moviesleuth2 If anyone wonders how the choice of a director can affect a movie, look at "Hamlet 2." There's a lot of potentially funny material in this film, but director Andrew Fleming fails to cultivate much from it. There are a lot of directors that are hired because they are cheap, not because their style will bring anything unique to the film (some know them as "directors for hire"). However, looking at "Hamlet 2," it makes us realize that while they may not carry the weight of say, the Coen Brothers or Steven Spielberg, if they can make a good film they know what they're doing. However, the flip side is also true: a poor director can ruin a potentially good film.Dana Marschz (Steve Coogan) is a wannabe actor. Unfortunately, he is terrible at it, so in order to pay the bills, he has to take a job as a high school drama teacher. He sees this as an opportunity to "inspire" his students (insert reference to "Dead Poet's Society" here cause the movie's way ahead of you). However, save for his two suck-ups, no one pays attention. But when the School Board decides to cancel drama, he decides to write his own original play to save it. However, the new play causes a storm of controversy in Tuscon, Arizona (where the film is set).It's hard to address the acting when the director lets them down so much. Steve Coogan is an able comedian. He gives it his all, but his talents are wasted. Same goes for the rest of the cast, which includes Amy Poehler (in what is hardly larger than a cameo), Catherine Keener, David Arquette, and Elizabeth Shue (as Elizabeth Shue, playing off her real-life undeservedly lackluster career).In every way, Andrew Fleming fails as a director with this film. He doesn't know the concept of comic timing. He can't establish an even flow throughout the film. The film's plot is complex, and Fleming appears at a loss as to what to do with it all. Worst of all, he can't inject any life into it the film. Based on his resume, it's not especially surprising that the film is so lackluster (his past credits include "Dick," "The Craft," and "Nancy Drew." Let's hope Andrew Fleming doesn't ruin another film.

mrdonleone yes, I do know a lot about Shakespeare, I collect his plays and movies based upon them. but if you expect this to be Shakespeare, you'll be very disappointed. instead, if you watch this movie expecting to laugh a lot, you probably will. the jokes in Hamlet 2 are funny haha but not hoho (haha with the mouth and hoho with the belly - belly laugh rules!). it's funny, but not supertrooper funny. or, if you like supertroopers, it's supertrooper funny, but not American Pie. then again, American Pie couldn't lick the boots of Some like it HOt, but that's another story. why is Hamlet 2 a good movie for 12 year old? probably because they don't know a thing about Shakespeare. if you don't know Shakespeare and you're too young to be able to appreciate movies, you will laugh yourself to death with Hamlet 2. that's the point of it all. you'll be dead laughing before the picture is over and that's a good thing.

jctundis The biggest surprise of my weekend was Hamlet 2. It's a stupid concept that went all the way round back to genius again. Great movie. Hilarious performances from Steve Coogan, Catherine Keener and Elisabeth Shue. Clever when it needed to be, sincere at times, and out and out stupid-funny in the best way at other times.I guess a big concern with this movie is mindless vulgarity, which I personally have no problem with, but there's really none of that here. Sure, the main writer worked on South Park: Bigger Longer Uncut, and Team America - but Hamlet 2 has a lo more charm.I gave it a 9. It does what a comedy is supposed to do - made me laugh out loud several times!

gca28 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.