Midway through Andrew Fleming and Pam Brady's Hamlet 2, the students acting in Dana Marschz's (Steve Coogan) raucous play proclaim that it isn't how much talent you have that's important but rather how much enthusiasm. Unfortunately, this message comes off more as an excuse than the inspirational message (or clever parody) it's meant to be, what with the cast lacking considerably in talent and the movie spinning off in multiple directions.Despite the fact that the film's plot is essentially the trials and tribulations of a high school's drama department, the players portraying the student body are evidently incapable of reaching back to that awkward period of time, instead faltering throughout the majority of the film. Or maybe the problem is that the cast is too entrenched in the theater mentality, as they do not demonstrate any real talent until they become actors in the movie's namesake. For once the co-star company begins performing in Coogan's theatrical creation, they demonstrate a great deal of promise; prior to that point (which comes far too late in the film), however, the acting in Hamlet 2-with several exceptions-is amateur at best.

And, like your high school's poorly cast Mercutio, there are times when Hamlet 2 just tries too hard. The film is dotted with extraneous one-liners that are obviously meant to wrap themselves around the speech of the general populace and become witty T-shirt slogans, but most flop horribly and are more cringe-worthy than funny.

The film's superfluous tendencies extend to its plot; Fleming and Brady do not possess Shakespeare's talent for balancing the back stories and progress of multiple characters, and the abundance of incomplete side narratives weighs heavily on the movie. When everything is neatly wrapped up at the film's end, you don't know how it happened and, quite frankly, you really don't care. Coogan's outstanding performance, endearingly earnest devotion and disproportionate screen time make it so that Marschz and the play are the only portions of the film you become concerned for. Everything and everyone else is developed so little and shown so infrequently that you develop no attachment to them. There are multiple points throughout the film where you find yourself asking, "Why is that person even in this movie? What are those fire-fighters doing there? Is it really necessary to mention that Laertes is bi curious?"

On a side note, there is also an unusually heavy reliance on physical comedy that, more often than not, isn't particularly amusing. By the fourth time you see a certain student endure a head injury within the first 30 minutes of the film, you begin to wonder if this is the droll, satirical comedy you came to see or whether you wandered into the wrong theater.

Hamlet 2 isn't all bad; there just isn't enough of anything. Not enough talent, not enough plot development, not enough controversy (for when the theatrical version of Hamlet 2 debuts within the film, it isn't nearly as scandalous as you'd think it would be). Regardless, it's definitely worth seeing-for those who are fans of Coogan and nostalgic folks looking to relive their drama teacher's misguided adaptations of Shakespeare.