Opiniones de usuarios

Damn. This was funny. I love Steve Googan from all his UK performances ans finally he was given a proper vehicle to make US audiences laugh out loud. What made this so funny was its satire of traditional dramatic elements in movies (Stand and Deliver, etc), as well as its blatant parody of the quickly burned out "Indie Darling" comedies like "Little Miss Sunshine" et al. Sure, the finale's song wasn't the best of the lot (although I still find myself singing it over a week later!) but the rest of the gags and songs (especially the "Face" song!) were classic.

It was refreshing to see a screwball comedy that doesn't rely on toilet humor or "realistic" scenarios to drive a joke home. This was just pure silly fun, ans Coogan can pull that off with the best of them, if not better.

In a year punctuated with very funny movies, "Hamlet 2" stands out as the most peculiar and comedically risky. Its style of humor is an almost indescribable mixture of social satire, broad slapstick, and dry irony. I've seen it twice, seven months apart, and while I laughed through most of it both times, I can also see how some viewers will come away scratching their heads and wondering what's supposed to be so funny.

The star is Steve Coogan, a beloved British comedian who still isn't being hailed as a genius in the United States. (Meanwhile, Dane Cook gets one movie deal after another.) He plays Dana Marschz, a mostly untalented actor who endured a number of humiliating show-biz gigs before giving up and moving to Tucson, Ariz. ("Where dreams go to die"). Now he is the drama teacher at West Mesa High School, specializing in stage adaptations of popular movies like "Erin Brockovich," which he writes himself and which invariably must be two-person shows because he only has two students in his class. One, a girl named Epiphany (Phoebe Strole), is a typical drama queen; the other, Rand (Skylar Astin), idolizes, and is probably in love with, Mr. Marschz.

After budget cutbacks result in the cancellation of most other electives, Dana's class is suddenly full of students, though most of them have little interest in being there. Determined to be an inspiring educator like the ones he's seen in "Dead Poet's Society" and "Mr. Holland's Opus," Dana tries to reach out to these kids, who are all Latino and, Dana assumes, from the wrong side of town. Dana is a lot like Michael Scott from "The Office": unaware of his own imbecility and eager to show everyone how gifted he is, despite not having any gifts.

Soon the budget cutbacks, mixed with a string of scorching reviews from the school paper's theater critic, threaten to shut down the drama program, too. Dana has one last chance to stage a show that will raise money and awareness. It has to be a dozy. It has to be memorable. He settles on an original script he's been writing, a little thing called "Hamlet 2." That title is arbitrary, perhaps chosen to give the movie a hook. ("'Hamlet 2'?! Now that sounds like a crazy comedy I should definitely go see!") What Dana Marschz writes only begins with Hamlet (who escapes death via a time machine) and becomes more accurately a musical investigation into Dana's own childhood traumas and his unresolved issues with his father. We see snippets of it in rehearsals and a huge chunk of it at the end of the film, when the play is staged before a shocked audience. Hamlet isn't the only literary figure of note to be included, either -- Jesus is here, too, a hip Jesus who moonwalks on water and scores big with the modern generation.

Before we get there, though, there is controversy as the community learns about the edgy elements of Dana's show. The ACLU steps in (kudos to Amy Poehler for a brief but memorable turn as the group's humorless representative), and Dana experiences massive self-doubt. He is not helped by his hilariously unsupportive wife, Brie, played with all the scathing sarcasm and apathy that the great Catherine Keener can muster (which is considerable, as you know if you've seen Catherine Keener in almost anything). Ultimately, the kids realize the lesson Dana has taught them: "It doesn't matter how much talent we lack, as long as we have enthusiasm." There are elements of several different kinds of movies (the Inspiring Teacher Drama, the Teen Comedy, the Let's Put On a Show! Musical, etc.), all of them relentlessly and absurdly satirized in a screenplay by Pam Brady, a "South Park" collaborator who also co-wrote the "South Park" movie and "Team America: World Police." Her work here is co-credited with the film's director, Andrew Fleming, who made 1999's under-seen political comedy "Dick" and last year's better-than-you'd-think "Nancy Drew." Dana Marschz (that's pronounced with three syllables, "Mar-zh-ce") is an oblivious, "Waiting for Guffman" type, the sort of character who never does realize what a loser he is. I'd be hard-pressed to identify any unifying theme to the film's whimsy, any connective tissue between the various things it makes fun of. Why do Dana and Brie have a dull boarder (David Arquette) living with them? Why does Elisabeth Shue appear as herself, tired of Hollywood and now working in Tucson as a nurse at a fertility clinic? Because it's odd and bemusing, that's why.

When "Hamlet 2" is finally performed, the audience is initially outraged by the portrayal of Jesus (played by Dana, looking strangely like "Weird Al" Yankovic), as well as the show's other highly offensive sexual material. Then they come to see that the show means no disrespect, that it's a commentary on stuff, and the scandalous nature of it is necessary to make its point. They say, "Oh, I get it!" But I think the joke is that they're wrong -- there ISN'T any deeper, more honorable message in it. There's nothing to get. Though Dana earnestly believes he's making a valid point, I think his show -- that is to say, the movie -- is being sacrilegious and dirty solely for laughs, a way of poking fun at how high-minded Hollywood satirists like to do something taboo while claiming to have noble purposes for it. (See: the recent controversy surrounding "Tropic Thunder" and the word "retard.") Many humorists are edgy just for the sake of being edgy, and "Hamlet 2" makes fun of them by doing the same thing, only with self-awareness.

Hamlet 2 (2008) had an ad campaign that seemed to focus on the fact that it was from the co-writer of South Park, but they are not referring to Matt Stone or Trey Parker (who had absolutely nothing to do with this movie). They are talking about Pam Brady who mostly produces the show, but has some co-writing credits on a couple of the episodes and on the South Park movie. So, if you're going into this expecting something like Orgazmo or Team America, then you'll probably be disappointed.

That being said, the movie is still pretty clever and funny. Aside from a slow beginning, an annoying amount of pratfalls, and two completely pointless characters (played by Catherine Keener David Arquette), it's a pretty funny movie.

Unfortunately this is one of those movies where the funniest parts are spoiled by the trailer. My suggestion would be to skip the theatrical release and wait for it to come out on DVD. By that time, you probably will have forgotten the ad campaign, and you'll really be able to enjoy it.

OK, every trailer I have seen on TV for Hamlet 2, you see the big reviews of "Hilerious!" or "One of the year's best comedies!", so I got to see Hamlet 2 yesterday and this was seriously one of the strangest films I have seen and had the strangest humor. While it did make me laugh, I will never deny it that, but it's so over the top that there are some moments where you just raise one eye brow and scratch your head. This was written by one of the writers from South Park, normally you'd think that means it's going to be a mega hit with great comedic writing, however some of the movie drags on and some of the jokes are also more scary than funny. But I'm not completely dissing Hamlet 2, there are some genuinely funny moments that really made me laugh out loud. The story is pretty ridicules, but it's much better than most comedies that are very predictable and have no originality.

Dana Marschz is a failed actor turned high school drama teacher, a drama teacher that makes horrible plays, he has passion for it, but has no idea how to get the motivation from his students. He has a crazy alcoholic wife at home with some random guy who is their room mate, and his drama program is being threatened in being taken away due to financial set backs. But Dana isn't giving up, he and his class are going to perform a play that he has written, Hamlet 2, the most offensive play in the world where nothing is off limits and he doesn't care what people say, he and the students over come all the protest to put on this very strange play.

Hamlet 2, let's just put it this way, you really need a certain sense of humor to get into it, this is not your typical comedy that everyone is going to laugh at. I'm very open to different comedies and know when there are moments to laugh, but I also know when there are some things that are just a little over the top. Steve Coogen is a decent lead actor, but there wasn't anything so special that stood out about him. So over all, I would say if you are open minded to comedies, you might get into this, there are some good parts, but like I said this has some very strange and demented jokes, so I'm just on the line with liking it and forgetting about it.

6/10

Armed with long foppish hair, a non descript American accent of the kind you use for comedy sketches and a truckle of comic energy, Steve Coogan is likable, if not memorable as a failed actor turned drama teacher that rouses his troop of slack jawed misfits to stage his self-penned sequel to Shakespeare's opus, in an attempt to save his drama class from the axe. A self-conscious riff on the likes of Dead Poet's society, it combines vulgarity and stupidity to good effect in a formulation that will be familiar to fans of writer Pam Brady's work on South Park and Team America. There are lots of good setups – Coogan's drunk wife lamenting the couple's fertility problems in a restaurant, Elizabeth Shue popping up as herself, having given up acting for nursing and the play itself – including the memorable number '(I feel like) I've been raped in the face'. It's a quirky enough vehicle for Coogan to adapt his slightly awkward, self-important f*$£ up persona for an American audience and there are laughs to be had, though occasionally it feels a bit laboured. Not the breakthrough Coogan may have envisioned but it won't do his stateside reputation, whatever that is, much harm either.

I also was expecting something raunchy like South Park or Team America and it wasn't. But it was really entertaining. The bad reviews for this movie say stuff about character development...who cares. You should have known thats not the type of movie this was before you went and saw it then came immediately to your computer to blast it. I think people are too critical on movies lately; you don't have to be moved or have life altering epiphanies after seeing a movie. A movie can just be something that makes you laugh for two hours that you don't have to think too much about and thats what I found in this movie. I found it witty and clever; and I would recommend it.

This is not a review of the overall movie but instead a review of one (significant) part: Elisabeth Shue. Although she's just a secondary character in the film, I found myself riveted to her performance and laughing riotously at everything she did. She's now officially my favourite actress, and if you see this film there's a good chance she may become yours too.

This is more than just random praise for one of the performers. Actually her character is very relevant to the story. HAMLET 2 is about a washed-up, mediocre actor (played by Coogan) who believes enthusiasm is more important than talent. With a ridiculously optimistic attitude despite a life of failure, he embarks on putting together the most ambitious play ever made: a sequel to Hamlet. The movie is full of madcap situations, and often it borders on utterly absurd. But this is where Shue's character comes in. Playing herself as a fellow "washed-up, mediocre actor" (which is hilarious considering how successful she is in real life), she plays the role with deadpan sobriety. She becomes the "straight man" which is the glue that holds this story together. Shue is the reference point without which the film would spiral into a silly romp.

Movies where actors play themselves with hilarious results:

BEING JOHN MALKOVICH with John Malkovich

COFFEE & CIGARETTES with Steve Coogan, Cate Blanchett, etc

KING OF COMEDY with Jerry Lewis (aka Jerry "Langford")

HAMLET 2 with Elisabeth Shue

See them all. You won't be disappointed!

Dana (Steve Coogan) used to make films with Lucy Lawless and had some big ad spots, too, like the one for herpes medication. But, over the last several years, he has been stuck in Tuscon, trying to instill a love of theater into the local high school students. Only two pupils are actually interested in his classes, Rand and Epiphanny. His high school productions are far from desirable, too, as he prefers shows that originated on film, like Erin Brockovich. Few people attend. At home, things are not going very smoothly, either, as his catty wife (Catherine Keener) dislikes the Southwest and their boarder (David Arquette), someone they took in to make ends meet. She is keen to have a baby so the couple is going to a fertility clinic, too. Now, the new school year brings some surprises. Due to the cancellation of other classes, Dana finds himself directing a flux of new students, all of them totally uninterested in drama. That is, until Dana gets the brilliant idea to put on Hamlet 2, a new sequel that will feature time travel and the resulting possibilities of saving everyone who died in Hamlet, uh, 1. As it will be a musical, also, with stellar songs like "Rock Me Sexy Jesus", it can't fail to be a hit. Or can it? This is quite a funny film, with many great one-liners and a humorous cast. Coogan is perfect as the untalented-actor-turned-slacker-teacher and Keener and Arquette are quite fine as his offbeat housemates. The young students are also a joy, although mostly unknown thespians, and the exasperated adults who dislike Dana's ideas are funny, too. The setting in Tuscon shows the city at its worst, no doubt, as it concentrates on the seedy side of town. But, the costumes are noteworthy, the camera work is lovely, and the script and direction are funny and snappy. Yet, some of the film's themes seem vastly familiar, resulting in a movie that will probably not be memorable in the long run. Still, if you love quirky, do make time for Hamlet 2. It is a good for a night of abundant laughs.

The theatres should charge only a quarter of the price for this movie. Only the last half hour was entertaining.

It fails at engaging the audience with any of the characters. One moment, students are "thugs", the next scene they're rehearsing lines. No buildup.

The comedic timing is off as well. A gag is drawn on after it should have been over a few lines back. Steve Coogan's character is unbearably dry and, again, is not engaging whatsoever.

Catherine Keener is warm as she is in other films. However, her role along with David Arquette's are absolutely useless in this film.

On a lighter note, the play (when they finally get to it) is very entertaining. Rock Me Sexy Jesus is ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS and catchy. The other songs are very fun too. It was well thought out and played. Sad to say, it wasn't enough.

It seems to me that the writers had this great idea for a whimsical play. However, the play itself would never fly with the production company. So they decided to write this horrendous storyline and package this great play with it. Unfortunately, the drabness of said packaging leaves one frustrated with the lack of Hamlet 2 in Hamlet 2.

Ah, how refreshing to find a comedy that isn't just gross-out gags, sentimental chick flick trash, or predictable Hollywood tripe... while Hamlet 2 isn't brilliant, and it isn't the funniest thing I've seen ever, it certainly carries its own, and this is largely in part due to Steve Coogan's performance.

Coogan is amazing as the fruity drama teacher who's life is falling apart. His shows are getting panned by a snarky underclassman, his marriage is falling apart, and he is totally uninspired. Through a series of events, he has an all-out crisis, but in a clever switch on the teacher inspires the students genre (Stand and Deliver, Higher Education), the students rally in their own way to help him create his masterpiece - Hamlet 2.

Hamlet 2 is ferociously politically incorrect, and this leads to the principal and some members of the community to try to close down the show, the ACLU (Amy Poehler!) gets involved, and the final performance of the show is a little bit mind blowing... ah, Sexy Jesus.

Yes, this is stuff we've all seen before, but Coogan's performance and his supporting cast, along with solid writing make this a Hollywood comedy that is actually funny.

Since it doesn't have any big stars, and it is a bit atypical, Hamlet 2 will probably fall by the wayside, but don't miss it if you've got the chance - there is hope for comedy yet!

I saw i free screening of Hamlet 2, They surveyed the audience, so it's likely the edit could change before the movie is released. Unfortunately the prognosis is negative. There's a few chuckles, but honestly the title is the funniest thing about the movie. Hamlet 2 is about a teacher who writes an outrageous sequel to the Shakespere classic, and has to fight the school for the right to put on the play. The best part of the movie was the actual Hamlet 2 performance. The songs were funny and the lighting and music were very well done. Elizabeth Shue was fantastic as herself. A breath of fresh air. On the flipside, David Arquette was horrible, lifeless, useless. Some of the kids turned in above average performances. I was expecting a south park movie, and this is not it. there's a few good lines, but you can easily wait for DVD, even cable.

my rating 4 out of 10

HAMLET 2 is corny, stupid, ridiculous and ludicrous, all at the same time ...which helps it succeed on some bizarre, comedic level.

Steven Coogan (TROPIC THUNDER), the king of losers, stars as Dana Marschz, a failing drama teacher at a high school where only two students regularly attend his classes. His loser status is enhanced throughout the film as his job faces the school district's financial axe, his wife Brie (Catherine Keener, AN American CRIME) runs off with another loser, and his classroom becomes overrun by gangbanger wannabes who've been run out of their own building. But with the new infusion of students comes an opportunity for Dana. Always wanting to produce his own musical/drama stage play, he comes up with a great idea: Hamlet 2. Yes, THAT Hamlet. "But doesn't everyone die at the end of Hamlet?" someone asks rather perceptively.

Though this be madness, yet there is method in it. I think...

Hamlet 2 is just ...wrong. Wrong on every level imaginable. Religiously, philosophically, and instructionally, this is just so ...wrong! Which makes it just a tad alright. As Dana unleashes his play, great and terrible things come out, including Christian extremists and art critics. When the phenomenal stage song "Rock Me Sexy Jesus" begins playing, it proves just how off-kilter this film really is. Which, again, makes it a touch okay. "I get it now! Jesus is sexy!" The film lacks coherency in terms of a distinct direction. It seems that the goal of the film is for Dana to hit rock bottom before succeeding with an impossibly absurd stage story sequel to one of the greatest plays of all time.

The funny thing about Hamlet 2 is that the acting is really bad. And it appears that it is MEANT to be bad so that there is bad acting within a story that's about bad acting (and writing). Even so, this hints at the level of comedy that director Andrew Fleming was shooting for; a layer upon layer theme that works and doesn't work.

But, if for no other reason, you need to watch the film to see the "Rock Me Sexy Jesus" number. It is so bad, it's good.

I kept flashing back to Christopher Guest's hilarious 1997 mockumentary, "Waiting for Guffman", as I was watching this raucous 2008 comedy, and in this case, that turns out to be high praise. Directed and co-written in ramshackle fashion by Andrew Fleming (whose most prominent credits include the 2003 remake of "The In-Laws" and an episode of "Arrested Development"), this wacky concoction mixes broad slapstick, harmless raunch, and politically incorrect humor with a heavy, tongue-in-cheek dose of "Dangerous Minds" (referred to in the film) and every other cliché-driven movie about a schoolteacher who serves to inspire his students. The result is something of a mess when it comes to telling a coherent story, but it's also an infectious movie that had me laughing heartily during most of its 92-minute running time. It comes as no surprise that Fleming's writing partner is Pam Brady, who is most famous for producing and writing several episodes of "South Park", as well as the 1999 movie version, "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut". The similarities are quite apparent.

The plot is predictably absurd and rather inspired. Manitoba-born Dana Marschz is a failed TV commercial actor who has ended up teaching drama in a Tucson high school. He has just finished directing a stage production of "Erin Brockovich" starring the only two students enthusiastic about his over-the-top, highly derivative approach to theater. Marschz is trying to earn the respect of the pre-adolescent critic of the school newspaper but to little effect. His wife Brie hates him and yet wants to have a child. At the same time, they are forced to take in a tight-lipped boarder named Gary to make ends meet. Things change dramatically on the first day of the new semester when Marschz inherits a classroom full of Latino students who could care less about drama. Told by the principal that drama would no longer be part of the school curriculum, Marschz decides to go out fighting and stage a long-gestating work-in-progress, a musical sequel to the Bard's most famous work entitled, of course, "Hamlet 2". What happens after that point is a freewheeling comedy of errors that gives Marschz's demented optimism the perfect vehicle.

Looking like Eric Idle's younger brother, Steve Coogan gives an audaciously funny performance as Marschz, a pitiable character in the most obvious ways but undeniably likable. He flails somewhat during the more vulnerable moments probably because his performance is so otherwise manic and vainglorious. By comparison, Christopher Guest's Corky St. Clair in "Guffman" has moments of weakness, but his character resonated more simply because the humor came from a more serious state of self-doubt. However, Coogan is a superb physical comedian, especially on his ever-present roller skates. Back in hippie-chick mode from "The 40-Year-Old Virgin", Catherine Keener is hilariously toxic as Brie, while Amy Poehler gets the funniest lines in her smallish role as ACLU lawyer Cricket Feldstein, an overly enthusiastic activist with a bigoted streak a mile wide.

Elisabeth Shue gets to play a parody of herself as washed up in Hollywood and forced into what she says is a more fulfilling career as a fertility clinic nurse. While she is charming as usual, Shue is not given nearly enough to do here. There are bright turns by Skylar Astin as the closeted Rand and Phoebe Strole as the unctuous Epiphany, both alumni of Broadway's "Spring Awakening", as well as from Joseph Julian Soria as the brooding actor-wannabe Octavia. The normally hyperactive David Arquette plays strictly against type as near-silent Gary. The much ballyhooed production that provides the film's climax is not quite as outrageous as "Springtime for Hitler" in the original 1968 version of "The Producers". However, it is funny enough despite the fact that "Rock Me, Sexy Jesus" sounds like a familiar doo-wop song with wittier lyrics. I just wish Brady and Fleming spent a bit more time on consolidating the plot structure. Some of the story meanders without reason, and then it just stops without incident. Regardless, there is plenty of laugh-out-loud entertainment here for the undemanding viewer.

Although not the best movie I've ever seen, Hamlet 2 managed to be funny and somewhat original despite being yet another quirky inspiring down and out looser film. I think what saved the movie was that they didn't try too hard to hammer the jokes into you or repeat them over and over again like the recent semi-flop would have been good Pineapple Express. The movie knows it's doing something that's been done before, something that's been overdone, and it just says "hey, here I am, doin it again cause I wanted to". Without all the oneupsmanship they manage to stay on track, get wacky, have a good time, and leave you with the feeling that you should go out and build something really big and cool right now! Which is the sign of any good arts movie -if you ask me.

As someone who would watch Steve Coogan in almost anything and as an English student, I was really looking forward to this. "A comedy about a lousy theatre teacher who puts on a sequel to Hamlet? How could it miss?", I thought. If the film had focused more on the play instead of trying to be a mish-mash of Dangerous Minds, School of Rock and any number of misguided comedies about naive man-children, it would've been fairly awesome. Instead the film tries too hard to be too many things and fails to do any of them well.

Firstly, what's up with Coogan's accent? Personally I would've preferred it if he played a British teacher in an American school (if nothing else, it would've made the Shakespeare connection funnier), but instead he puts on an admittedly passable American accent that I found unnecessary and jarring. His performance is fantastic besides that one quibble, although he isn't given much to work with.

I fully agree with some of the other commenters when they say that Catherine Keener and David Arquette are pointless here, which is a shame as I love Keener in movies like Living in Oblivion and 40 Year Old Virgin, but she is totally wasted here as a relentless shrew. In fact, apart from the scene where Elizabeth Shue explains her reasons for leaving acting, Coogan's is the only really good performance here, with the supporting cast being mostly indistinguishable.

The aspects of the plot to do with the drama class (ie. most of the plot) are especially banal and forced. I would've enjoyed it more if, instead of being landed with a group of "troubled teens" (can we please rest this dusty old cliché for a damn change?), Coogan had a class of students like the two suck-ups he has at the start. Riffing on Dangerous Minds just gives the film a very cheesy edge, when a film about a dedicated drama class putting on a horrible play would be far more entertaining than an awkward attempt at commentary on arts funding in public schools.

Speaking of the plot, the main thing that stopped me from enjoying this film was the fact that practically every aspect of the plot seemed half-written. Coogan's students fall into line for no concrete reason other than narrative convenience, there seems to be no reason why his marriage is still somewhat intact and most of the jokes are stilted and unfunny.

I tried really hard to like this, but ultimately it just wasn't good enough. A let-down.

There's a lot of great things I can say about this movie. Coogan is amazing as the socially inept failed actor-turned-drama-teacher. The jokes roll in at a very steady pace. The supporting cast, featuring many well-knowns like Catherine Keener, Amy Poehler, Elizabeth Shue, etc. are all perfect. But the icing on the cake is the final act which, in addition to being funny, is actually quite moving. In that regard, I think this movie really stands out, not just as a good comedy, but a solid film in a larger sense.

Steve Coogan plays his part as if the whole picture depends on him, and given the lousy script, it pretty much does. He does his best as a solipsistic actor who is devoted more to Hollywood stars and movies than to theatre, despite what he tells his drama students. That is pretty much it for the funny stuff. David Arquette and Catherine Keener, who play his boarder and his wife, have nothing to do with the rest of the movie, and their parts should have been written out of the script. And why did they set the movie in Tucson when it was actually filmed in New Mexico? Evidently, one of the scriptwriters has a beef with Tucson, because it is subjected to some casual and unfounded dissing more than a few times, none of them in the least bit funny.

I ended up not caring about any of the characters, because all of them are one-dimensional. If this is supposed to be a satire, what is it satirizing? The fact that many actors are insecure, shallow creatures with delusions of grandeur? What else is new?

A loser drama teacher with no hope left of a real acting career decides to gamble it all with a controversial new play. Through a bizarre combination of circumstances, a gang of tough Latinos and a handful of nerdy white theater kids join forces to help him realize his dream.

So much is going on in this incredible movie. The script is a rag-bag of old SOUTH PARK gags, (writer Pam Brady worked with Matt Stone and Trey Parker for many years) but it's spiced up with bizarre slapstick moments, celebrity cameos, and some real singing and dancing by a surprisingly charismatic and sexy cast of teen unknowns.

Steve Coogan is the glue that really holds this thing together. Even when the gags fall flat, he has a way of injecting genuine humor into the weirdest situations. "Everyone has rain gutters!" he shouts at a wealthy Mexican couple, for no reason at all. And when he's blocked at the typewriter, trying to write a masterpiece, he takes one look at his adorable pet cat and shouts, "What's your problem?" So stupid on paper, but in the film he makes it hilarious. Coogan has the comic genius of Gene Wilder in classics like YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, combined with the underdog appeal of Sylvester Stallone in the original classic ROCKY.

If I have any complaints about this film, it's that we don't see nearly enough of the talented teen actors who actually put on the play. I loved it when the prim and proper Epiphany threw herself into the arms of the sexy Mexican boy she'd been arguing with all through the movie, but couldn't there have been a little more development there? In a similar way, I would have liked it more if all the kids had gotten a bit more time to show off their acting skills, since it's obvious all of them are crazy about the stage.

HAMLET 2 makes a big joke out of referencing inspirational teacher movies like DANGEROUS MINDS and MR. HOLLAND'S OPUS, but it's really much more similar to that old teen television show FAME. Or to those old Judy Garland movies where someone says, "hey, kids, let's put on a show!" It also has an irreverent, sophisticated sparkle that reminds me of Shakespeare IN LOVE. Not only is there the obvious connection of making Great Literature into lively entertainment, but there's the sense that the entire film is really a love letter to actors and acting as a profession. That's an engaging premise, especially when you see so much bright young talent being revealed in such unexpected ways.

Go to this movie expecting anything and everything -- you won't be disappointed.

Rating-6/10

Hamlet 2 is a comedy from one of the people behind comedies such as Team America and South Park: Bigger Longer & Uncut. Now it doesn't quite reach the heights that those two movies get to but nevertheless it doesn't fail to bring laughs and even just a little heart. Led by a strange casting choice, this small time kind of movie reminds me of a somewhat cult movie, that maybe in years to come or even already, is one.

Now the strange casting choice is Steve Coogan who although is known for his comedy, just doesn't feel like a natural choice, but he does make his performance different. He really goes for the crazy, tries to hit the spot and kind of does, if only just scraping it. He makes the story fun, but the only things that hold this back from being any better is the writing, directing and even at times, Coogan.

Now making a sequel to Hamlet in a comedy is a sure way to make it crude and hilarious, now although I didn't think this was hysterical, it has it's moments and is very crude. The writing can at times feel a little too lazy, it feels as if the writing team of Pam Brady and Andrew Fleming(also the director) fill in gaps with crude jokes where they can't think of anything good. Overall the movie plays a long nicely though and the directing is OK, to be fair the writing is too in most parts and I found the final scenes of the movie especially funny.

A lot of credit has to go to the young cast who really give it a good go at playing teens who come together to make a play, now it may sound like a plot seen before and it is, but the emotion is pretty deep at times and certain actors know what there doing. I found the good mix of characters to play to this movies strengths, the supposed gang members mixed with the most drama loving students ever makes for good jokes and some good one two's at times.

The movie is short, at 92 minutes this plays out nicely and doesn't overstep itself, that said it also can at times cram too much in and not explain but I'll overlook that in favour of the comedy. The little things are what makes this movie just about kind of OK(and I mean that, this is nearing just being average). The score is one thing that makes this good to watch, it isn't ever present but the odd bit of music here and there including some of the funny songs they sing make this movie come alive.

Overall I have to repeat, this is near average and only escapes because of the humour and slight emotion which together create a kind of nice movie. Would I watch this again, well the answer is maybe, it is funny no doubt but for a second time this might not get the laughs it does first time around, so don't expect this to stick with you forever if you watch it. Last thing to say is about Coogan, he is hilarious at times and some of his other work is fantastic, now this won't go down in that list but he sure can be proud of making his character a different one, and not afraid to mix insane comedy with a little bit of pure drama.

I have been trying to puzzle out why I disliked this film so much, while "Waiting for Guffman" is one of my favorite films. Both films make fun of powerless, unhappy people -- which is something I usually don't care for. I think that the filmmakers behind "Waiting for Guffman" had a basic affection for their loser characters - while in "Hamlet 2" the filmmakers do not seem to care at all about the witless, talentless drama teacher. Furthermore, the characters in "Hamlet 2" undergo far more pain and humiliation than the characters in "Waiting for Gumman." The filmmakers behind "Hamlet 2" are like the Gods in King Lear, they treat their creations like flies and kill them for their sport. This goes beyond black comedy - it is theater of cruelty, to be enjoyed by bullies. Furthermore, the jokes in "Waiting for Guffman" were a hell of a lot funnier.

One would think that a musical based on a Shakespearian play in which most the characters die at the end would be, in a word, impossible. But that would just be plain pessimistic according to Dana Marschz a high school drama teacher in Tucson, AZ and the main character of "Hamlet 2" the movie and the play. Played by British funnyman Steve Coogan (also seen in this summer's "Tropic Thunder"), Marschz is an enthusiastic thespian just trying to inspire his students and make ends meet at home (one effort for saving money – roller skating to work). Hamlet 2 offers a cast full of comedic actors as well as some funny and touching moments that aren't quite up to the "Waiting for Guffman" level but bring a modern take on ye ol' theater and inspirational movie. To read more go to http://moviesworketc.blogspot.com/2008/09/hamlet-2-movie-review.html