I was just watching a program that dealt with, among other things, teaching Nathaniel Hawthorne to today's generation. One thing I kept thinking is that you actually have to love a piece of literature in order to teach it. If you do not love it, your students surely never will. Good teachers are born, not made. No amount of education, no bag of tricks, can make a good teacher out of someone who is not passionate about teaching.

Judy Geeson should have had a bigger career.

I saw an excellent Hamlet many moons ago at Kennedy Theatre, but the very best Hamlet I ever did see was in Philadelphia, a Temple University production. Students all. Yes, students whom I will guess never made huge careers in show business, but were brilliant actors all.

I must reiterate: If you find Shakespeare a little inaccessible, it is most likely the fault of the production. A good production, even if some of the words are obscure, will make the words, accompanied by the actions, crystal clear to you. Witness Mel Gibson's version. Very well done. Sadly, I can no longer watch Mel Gibson. On principle. My dear niece, who once owned every Gibson movie on tape and DVD, threw them all out. I have to agree with that as well.

Fear not, however, as there are good film versions available. Branagh, wanting to get every word into the movie, did so. And goodly.

Every word. You know, I have to agree with A.L. Rowse. This may be such an incredibly long play, if you stick to the text religiously, simply because Shakespeare had finally created a character that so mesmerized him, he could not let him leave the stage without wringing out every idea he could play through Hamlet's mind and mouth. Hamlet, then, is perhaps indecisive, but the primary reason for that is because Shakespeare did not want to let him go. Ever. Keep him out there on stage, thinking, talking.

I've said how little I buy into the reverence for Olivier's Hamlet job -- for his Shakespeare work in general. I must reiterate that as well.

Friends, what idiot would give Shakespeare's Hamlet fewer than three stars? Not I, even though for this one, I should. God's bodkins, man, this is Hamlet we're talking about. No other work of literature, western or eastern, has generated more critical debate than this, except, of course , for The Bible, in its entirety. Give Hamlet fewer than three stars? Why, I'd sooner entertain the idea of self-slaughter than do that.

So, even though this is a weak, weak -- yes, I wrote "weak" twice, Patrick Stewart -- Hamlet, I cannot give it fewer than three stars.

If you recall Patrick McGoohan as King Edward I in Braveheart, you know how excellently he can play evil. Here McGoohan, as good an Iago as ever there was, is perfect in the villain role which, as is the case with most of Shakespeare's villains, tends to steal the show, and his quip about all the white jazz musicians holding a convention in a telephone booth provides one of the few funny moments to break the unrelenting tension in this edge-of-your-seat production.

I wonder what would happen if they took the She's the Man actors and tried to do Twelfth Night? What this one lacks is life and that liveliness you get with She's the Man. But it's worth one watch.

Note: If you are confused by some of the references to Henry's "former" self and his former friends, you may want to check out Henry IV parts I and II. Unfortunately those won't be Branagh projects -- at least not yet. Here's hoping he does those as well.

Beware! The title for this one should actually be: Transporter 3: Frank Martin finds love. That's the most prominent aspect of this film. If you're looking for the same level of butt-kicking as in I and II, sorry. But this guy is still good.

Okay, so this is messy. Agreed. And if I'd had input on it, I'd have had Li play the original partner in prosthetics. At least that way he'd be similar, especially in voice. I'm not even finding the unchangeable eyes bit convincing.

But you know what? My Badger flixster buddy James once asked me point-blank how on earth I could add Jason Statham to my all-time favorite actor list. Well, it's precisely because of roles like this. I think that Statham is one of the great stone-cold butt-kickers on screen today. I still wish, as I said a while back, that they would break the "Bond formula" and have a different actor play Bond in each new Bond film. I'd like to see Statham get a crack at it, and I'd also like to see both Fiennes brothers be given a shot.

Jet Li is a solid action man as well, and this really could have been a much better film with a little careful thought. Although I should give it fewer stars, I'm giving it a solid three.