Hamlet 2?

[Fiyero13]

Posted: 9/24/08 at 4:32pm

I heard it only grossed 5 million dollars so i guess it bombed at the box office? What are some of the reasons for that?

[xoangel2789xo]

Posted: 9/24/08 at 11:09pm

I haven't gotten a chance to watch it yet. Other than that, I'm not sure why.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 9/25/08 at 1:46am

Well, for starters, it isn't very funny. The best thing about the movie is the title.

[thewizloveschen]

Posted: 9/25/08 at 2:42am

This film was a HUGE letdown! The trailers did a great disservice to the movie it's self by taking primarily every funny moment and leaving nothing for the audience to enjoy during the film. The acting was forgettable and the story was long and dull. I only wish I had fallen asleep, at least I would have enjoyed myself.

[christhefish]

Posted: 9/25/08 at 8:01am

I didn't think it was that bad. I do feel that it could have been marketed differently

[boonanas]

Posted: 9/25/08 at 8:03am

It wasn't as good as it could've been, plus it doesn't appeal to a lot of people, and it pretty unmarketable.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 9/25/08 at 11:28am

I really loved the film, but it is for a really limited audience. I was surprised at how much the film was marketed and how absolutely no one showed up. I saw it opening night and 6 people were there. My cousin and I laughed our faces off.It seemed like an indie film that should have played on fewer screens but it was put in wide release. I thought Steve Coogan was inspired and I loved seeing some of the kids from Spring Awakening in leading roles. As a former high school drama geek, the film just delighted me.

[JoshuaEads]

Posted: 9/25/08 at 11:46am

I have to admit that, while it started out extremely slow, it eventually gained speed and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Steve Coogan has always been a delight and his work in this film is no exception. However, I also agree that the plot is ridiculously predictable.

[Kad]

Posted: 9/25/08 at 12:00pm

I thoroughly enjoyed the film and, in particular, Steve Coogan. I wish the secondary characters had been fleshed out a bit more, but I can understand why they weren't.

The film was horribly mis-marketed though.

[folkyboy]

Posted: 9/25/08 at 12:05pm

i saw this movie and thought it was wretched. the acting, the dialogue and the editing were awful. nothing about it was redeamable.

[JoshuaEads]

Posted: 9/25/08 at 12:07pm

Kad,

I have to agree with you that it was mis-marketed. I went in expecting more of a ridiculous, offensive "South Park"-esque romp than a low-key comedy. Once I mentally changed gears, though, I really enjoyed it.

[Theatreboy49]

Posted: 9/25/08 at 1:07pm

The only reason I went was for the two SA actors and I enjoyed it. I laughed alot but I agree it is for a limited audience.

[thewizloveschen]

Posted: 9/25/08 at 2:29pm

Okay so I have to agree! While I didn't like the movie all that much (obviously) I REALLY enjoyed seeing some actors from SA... that was awesome!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/25/08 at 2:43pm

The best thing about the movie is the title.

Which is not saying much.

The trailers did a great disservice to the movie it's self by taking primarily every funny moment and leaving nothing for the audience to enjoy during the film.

The parts in the trailer were the funny moments??? Yikes.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 9/25/08 at 3:15pm

IMO the best parts weren't shown on the trailer. The film is more of an odd, darkly comic study of an actor who never made it. It is a character study of a desperate man. Coogan was brilliant and the movie does move between laugh out loud funny moments and cringe-worthy embarrassing ones. I loved the unique angle and to be quite honest there are many of these people roaming around community theatres. Coogan gives a nuanced performance with some great broad physical humor as well.