after saying “To sleep, perhaps to dream!” adding extra emphasis on DREAM! Mike adds “The impossible DREAM!” It’s got comedy for the fans of the English major in the room as well as the neophyte.

To be honest sometimes the film defeats them. There are a few long stretches without riffing (sometimes because the speechifying is going on and on and on). Also, this movie is so dreary and dull that it does threaten to overwhelm any joy you may have in your life. A few other movies fall into this category (Red Zone Cuba, Monster A Go-go), and it takes some serious riffing energy to pull it off. In this case there are some really bright moments, but also quite a few quiet ones.

What this episode really boils down to is a challenge for the crew at MST3K. I think that the idea of tackling one of the greatest dramas in the English language appealed to them. They knew It was the end of the run for them. Why not do something different and unexpected? Why not tackle a really horrible version of Hamlet and see what happened? At heart most of the crew at Best Brains are well read and well versed in movies. I can see the appeal of tackling this type of thing.

But it really turned against them. So many people find this episode to be unfunny and completely boring. I’ve heard some people call it pretentious and self-indulgent. In a way I can see it. This episode wasn’t done with the fans in mind – I think it was done for the cast and crew.

When it came to the host segments things are really mixed. The episode starts off with the bots trying new names like Htom Sirveaux and Crue. Then Pearl reveals her plot to infect the world with a deadly virus. Mike distracts her with a game a three card Monty. At stake, if Mike wins he gets to pick the movie. If he loses, him and the bots will be infected. Pearl is easily bamboozled and Mike picks Hamlet. Little did he know what he was in for. This whole sequence is very amusing with Mary Jo really working the comedy as Pearl, and Kevin playing Bobo perfectly.

At the first break the bots try to scare Mike by being the ghost of his father – it doesn’t work too well. The next break has Tom and Crow performing various avant-garde versions of Hamlet – the all furniture version sounds interesting. At the next break it’s time for the new game show, “Alas Poor Who?” The bots must guess the identity of a celebrity from one of their bones. Don’t forget to put your answer into “Alas Poor” form. The game show sequence is so silly and dumb, you can’t help but laugh. After the movie ends, the bots show off their Hamlet action figure. At Castle Forrester, Prince Fortenbras shows up and demands to say his lines. Pearl sets him straight.

What it all boils down to is this. You are either going to find Hamlet to be amusing and worth checking out. Or you’re going to find it a real slog and maybe an episode that puts you to sleep. There doesn’t seem to be much middle ground. I think it helps if you enjoy Shakespeare (and Hamlet in general). I also think it helps to have a sense of humor about the Bard and his work, as well as those who attempt to put it on and don't quite manage. 

I’ve run into a few people who still dislike it for all that, but I think it helps you appreciate what the show was trying to do.

Alas, I can not give it five stars. Instead I give this episode four Yorik skulls out of five. I knew it Horatio.

This episode is available on the Mystery Science Theater 3000 Collection Vol 4.