In Theaters Aug 27 2008 @ 09:00 am
REVIEW: Hamlet 2
Directed By: Andrew Fleming
Written By: Pam Brady & Andrew Fleming
Starring: Steve Coogan, Catherine Keener, David Arquette, Amy Poehler, Elizabeth Shue
Running Time: 92 minutes
Rated R for language including sexual references, brief nudity and some drug content
Hamlet 2 begins with a series of cable-access commercials all starring Steve Coogan’s character, washed-up actor Dana Marschz, while Peter O’Toole, in a tone perfectly suited to a death-bed confession, waxes philosophical on the actor’s craft. It’s an odd mix, seeing Coogan grinning like a tortured Cheshire cat in a herpes ad while Lawrence of Arabia attempts his best James Lipton impersonation. Maintained the entire film, this tone (‘state of mild schizophrenia’ might be more accurate) is a risky decision that is, at the very least, admirable for eschewing the conventional Hollywood comedy equation (Will Ferrell + Random Sport = $$$$$!). Whether you’ll appreciate that decision is entirely dependent on how eccentric your sense of humor is; Hamlet 2, like Napoleon Dynamite, is a film that cannot be easily recommended – you either get it or you don’t.
Comedy gold or Acting 101 trainwreck? Maybe a little of both.
Dana Marschz has seen better days, which is readily apparent from the aforementioned commercials. A drama teacher at West Mesa High in Tucson, AZ (where, Peter O’Toole tells us, “dreams go to die”), Dana has resigned himself to staging theatrical adaptations of popular films (a la Max Fischer in Rushmore) and being subsequently skewered by the high school theater critic (a la Tobias in Arrested Development). His students think he’s a joke (he is), his wife (Catherine Keener) wants a baby/hates his guts, he’s a recovering alcoholic who rollerblades to work, and the school board has decided to permanently shut down the drama department. What’s a beaten down thespian to do? Save the day by staging the sequel to Hamlet, which (obviously) features time travel and the Son of God. Duh.
Steve Coogan as Dana Marschz and Elizabeth Shue as Elizabeth Shue.
Coogan’s performance is, for better or worse, the lynchpin of the entire film. It is even, dare I say it, a bit fearless, as he embraces moments and lines of pure absurdity with all the gravitas of an actor straining for Oscar gold. Dana is written like Adam Sandler but Coogan plays him like Sean Penn, and the result is either comic genius or over-the-top Gorgonzola. When Dana discovers his idol, actress Elizabeth Shue, working in a doctor’s office (she’s ‘playing’ herself), he has a fanboy meltdown that had me chuckling and/or cringing (I can’t remember which). Hamlet 2, and Coogan’s performance, straddles such a fine line that I find I cannot trust my initial reaction. When I revisit it in a year it will either be one of the funniest films I’ve ever seen or an absolute massacre.
Films that promise The Big Game or The Showdown or The Performance live or die by their finale. Much like Waiting For Guffman, the entirety of Hamlet 2 is spent building up to the titular performance, ratcheting up as much anticipation as possible (both for the movie audience and the real one). So when we finally glimpse the first musical number, does it live up to the film’s self-imposed hype?
“I’m simultaneously horrified and fascinated,” one parent says, and that sums it up perfectly. Coogan and company croon to a half-decent melody that is surprisingly charming, until they reach the chorus and simultaneously belt out, “You’ll be raped in the face.” Right. The next number, “Rock Me Sexy Jesus,” has all the finesse one might expect from a song thus titled, is not nearly as catchy as the creators (and marketing department) seem to think it is, and is tailor made to court controversy. Which is exactly what it is doing.
Christian groups are already calling for a boycott, claiming that Hamlet 2 mocks the name of Christ and “relegates the person of Jesus to that of a porn star.” Writer-director Andrew Fleming, along with co-writer Pam Brady (writer and producer of – shocking! – South Park), anticipated such controversy and even worked it into their script. A line of chaste Christians pray in front of the stage in protest, and one character even remarks, “We’re going to hell for doing this play.” As both an evangelical Christian and a film critic, I find myself in a unique position to respond to both the film and the controversy.
First of all, if God is who us Christians claim him to be, films like Hamlet 2 are not in the least bit surprising to him. Jesus, if nothing else, was a realist; he wasn’t the least bit shocked when his claim to be the Son of God got him crucified, and if crucifixion doesn’t rate on the “things that surprise God” list, I imagine that “Rock Me Sexy Jesus” registers somewhere between “Halloween” and “Bart Simpson.” So let’s not pretend this is something even remotely new under the sun.
Secondly, the Biblical commandment that “Rock Me Sexy Jesus” is purportedly breaking (“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain”) was pointedly directed at the Israelites, and vicariously at modern day Christians. In other words, those who believe in God. I could be wrong, but I’m guessing that Andrew Fleming, Pam Brady, and Steve Coogan aren’t touring the festival circuit with a Bible in one hand and a tract in the other. It’s ludicrous to demand that someone who doesn’t believe in Jesus’ divinity treat it with respect, and while the Bible has a lot to say about sharing the gospel, it conspicuously has nothing to say about beating non-Christians into a respectful submission of Christ. Requiring such devotion from those who don’t even label themselves ‘Christian’ is only a few steps down the ladder from executing cartoonists who draw less-than-flattering portraits of your revered prophet.
Do you want to know what’s really offensive? Pastors who cheat on their wives and get a pass; Christians who ignore inconvenient truths like world hunger and genocide; Evangelical leaders who use their pulpits to call for the assassinations of third world dictators. Of all the things that the church could devote its time and energy towards, protesting a musical number in a film that will likely sit in the multiplexes for less than a month is not one of them.
Is this really worth protesting?
Much of this is mitigated by the fact that the song isn’t even that offensive. Its basic point is that Jesus is awesome, that he’s ‘sexy’ (although not in a physical sense), and that he ‘rocks’ people. One of the Christian protesters in the film even exclaims halfway through, “I get it!” No, it isn’t very respectful, and yes, Focus Features is playing up the controversy angle to a somewhat disgusting degree (send in your own viral rendition of “Rock Me Sexy Jesus” to win fabulous prizes!), but is it worth the time, energy, and posterboard required to boycott the film? Not really. If he’s who I really believe him to be, God is quite a bit bigger than all of that (and if he really is put out, I’m sure he can just strike all the work prints with lightning).
Controversy aside, I return to my original statement: I really don’t know how to recommend this. Some will adore it, some will be confused, others will be painfully bored, and a small percentage will be mortally offended. I laughed quite hard (it certainly beats out Step Brothers and Pineapple Express), but a year’s distance could induce groans rather than guffaws. If your sense of humor clicks with it, however, Hamlet 2 might just be the second coming of indie comedy.
on Aug 27 2008 @ 10:22 am 1. Nick Plowman said …
I have wanted to see this one for a while, can’t wait.
on Aug 27 2008 @ 11:59 am 2. Kristena said …
Yeah, I’m totally interested in this.
on Aug 27 2008 @ 12:59 pm 3. Nick Plowman said …
I honestly thought this would make a bigger splash in the US than it has…is it in limited release or what?
on Aug 27 2008 @ 1:01 pm 4. Luke Harrington said …
It actually just expanded to 1,500 screens today. So yes, it was, but not anymore.
on Aug 27 2008 @ 2:19 pm 5. Daniel said …
Excellent review, Evan. I’m with you on all angles, though I ultimately found it about a half star less funny than you did. We otherwise actually made many of the same points in our reviews.
Your defense of a reasonable Christian perspective is an important one, especially considering nobody in the film can really be accused of hypocrisy. At the same time, I think this may take it a little far: “It’s ludicrous to demand that someone who doesn’t believe in Jesus’ divinity treat it with respect.” I understand what you’re saying, but change the person in question and you have American soldiers urinating on the Koran. I know it’s a stretch, but my point is that there’s a fine line between satirizing a religion and outright attacking or demonizing it. I don’t think anything in Hamlet 2 approaches an attack (compared with Religulous, which looks like it has the same agenda as Jesus Camp), but I fear that the principle behind your statement (which I separate from your own opinions and the context of this film) is what’s causing a lot of problems around the world today, at least among the Big 3 - Christians and Jews disrespecting Muslims, Muslims disrespecting Jews and Christians, Jews disrespecting Muslims and Christians, atheists and agnostics disrespecting all three.
I’ve taken this a little far, but you’ve just made me consider the film in a bigger context. It basically comes down to the question of how do you define “respect” in different circumstances?
on Aug 27 2008 @ 2:21 pm 6. Alexander Coleman said …
Very good review. You’ve made me want to see this!
on Aug 27 2008 @ 2:41 pm 7. Evan Derrick said …
You make great points, Daniel. I think the emphasis in my statement was more on “demanding” that other people respect your religion, rather than that it should be respected. I agree with you - even if major religions disagree with one another, they should have a healthy respect for each other. The problem is when they all go around demanding it, often times at the point of a sword. Is this what you were saying?
Perhaps my wording should have been more clear. Regardless, this is a good discussion to have and one that I had hoped the review would initiate.
on Aug 27 2008 @ 4:22 pm 8. Rick Olson said …
Evan, good points, all … I think you are commendable in your restraint from attacking this flick because as you say (a) it ain’t worth it and (b) it doesn’t sound that offensive anyway.
I am continually amazed at the abilities of some Christians to make mountains out of molehills — e.g., getting their panties in a wad about a trifle like this — to avoid confronting issues like the poor among us and preachers of hate in our own ranks.
I saw a piece in at a CT blog the other day where the author of “Blue Like Jazz” was interviewed, and he said he felt that there were more moral issues than simply abortion and gay marriage. The interviewer came right back and asked him: where do you stand on abortion and gay marriage? And in the comments he was castigated for being a purveyor of the evil social gospel and a “postmodernist.” Disgusting.
on Aug 27 2008 @ 4:32 pm 9. Luke Harrington said …
Well, he is a bit of a postmodernist…Blue Like Jazz is an intensely postmodern work. That’s not saying anything against it, though. To say that you can’t be both a Christian and a postmodernist is the epitome of ignorance. It’s bizarre to me how the Church always manages to villainize whatever philosophy (or artistic movement) is dominant in its day, only to embrace it whole-hog as it fades from popularity (as has happened, unsurprisingly, with modernism). Can’t we just acknowlege that all philosophies are creations of men — inherently flawed, but still useful as “lenses” for looking at (and for) truth?
Okay, that was kind of a rant that went nowhere. Sorry about that. If you can make sense out of it, please do.
With religion as with everything else, the sad thing is that it’s always the stupidest people who speak the loudest. (Read whatever irony into that that you want to.
)
on Aug 27 2008 @ 7:51 pm 10. films noir said …
I think white christianity in the US deserves a pilloring. Talk about an inversion of values.
A President who hosts prayer meetings and does stupid little dances on the White House lawn while New Orleans festers in a swamp of neglect and thousands of innocent lives are lost in a needless war in Iraq, and young men return to US soil in body bags in the cover of night or hopelessly maimed.
A guy like the Rev Jeremiah Wright who has the guts and decency to speak the truth is pilloried, and a charlatan like a Obama gets the Democratic nomination.
on Aug 27 2008 @ 11:50 pm 11. Sean C said …
@ Evan: Great review. Now I want to see it, as other have said. I agree with you mostly on all of the points made about making this into a mark of controversy when, yes, there are much bigger fish to fry.
@Daniel: Great argument. Point well made and taken.
@Luke: Incredible way to put that. I couldn’t have said it better. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
films noir: um… I agree on the Obama part.
I really have nothing more to add. My 2 cents, based on the rapidly declining value of the U.S. dollar, is worth less now than when I started to read this. I will say that I really love the way Evan was able to give such a multilateral, unbiased review on such a “controversial” film. (I choke on even calling this controversial, what a joke. Go to your buffet lunch special hypocrites, er… I mean christian activists!)
on Aug 28 2008 @ 1:51 am 12. Rick Olson said …
Films noir, I couldn’t agree more about it all up until that charlatan Obama. I wouldn’t call him a charlatan, just another politician. And amen (irony intended) about the morally bankrupt Bush administration.
Luke, I myself am a postmodernist … not that there’s anything wrong with that. I was just trying to characterize Christianity Today’s interviewer for being narrow-minded and jingoistic. You nailed it when you said American Christianity has a way of being very short-sighted and mean when it comes to the new and different. Give it a couple of hundred years, and Christians will be pining for those good ol’ postmodern days.
on Aug 28 2008 @ 10:45 am 13. Daniel said …
Yes, that’s about what I was saying, Evan.
on Aug 28 2008 @ 4:51 pm 14. maurice said …
Evan
This may be one of those posts that are too inflammatory or sensitive or out of line to allow. If you need to delete, I fully understand and will bear no ill because of that action. I am sure that keeping everyone that posts satisfied is like trying to communicate by tap dancing and farting and my hat is tipped towards you for that. I will state my convictions and deal with the aftermath. Gladly, I might add.
I am 50 years old. I have never done drugs of any type nor have I ever smoked. I have, on several occasions, drank to excess and have operated a motor vehicle when I was way over the limit. I lie. I have stolen and coveted things that were not mine. I’ve never seen a porn film but “The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover” didn’t miss that by much. My favorite author is Stephen King. My favorite swear word is “shit” and it sound melodious to me. My wife says that I can be so mean that when I spit, the grass dies. I go to the movies more than I go to church and I am mostly introverted. I am opinionated. I’m not a racist but have been hypocritical about things. I’m about 50 pounds overweight. In short, I’m not a nice person. I am flawed.
I am a Christian
I am not going to defend Christians. In fact, I think if God knew how most of us invoke His name, He’d probably turn atheist. I think your excellent review covered almost all of the bases about our faults, foibles and hypocrisies. When I watch TBN and see these slick hucksters promising divine blessing by paying for it, I want to throw up on my shoes. Forgiveness doesn’t come with a debt. So let’s forget those guys. Forget that Oral Roberts tried to strong arm his supporters by telling them that God would kill him if he didn’t raise some cash. Forget that Peter Popov conned folks by using a radio receiver and an audience plant. Forget that Benny Hinn lied when he prophesized that “God would destroy the homosexual community with fire” back in 1996. There is no way to defend Jim Jones or David Koresh. That is not what Christianity encompasses and I will defend such as these. They are nuts.
When anyone stands up to say that they are a Christian and feel it is an answer to end a debate,commit violence, a reason to act improperly or mantra to vilify a sinner, they have twisted God’s word into an article for the National Enquirer. You do not use the name of God to kill doctors. You don’t carpet bomb any group of individuals with hate in any god’s name. There’s no scripture that says love thy neighbor unless he’s a George Michael fan. The primary Christian tenant is grace. Grace is unmerited favor, something you get from God even though you don’t deserve it. Grace is for everyone and is freely offered.
I know that this is a just movie and I know I will not see it. I will not see it because of the depiction of Christ I saw in the film’s trailer. Jesus Christ was/is God in the flesh. The fact is that Satan has done everything he can to make the name of Jesus the most abused and useless name in language. I never met anyone who banged his shin and yelped “Oh, Buddha.” I never hear anyone swear by saying “Krishna, dude! What is your problem?” This name, that we are commanded to praise above all names, is a sacred and dear thing to me. And while I am angered that He is treated as some silly clown, that His sacrifice for all of man is reduced to a crude joke and that the song “Sexy Jesus” is warbled aloud for the world to hear, I feel no compulsion to collect arms and build a compound.
I am a sinner. Being a Christian does not change that. The Apostle Paul, author of 2/3 of the New Testament wrote to the Romans that he still had a sin problem. Despite all that he did and accomplished in Christ’s name, he flatly declared “That which I should not do, I do.” Any Christian that states he has arrived, is past blame or prosecution for wrong doing is a deluded fellow who has misread God’s Word. I fight my sinful nature all day long. Honestly, sin is easier and can be more fun than righteousness. I confess I get tired of doing right and will also confess to doing the wrong thing knowing I am sinning and will be grieving God by my action. I do it anyway. That’s how lousy a Christian I am. But, the grace He provides is always there, waiting patiently for my repentance and that blood will forever wash away my sin. So, how do I dare condemn anyone else for the sin they commit? Jesus told the most “holy” and politically correct group of people of His day that they were like pigs at a dinner table. He invited them to cast the first stone. He answered their questions when they attempted to trap Him. Then, He wandered off to have dinner with the sinners he had come to redeem.
This is a movie, one, like Evan said, that will pass in a month or so from its limelight. The sad image of Christ in the film cut me to the quick as it has in many others. But, you will not see me out front of any theatre carrying a protest sign. There’s nothing in this film that should cause any Christian to stumble or change his mind about the Savior. If I didn’t do it for “The Da Vinci Code”, this movie is no big whoop. We can condemn it and move on with no more fuss. When Christians stop to realize that all of the letters that compromise the New testament are written to the Christian church, it puts the menusha in proper perspective, doesn’t it? But I don’t like Jesus to be treated like a buffoon. He died for our sins and rose the third day in order to show the world that He is God. That’s why I love Him so.
One last thing. I will not respond on this board to anything I have written. This is my belief, my sermon, my message to share. I doubt I will do it again. I will not take any more space on this board to restate this. I know this speech will cause some of you to blanch, shrug or roll your eyes. Some of you will get very angry. If you feel the need to retort, keep it brief. Lord knows I didn’t and I apologize for that.
Thanks again, Evan. I like this board and you did another great review. Rock on!
on Aug 28 2008 @ 5:39 pm 15. Tony D'Ambra said …
Maurice, I am 55 and a lapsed Catholic who wishes he had your faith - it would make life a lot easier.
I greatly respect your courage and commitment, and I too wince at blasphemy as it is offensive to so many decent people and is so unnecessary, but I feel too that the freedoms we all uphold are built on a respect for difference, which includes allowing others to parody cherished beliefs.
Jesus was mocked on the cross and asked his “father” to forgive them.
My beef with the established white churches in your country, is that their hypocrisy mocks Jesus’ teachings more than a flim-flam movie like Hamlet ever will, and that maybe such disrespect should be seen as a wake-up call.
on Aug 29 2008 @ 6:26 pm 16. Tony D'Ambra aka films noir said …
I am amazed no-one else has responded to Maurice.
After all the crocodile tears over Sam’s fate, you guys simply amaze me.
This is my last post on this august forum.
on Aug 29 2008 @ 6:37 pm 17. Phillip Johnston said …
I hope this doesn’t sound like an attempt at responding to Tony’s statement, but I was going to respond to Maurice last night when I read his brave and honest posting.
Maurice, your post was nothing short of breathtaking. Your words are profound and inspiring to me and, even though I’m only 20 years old, I’ve felt some of the feelings you describe many times. Being a Christian in this world is one of the toughest undertakings around and I thank you for sharing. Your courage makes me blush … I wish I had the same amount.
on Aug 29 2008 @ 7:11 pm 18. Evan Derrick said …
Yesterday took a bit of a toll, Tony. Forgive us if we were slightly exhausted.
Maurice,
Of course your post wasn’t too inflammatory, not in the slightest. In many ways, you’ve been one of the most unique, entertaining, and valuable readers that we have. It’s always a pleasure to see your comments, and it’s wonderful to get a little more insight into your life and worldview.
Your honesty is also fresh. In this age of hypocrisy, when ‘Christians’ walk around as white-washed tombs, it’s refreshing to hear someone who calls themselves a follower of Christ ALSO admit to being a less than perfect person. If more people did that, I think Christianity would be much more respected and people would be much more open to it. But no, they see pastors who commit adultery and churches that protest homosexual funerals and ‘Christians’ who murder abortion doctors, and it all stinks like so much dung.
The primary tenet is grace, but so many people forget that. It’s no wonder people stay away from the church like the bubonic plague; they get burned every time they get close.
Your position on the film is equally admirable. Perhaps I am a bit too numb to blasphemy these days. Should I be more outraged? I still believe protesting and boycotting something like this is ridiculous (like you yourself said), but perhaps I should have had more inner rage at Christ being treated like this. Hmmmm. I dunno. Something to dwell on and think hard about.
Don’t stay silent, Maurice. We enjoy your perspective here. You like to raise hell just enough to keep things interesting, but you also remain respectful at the same time. It’s a good combo.
on Aug 30 2008 @ 2:32 am 19. Rick Olson said …
Jeez, Tony, chill. Some people have lives other than reading blog posts. (Not me, but I’ve heard …) We usually respond when we have the chance.
I’m a “professional Christian”, a Presbyterian pastor, and I appreciated Maurice’s post. I just didn’t have anything to say about it, except perhaps that I think Jesus can take a little ribbing. He’s a big boy.
on Sep 02 2008 @ 10:31 am 20. Craig Kennedy said …
My own review may be forthcoming so I’ve only glanced at Evan’s rating and skimmed the comments.
I won’t be getting into an argument about faith, but it sounds like I enjoyed this one to a similar degree as Evan. Surprisingly so, based on what I’d heard.
on Sep 02 2008 @ 10:46 am 21. Luke Harrington said …
Maurice’s thoughts raise an interesting question, I think: Where do you draw the line between films that depict blasphemy and films that are blasphemous? Obviously, if you were to avoid all instances of blasphemy, you’d have to skip over large portions of the Bible.
I haven’t seen Hamlet 2 yet, so I can’t answer the question with respect to the film, but I’d like to hear otehr people’s thoughts.
on Sep 02 2008 @ 1:05 pm 22. Rick Olson said …
Personally, I like a film that challenges faith, blasphemous or not. One of my favorites is “Viridiana,” Bunuel’s scathing indictment of the Catholic church, and faith in general. Besides, I think that what some Christians do in the name of faith is much more blasphemous than something like “Hamlet 2″, or “Viridiana,” for that matter, could ever be.
Besides, as I said above, God is a big being; he/she can take it.
on Sep 03 2008 @ 8:46 am 23. Sam Juliano said …
I wasn’t in the least ‘morally offended’ by the film, neither did I find devoid of some modest inventiveness. Yet for me it was admittedly tedious, and a bit of a grind, and it seemingly employed a kind of stream-of-conciousness approach that by it’s very nature was hit-and-miss, and unlike WAITING FOR GUFMAN, which you cite, it didn’t have unified artistic dimension. You also mention O’Toole at the beginning–I think that there was a conscious effort here to recall in spirit, his character in THE RULING CLASS–this free-spirited ecentric, but Coogan was far less evocative. For me, another in a line of summer comedy failures, but still I can understand why it has admirers. A few scenes are genuinely funny, like the one where he visits one boys’ parents, who are professionals who object to the shoddy approach. Wonderful review as always, Evan.
on Sep 03 2008 @ 9:06 am 24. Evan Derrick said …
Agreed, Sam, that Waiting For Guffman is a superior comedy to this one. But I still believe that in a few years, this could become something of a cult classic. I’ll need some time before revisiting it, but I could imagine hip 20 somethings quoting lines from it to one another Monty Python-style a few years down the line.