Yeah, Saw 6. Or is it Saw VI? Film studios usually put Roman numerals in the title when they want to make a sequel look more serious. Hang on a sec....
OK, I just Googled it, and the correct title is indeed Saw VI. Now, here's the thing: I've noticed that there seems to be a new Saw movie about every year. It's as though the producers of the franchise fire up the assembly line at the old Saw Factory at regular intervals to make sure America doesn't have to go Sawless for a single Halloween. I wonder if they're already putting together part 7 (or, Saw VII) as I type this. Does the studio wait to find out how a particular Saw film will do at the box office before planning out the next one, or do they just go for it? I also want to know if the same killer from the first Saw is in Saw VI. If I remember correctly, the killer ("Jigsaw") had a terminal illness in parts one through three, so if he IS in this latest installment, I question just how "terminal" said illness really was. I mean, it's been six friggin' YEARS since Saw 1! How long could it really take this maniac to die?
But whatever. Let me get to the point. I WANTED to review Saw VI this weekend, and had been planning on it for a month or so. Unfortunately, some scheduling conflicts arose, and I was unable to attend a screening. I'll just go ahead and assume that it was brilliant.
Not to make the weekend a total blogging bust, however, I instead stayed home and watched ANOTHER long-awaited sequel.
Hamlet 2 (2008)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1104733/
Netflix description:
With his department in danger of being cut, high school drama teacher Dana Marschz (Steve Coogan) pens a heretical sequel to William Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and exhorts his students to stage it in this sardonic comedy that riffs on the "inspirational teacher" genre. Catherine Keener plays Marschz's unhappy wife, with Elisabeth Shue appearing as herself -- or, rather, a version of herself who's given up acting to become a nurse.
Hamlet 2 was not what I thought it would be. See, from word of mouth and its marketing campaign, one would expect this film to be highly offensive and raunchy. A quick look at other reviews online tells me that many viewers found parts of Hamlet 2 to be shocking and over-the-top. I gotta say that I'm not sure why. I personally thought this film was a very well-written, well-acted, even poignant little experience. I mean, sure -- it's about a guy who stages a play that features a time traveling Jesus, and "bi-curious" portrayals of Shakespearean characters...but REALLY, anyone who's watched more than, say, twelve episodes of South Park ought to find such content a bit old hat. C'mon, lighten up.
Really, the (supposedly) offensive stuff here didn't make Hamlet 2 a good movie. Actually, it's good in spite of those elements. See, the film is about a failed actor turned high school drama instructor, named Dana Marschz. His yearly student productions, all based off hit Hollywood movies, are terrible, and the school has decided to cut its drama program altogether. Marschz realizes that he has one last chance to put on a good show in order to save the program, so he decides to write his own material for once. Of course, he's an awful writer, so the brainstorming doesn't go so well...UNTIL a couple of his gang banger students one night slip some LSD into his iced tea. In a psychedelic haze, Marschz scribbles a sequel to Hamlet, in which the hero uses a time machine to prevent all of the deaths that occurred in the original Shakespeare classic. Pretty neat, huh?
(Everyone knows that to put on a good play, you must have....)
Marschz and his play generate a great deal of controversy across the community because of its sexual and religion-oriented content. He must also break through to the 15 or so streetwise Latino students in his drama class, and convince them to take the production seriously. Meanwhile, his wife wants a baby, and he struggles with his own inner demons.
OK, Hamlet 2 works as a film because of the likability of its main character. I went into this one thinking that Dana Marschz was going to be a sort of one-dimensional, so-dumb-he's-funny caricature...and AT FIRST, he does come across that way. A few scenes in, however, we realize that Marschz (played expertly by British comedian Steve Coogan) isn't necessarily STUPID; he's just really untalented. He directs high school stage productions of Erin Brockovich because he LOVES the theater, but lacks the skill to do anything else. Marschz is naive, but he's not oblivious, and deep down, he's mortified by what he's become. I root for characters like that.
Anyway, the interactions Mr. Marschz has with his students are hilarious, as racial stereotypes are repeatedly built up and then subverted in the most unexpected ways. I also liked the scenes of his humiliating home life, with his wife (played by the always great Catherine Keener) staying sloshed round the clock and verbally abusing everyone she meets. Elizabeth Shue also has a strange, but very amusing, turn as herself and helps Marschz motivate the student actors.
Hamlet 2 walks so many lines that I'm surprised it actually worked. It's part tongue-in-cheek; part satire; part parody; part drama; part slapstick; part Mel Brooks; part Farrelly Brothers....You won't see many movies like this in your lifetime. I recommend it to anyone looking for a challenging comedy with heart. And hey -- don't you wanna find out how the play goes over?
4 out of 5.
b.
you're gay.
ReplyDelete