Wack, Wack, Wack....Except for Ken Branagh

Since some of the language in Hamlet can be confusing, getting to visually see enactments of the play helped me out. Even though I was not satisfied fully with all three versions of Hamlet, (then again, I didn't see the movies entirely), the second version, by Ken Branagh, reeled me in. Set in the 19th century, this version gives a sense of modern, but not too modern to take away the essence of a setting in which royalty ruled a country. Branagh gave the viewer a slight modern twist to keep the viewer intrigued, and still capture how effective the conflict and setting match within each other. While Franco Zefirelli's version capture the most effective setting, mood, and dark colors, it may bore someone of the younger age. I would rather read the play than drown myself into misery. Also, Mike Almereyda's version was the most modern. It was helpful to connect with viewers like me, however, I felt that this version was too "Hollywood" and doesn't give me an accurate account of the play. Ken Branagh's account was just enough to grab my attention, and still can connect the movie with the play. After all, the lines are verbatim from the play. It was actually cool to see how the characters would read them. Hamlet's soliloquy was the best to me, because it showed his grief (with the all black on), and his witty and sarcastic tone concerning his mother. His famous line was witty enough insult her. It was also interesting to see how Claudius and Gertrude did not show grief at all concerning Hamlet Sr.'s death. The only downfall to this version was the ghost scene. Like really, the "ghost" looked like a statue. I guess in present time society is used to the transparent floaty Casper looking ghost. However, out of the three, I would like to see Ken Branagh's version in its entirety. :D