"Hamlet 2" Met My Low Expectations

I went to the movies yesterday, because I was "bored".

I don't typically go to the movies just for "something to do"; I think that kind of thing leads to seeing bad movies, and when you see a bad movie, you're basically telling bad movie-makers, "Please make more of these".

And as an actor - not to mention a person who likes movies - I don't want that.

But like I said, I was really bored yesterday and didn't know what to do with myself.

And since there's not much out worth seeing right now (That I haven't already seen), I walked down to the Los Feliz 3 and saw Hamlet 2, a movie I suspected was not really worth my time.

My verdict?

While it wasn't so bad that I felt guilty patronizing it - because "now the filmmakers are going to make more like this..." - It wasn't all that good either; I'd say my low expectations were pretty much met.

In short, you really don't need to rush out to see it on my account; it was funny in spots...but only in spots (My biggest problem was Steve Coogan - You're supposed to root for his character, but I mostly just found him annoying. And that's not good when you're talking about the lead).

If you want to see a movie about an untalented person (Or persons) putting a show together, I'd stick with Waiting For Guffman, still "the gold standard" for this sort of thing.

But if you just need to get out of the house, and you're looking for laughs, go see Tropic Thunder instead (And if you're already seen it, see it again - It's definitely a better value for your movie-comedy dollar, even on the second go-round; I would have watched it again last night, since it's at the Vista, just a stone's throw from the Los Feliz, but I'm seeing it next week with a friend).
_________________________
I'm still reading The Eight Characters Of Comedy, and realizing, as I read about "The Materialistic One", that it's the one type of comedic role I actually couldn't do; I don't look wealthy, I've never been wealthy, and most importantly, I "just don't get it" - I've never felt my primary motivation in life was to acquire more "stuff", and I don't really understand those who do feel that way, so it would be tough for me to "find my way into" a character like that.

At the end of each chapter on the "eight characters", the author lists examples of each type throughout sitcom history.

And I noticed that, while there are specific examples of each type I've enjoyed watching over the years, the ones I'm least like personally and least likely to be asked to play are also, in general, the character types I'm least likely to think of as "favorite characters" (My favorite characters are much more likely to be "loveable losers" and "neurotics" than "bitch/bastards" or "materialistic ones").

And that makes sense - I think you "bond" to a character on tv (Comedy or drama) because you relate to them in some way; you're like them, you're afraid you're like them, or you wish to be like them.

Anyway...

Seems like there was something else I was going to write about, but I sure can't think of what it was...

But I guess it'll keep, whatever it was.