Take 3: Hamlet (2000) Review

Among the three times I’ve participated in the Classic Literature on Film Blogathon, I reviewed To Kill a Mockingbird, 1948’s The Three Musketeers, and The Grapes of Wrath. Looking back on these selections, I’m surprised I haven’t chosen a title from William Shakespeare sooner. In fact, as of July, 2026, the only Shakespeare adaptation I covered on 18 Cinema Lane (so far) is the 2000 film, Romeo Must Die, which I reviewed all the way back in 2019. So, you could say another article about a Shakespeare adaptation is long overdue. Because it fits the criteria for the Classic Literature on Film Blogathon and because it was recommended by Hamlette (from Hamlette’s Soliloquy), I will review the 2000 television movie, Hamlet! Similar to Romeo Must Die, the TV film version of Hamlet is a “modern” adaptation of a famous William Shakespeare story. But this time, the production “is revisioned in America at the turn of the 20th Century” (according to IMDB). Did I enjoy watching Hamlet as much as or more than Romeo Must Die? Thanks for joining me for this review, as we’re now about to answer that question!

Hamlet (2000) poster created by Hallmark Entertainment, Spare Room Productions, Artisan Home Entertainment, Cowboy Booking International, and Lions Gate Films Home Entertainment

Things I liked about the film:

The acting: Campbell Scott portrays Hamlet in the 2000 adaptation of William Shakespeare’s story. If I could describe Campbell’s performance in one word, it would be ‘fluid’! During the famous “To be or not to be” monologue, Campbell adopts a variety of facial expressions, vocal inflections, emotions through the eyes, and even movements of the head to showcase Hamlet’s ever-changing mood. Not only that, Campbell’s transitions between emotions are so effortless, Hamlet possesses a captivating presence within the movie. Ophelia also has a captivating presence in Hamlet! Portrayed by LisaGay Hamilton, Ophelia’s expressions of emotion always appeared genuine. A great example is when she is sharing her concerns about Hamlet with her father, Polonius. With a furrow in her brow and speaking carefully in a calm yet concerned voice, Ophelia gives her father (and the audience) a reason to take note of her serious observations. Blair Brown delivers a strong performance as well, portraying Hamlet’s mother, Gertrude! Whether frightened by the horrifying emotional deterioration of her son to her joy as she awaits the start of a play, Blair carries her character so believably, it was easy to forget I was watching an actress portray a character. What worked in her performance’s favor was her understanding of how and when to utilize emotions to her advantage. Even though I liked the three performances mentioned, I thought the cast as a whole was strong!

The set design: The original source material of Hamlet revolves around royalty. This component of the text was translated to the 2000 adaptation, as Hamlet and his family are sometimes referred to by their royal titles. Since the majority of this film version of Hamlet takes place within Hamlet’s family’s home, the set design effectively represented their opulence. Home décor pieces, like gold sconces, rich wood furniture, and ornate rugs, found their place throughout the story. Chairs boasted intricately woven designs, appearing as their own form of art. Carved detailing was present on a wooden staircase, a stone fireplace, and even on a ceiling in one scene. Smaller pieces of set design were not overlooked either, such as a burning piece of paper being placed on a silver platter. Not only did Hamlet’s set design make its project visually elegant, it complimented Shakespeare’s source material as well!

Use of music: When a movie’s creative team incorporates music into their project, the intended mood of a given scene can be elevated. This is how the creative team behind Hamlet approached the musical element of the 2000 adaptation. Whenever a suspenseful moment took place, such as the ghost of Hamlet’s father suddenly appearing, the rhythmic sound of drums played in the background. Because the sound of the drums was loud and with the drums possessing a quicker rhythm, the feelings of fear, confusion, and even irritation rose among the characters who could visualize the ghost for themselves. Raised adrenaline from the audience can also happen because of the drum music’s incorporation within Hamlet. That music contributes to a viewer’s feeling of being on the edge of the seat, eager to discover what will happen next!

The 2026 Classic Literature on Film Blogathon banner created by Paul from Silver Screen Classics.

What I didn’t like about the film:

Shakespearian speech in a “modern” story: As I mentioned in my Romeo Must Die review, I was not a fan of Romeo + Juliet. The reason is how the characters adopt Shakespearian speech while the movie appears to take place in 1995-1996. The 2000 adaptation of Hamlet makes the same creative choice. Like I brought up in this review’s introduction, Hamlet “is revisioned in America at the turn of the 20th Century”. So, the references to kings, Denmark, and Norway don’t make sense. Having the characters speak in the Shakespearian manner sounds jarring, as it breaks the illusion of immersion of the late 1800s to early 1900s presented on screen. Because I don’t hear Shakespearian speech often, I not only had to actively pay attention to what was happening in the film (or else I would have missed important context), I was sometimes confused by what the characters were saying. This aspect of the project became a frustrating part of my movie-viewing experience.

Forgotten storylines: Ophelia’s brother, Laertes, desires to travel to France. Even though their father, Polonius, allows Laertes to journey to France, he has his doubts of whether his son will behave himself in a gentlemanly fashion while there. This storyline from Hamlet became forgotten as the film progressed. That was due to the script prioritizing Hamlet’s downward spiral. Even though Laertes returns later in the movie, his trip to France wasn’t brought up. I was disappointed Laertes’ French travels didn’t play a bigger role in the 2000 adaptation of Hamlet, as there was potential for that narrative to be intriguing. However, I’m not sure how much influence Laertes’ adventure through France had in the original source material.

The run-time: The Hamlet adaptation from 2000 received a run-time of two hours and fifty-eight minutes (according to IMDB). Similar to my thoughts on Gods and Generals and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Hamlet’s run-time could certainly be felt. The pace of Hamlet is mostly slower, with a few action-packed, suspenseful scenes incorporated into the story. That, along with the movie’s two hour and fifty-eight-minute run-time, makes the 2000 adaptation feel unnecessarily stretched out. Like my experience watching The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, I was zoning in and out while watching Hamlet, trying not to fall asleep during this movie-viewing experience. Had the 2000 adaptation of Hamlet been split into two parts, like Hallmark’s 2004 adaptation of Frankenstein, the movie wouldn’t run the risk of feeling like an endurance test.

Hand-written letter image created by Veraholera at freepik.com. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/background”>Background vector created by Veraholera – Freepik.com</a>. <a href=’https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/love-letter-pattern_1292902.htm’>Designed by Freepik</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

My overall impression:

To review or not to review, that is the question (ok, I couldn’t resist making that reference, especially in this review). Back in 2019, I shared in my Romeo Must Die review how much I liked that film. Because it was a “modern” adaptation of Romeo and Juliet featuring martial arts, the 2000 movie was successfully able to create a unique version of William Shakespeare’s story. Seven years later, after watching the 2000 adaptation of Hamlet, I find the picture just ok. The creative team behind Hamlet had visual ambition, setting their interpretation “in America at the turn of the 20th Century”. This ambition could be seen in the set and costume design, attempting to bring the late 1800s to early 1900s back to life through elegance and historical accuracy. But having the characters adopt Shakespearian speech breaks that illusion of immersion. Having a two hour and fifty-eight-minute run-time also negatively impacts the film’s chances for rewatchability. However, the cast as a whole gave strong performances, with everyone doing a good job, acting wise, with the material they received. The movie itself is also a competently made project, incorporating elements that enhanced the movie-viewing experience, such as the use of music. But at the end of the year, when I look back on the movies I’ve seen (and even reviewed), the adaptation of Hamlet from 2000 will not be a film I reflect on as fondly as other films.

Overall score: 6-6.1 out of 10

Have you seen the 2000 adaptation of Hamlet? Are there any “modern” adaptations of William Shakespeare’s stories you’d like to check out? Please share your thoughts in the comment section!

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen

Presenting the Gold Sally Awards’ Best Actor and Actress Polls

It’s that time of year again; time to choose the best actor and actress of this year’s Gold Sally Awards! Like I stated before, these polls will run together. But voting for this round will only take place within a week’s time. It will start today, on March 8th, and end on Tuesday, March 15th. Even though you can only vote once per person, you can vote for more than one nominee. The link to the polls will be located under each poll. Just click on the word ‘PollMaker’.

 

Who is the Best Actor of 2021?

 

1. Ralph Macchio — The Karate Kid (1984)
2. Gene Kelly — The Three Musketeers (1948)
3. Campbell Scott — The Love Letter
4. Raymond Burr — Perry Mason: The Case of the Telltale Talk Show Host
5. Marshall Williams — Sincerely, Yours, Truly
6. Joseph Paur — Rigoletto
7. Jeremy Jordan — Holly and Ivy
8. Yul Brynner — The King and I (1956)
9. Fredric March — A Star Is Born (1937)
10. Jesse Metcalfe– Poisoned in Paradise: A Martha’s Vineyard Mystery
Created with PollMaker
Who is the Best Actress of 2021?

 

1. Elisabeth Shue — The Karate Kid (1984)
2. Lana Turner — The Three Musketeers (1948)
3. Jennifer Jason Leigh — The Love Letter
4. Barbara Hale — Perry Mason: The Case of the Telltale Talk Show Host
5. Natalie Hall — Sincerely, Yours, Truly
6. Ivey Lloyd — Rigoletto
7. Janel Parrish — Holly and Ivy
8. Deborah Kerr — The King and I (1956)
9. Janet Gaynor — A Star Is Born (1937)
10. Sarah Lind — Poisoned in Paradise: A Martha’s Vineyard Mystery
Created with PollMaker

Have fun voting!

Sally Silverscreen

Take 3: Hallmark Hall of Fame’s The Love Letter Review

I’m not going to lie; I love a good blog party! So, when I discovered Heidi, from Along the Brandywine, was hosting the Valentine’s Day Period Drama Blog Party, I couldn’t wait to sign up! Period dramas are not regularly covered on 18 Cinema Lane. While I do have a re-cap series for When Calls the Heart, I choose what films to watch based on how interesting their stories sound. There have been period dramas I loved, such as Swept from the Sea. But, for this blogathon, I wanted to review a film I hadn’t seen before. For about a year, I’ve had the Hallmark Hall of Fame movie, The Love Letter, on my DVR. Because parts of the movie take place in the 19th century, I felt it fit Heidi’s time period requirement of the 1600’s to World War II. I try to watch as many Hallmark Hall of Fame titles as I realistically can. Prior to reviewing The Love Letter, the only Hallmark Hall of Fame movie from 1998 I’ve seen is Grace & Glorie, which was one of the best movies I saw last year! While not all movies from this collection are created equally, I do watch these movies with an open mind.

Since an image of The Love Letter‘s poster was featured on my television, I took a screenshot of it with my phone. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.

Things I liked about the film:

The acting: Because The Love Letter heavily relies on the performances of its lead actor and actress, this part of the review will focus on Campbell Scott’s and Jennifer Jason Leigh’s portrayal of Scott Corrigan and Elizabeth Whitcomb. With Campbell’s performance, there was always a sense of focus in his character. This focus could be seen in Scott’s eyes. When he was inspecting the desk at the antique store or restoring that same desk, Scott’s focus showed how much he cared. This was a consistent part of the character and helped whenever he wrote to Elizabeth. In historical fiction/period films, it would be easy for the screenwriter to give their lead female character one distinct type of personality. Elizabeth Whitcomb, on the other hand, held a balance of two that brought something unique to the character. She had a youthful radiance about her, being a “romantic dreamer” at heart. However, Elizabeth carried herself with a graceful maturity that prevented her from becoming childish or immature. Jennifer brought both aspects to Elizabeth equally and beautifully, allowing her character to be multi-dimensional.

The historical accuracy: I am not an expert on the 1860s and its historical significance. But based on what I do know about this particular period in time, Elizabeth’s part of the story looked and felt historically accurate! The Whitcomb family home was furnished with pieces that appeared antique, from the couch in the sitting room to the desk Elizabeth and Scott share. Dark wood held these structures together, with green cushions and intricate carvings finishing the couch and desk. The costumes were very detailed and also reflective of the 1860s. Embroidery on Elizabeth’s jacket and the overall design of her lacy parasol serve as two examples. Even the dialogue spoken by the characters sounded like it came directly from an era gone by. Pieces of the story like the ones I mentioned tell me, as an audience member, the creative team behind this film cared about the presentation of this part of their project!

A fantastical element: Most of the stories from the Hallmark Hall of Fame collection are grounded in reality, which means that fantastical elements are rarely found in these scripts. With The Love Letter, the story revolves around two people from different time periods who communicate to each other through letter writing. The idea of time manipulation is a concept that would likely be found in either a fantasy or science fiction film. While stories like Somewhere in Time and Portrait of Jennie have been dramas paired with this specific concept, I don’t recall Hallmark Hall of Fame creating their own film like that before or after 1998. Because The Love Letter’s creative team chose to include a fantastical element into their overall project, it gave the movie an opportunity to stand out from other titles. This was a creative risk that worked in the film’s favor!

The Valentine’s Day Period Drama Blog Party banner created by Heidi from Along the Brandywine.

What I didn’t like about the film:

Scott being engaged: A trope that has appeared in several Hallmark films is the male or female protagonist being engaged at the beginning of the story, only to fall in love with someone else by the end of that story. This trope has found its way into The Love Letter. For most of the movie, Scott is engaged to a woman named Debra. As he finds himself falling in love with Elizabeth, he strings Debra along and keeps the letter writing a secret. Scott does tell Debra the truth about his feelings, but this doesn’t happen until the movie is almost over. Personally, I think this trope is pointless, as the audience is spending time with a relationship that will end up leading nowhere. Scott should have remained single so the script could give its undivided attention to his and Elizabeth’s exchanges.

A rushed explanation: When fantastical or science fiction elements are included in a script, it helps to provide clear explanations to the audience so they can understand what is happening on screen. In The Love Letter, Scott’s mother tells Scott that an imbalance in the time-space continuum is the reason why he and Elizabeth are able to write to one another. However, this explanation was rushed, with Scott’s mother briefly bringing it up on only two occasions throughout the whole movie. She gives Scott stamps from the 1860s and had a special kind of writing ink made for him. Scott’s mother even found a post office that has existed since the Civil War era. These objects and the post office felt more like they conveniently benefited the plot instead of serving as ‘macguffins’ to move the story forward. As I already mentioned, this kind of story is rarely found in the Hallmark Hall of Fame collection. Despite this, a little more time should have been devoted to providing a clearer explanation.

Lack of physical interactions between Scott and Elizabeth: Because Scott and Elizabeth are from different time periods, it is not possible for them to physically interact with one another. Even though this is the nature of the story, it prevented the audience from seeing the on-screen chemistry between Campbell Scott and Jennifer Jason Leigh. One of the staples of a romance film is the on-screen chemistry between the lead actor and actress. Since that element was missing from The Love Letter, I was only invested in Scott and Elizabeth’s relationship to a certain extent. While their words were romantic, verbal communication only plays a part among any given couple.

Hand-written letter image created by Veraholera at freepik.com. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/background”>Background vector created by Veraholera – Freepik.com</a>. <a href=’https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/love-letter-pattern_1292902.htm’>Designed by Freepik</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

My overall impression:

As I said in my review, most Hallmark Hall of Fame stories are grounded in reality. These stories are also on the simple side, with messages and themes that audience members can relate to. Even though The Love Letter has a fantastical element that is rarely found in films from this collection, it has a simpler story that works! Romance through words and thoughts is what carries the overall story, with important advice woven into the script. Forming a relationship with someone you truly love and never giving up on yourself are nice sentiments that can make audience members feel good about what they are watching. The movie also has the ingredients of a good Hallmark Hall of Fame title, like the level of detail when it comes to the film’s historical accuracy. It is true the movie has its flaws. However, the execution of a creative risk like this makes up for The Love Letter’s weaknesses. Films such as this one make me wish Hallmark would be more creative with their stories and think outside the box more. With the ball in their court, I don’t know what their next creative step will be.

Overall score: 8 out of 10

Have you seen The Love Letter? What Hallmark Hall of Fame movies would you like to see me review? Let me know in the comment section!

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen