The Worst Movie I Ever Saw: Hamlet 2

As I sat in the Cinemark 18 in Evanston, IL this afternoon, the sole patron who'd purchased a ticket for "Hamlet 2," I kept anticipating the moment that the film reel in the projection booth would break. I do not often wish this, both because I am a fan of film in general and because I understand that broken spools of celluloid are very difficult to repair. I was waiting for this moment because I rarely ask for a refund at the movies, and have only ever done so in the past because of legitimate excuses -- the time I sat through "The Hills Have Eyes" with five children whimpering behind me, repeatedly telling their parent or guardian that they were scared and wanted to go hom; or the time I saw "The Cable Guy" and the electricity in the theater went out. Had something similar happened during today's 4:45 showing of "Hamlet 2," I would have at least gotten my $6.75 back, if not my time.

This is a film constructed entirely of general concepts, all of which have been executed with more competence in other, better movies. For example, the plot device of racial prejudice existing when the victim is actually a harmless, decent, likable person. One need not go back as far as "Blazing Saddles" (which essentially mastered the idea) to see where this can be done effectively and with comic precision. "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle" did it well enough. As I reflect back on the experience of watching "Hamlet 2," I wonder how it was ever released theatrically in this form, instead of direct-to-video. However, to say that is to slight such quality DTV classics as "Air Bud Spikes Back" and "Leprechaun in the Hood."

At this point, you're likely wondering why I continue to reference better movies instead of getting on with this review. The reason is three-fold. First, this is a character element similar to that of "Hamlet 2"'s protagonist (I use that word on such an unlikable and unrelateable fellow lightly), and it works as a sort of...

The Worst Movie I Ever Saw: Hamlet 2

As I sat in the Cinemark 18 in Evanston, IL this afternoon, the sole patron who'd purchased a ticket for "Hamlet 2," I kept anticipating the moment that the film reel in the projection booth would break. I do not often wish this, both because I am a fan of film in general and because I understand that broken spools of celluloid are very difficult to repair. I was waiting for this moment because I rarely ask for a refund at the movies, and have only ever done so in the past because of legitimate excuses -- the time I sat through "The Hills Have Eyes" with five children whimpering behind me, repeatedly telling their parent or guardian that they were scared and wanted to go hom; or the time I saw "The Cable Guy" and the electricity in the theater went out. Had something similar happened during today's 4:45 showing of "Hamlet 2," I would have at least gotten my $6.75 back, if not my time.

This is a film constructed entirely of general concepts, all of which have been executed with more competence in other, better movies. For example, the plot device of racial prejudice existing when the victim is actually a harmless, decent, likable person. One need not go back as far as "Blazing Saddles" (which essentially mastered the idea) to see where this can be done effectively and with comic precision. "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle" did it well enough. As I reflect back on the experience of watching "Hamlet 2," I wonder how it was ever released theatrically in this form, instead of direct-to-video. However, to say that is to slight such quality DTV classics as "Air Bud Spikes Back" and "Leprechaun in the Hood."

At this point, you're likely wondering why I continue to reference better movies instead of getting on with this review. The reason is three-fold. First, this is a character element similar to that of "Hamlet 2"'s protagonist (I use that word on such an unlikable and unrelateable fellow lightly), and it works as a sort of lead-in and set-up of the review I'm avoiding writing. Second, having sat through "Hamlet 2" and committed myself to reviewing it, I long for movies I could review here instead of the one I'm avoiding writing about. Third, I'm avoiding writing about "Hamlet 2."

But I suppose I should get on with it. "Hamlet 2" is the story of Dana Marschz (Steve Coogan, who can currently be seen in Ben Stiller's "Tropic Thunder" which, unlike "Hamlet 2," is funny and well-made), a failed actor-turned-high-school-drama-teacher, who stages adaptations of popular Hollywood movies with his only two drama students, Rand (Skylar Astin, in the standard male-drama-student-as-closeted-homosexual role) and Epiphany (playing the white-teenager-who's-scared-of-colored-folk part you've seen many times before). At the start of a new semester, the building which houses shop, arts & crafts, etc. has asbestos (or cockroaches, or some other plot device, I can hardly even recall), and all the minority students are forced to enroll in drama. This, of course, is because only minority students take shop, and because the school would rather put these students in drama and, you know, relocate existing classes.

Here I must stop and acknowledge that what I've just described is the first in many non-sensical plot elements the film employs. The only reason the Latino crowd has to take drama is because the script needs them to to move forward. The only reason Epiphany goes from having minorities give her the willies to stealing televisions with them is because the script needs her to get along with her fellow students for the story to continue. Nothing that happens in the film occurs organically or from actual characterization -- again, it's a series of events that happen solely because they need to so the film can reach it's conclusion.

And, if I can break off-topic again, the scene described above signifies yet another problem with "Hamlet 2," the fact that it continually contradicts itself. Why should we laugh at the silly white girl who's afraid of Latinos because of stereotypes, if she ultimately engages in stereotypical behavior with them?

But back to the plot, if you can call it that... Dana falls victim to the usual threat of "budget cuts" at the school, where the drama department will be closed unless he can raise $6,000 (why $6,000? Beats me. Apparently beats screenwriters Pam Brady and Andrew Fleming as well, since we're never given any reason for this magic number). Dana's solution is to stage a sequel to "Hamlet," in which Shakespeare's titular character travels back in time to undo all the tragedy that befalls his loved ones.

Along the way, Hamlet picks up Jesus Christ, now dubbed "Sexy Jesus," because he... well, because he wears tight jeans and a white tank-top, and looks, I guess, sort of like Jesus. This is the film's attempt to be controversial (Brady, co-writer of "South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut" and "Team America: World Police" is no stranger to controversy), as we see in the one or two scenes where people protest Sexy Jesus. Sad, that a movie had to write in its own controversy rather than actually doing something thought-provoking and potentially controversial.

So they stage "Hamlet 2," it's a great success, and... am I glossing over too many details here? If so, it's only to spare you from actually watching the movie.

To its credit, "Hamlet 2" does have some genuinely funny scenes. These all involve Dana's wife Brie (Catherine Keener) and their roommate Gary (David Arquette). ***SPOILER WARNING*** In a side story that doesn't get nearly enough screen time (because it is, as the filmmakers avoid, funny), Brie ends up pregnant with Gary's child. Brie leaves Dana because she sees that he is a loser and is going nowhere in life. Brie is, as such, the only character in the film the audience can identify with.

I haven't even gone in to other plot elements that are offensive to common sense, like the fact that the new girl in class who never speaks is inexplicably cast in a singing role in Dana's production of "Hamlet 2," and sings on-screen with no explanation. I haven't mentioned that Dana kicks an empty tin bucket into this student's head, yet is not threatened with the loss of his job until budget cuts come down. I have not mentioned that when Brie and Gary move out, they leave a single bottle of Schnapps in the cupboard, which allows recovering-alcoholic Dana to go on a bender and find inspiration. I have not mentioned that we are supposed to find a recovering alcoholic funny simply because he is duped into drinking alcohol by high school students whom he takes out of class for a field trip to the Fun Zone at the mall, where they apparently have no qualms about selling alcohol to minors.

But at this point, why bother? When a movie makes you long for the days of better entertainment, like "Basic Instinct 2," "Carnosaur," and that channel on the cable that just shows a fireplace burning, is there really anything else to say?