Is Shakespeare "as boring as bat shit "?

When I was in high school and Shakespeare was compulsory, I used to love the stories (plenty of sex and violence) but hated the language. Why could he have not said the same thing in plain and simple words? And why should we Aussies have to learn about old Pommie poets anyway? When I was at uni in the 70s, I had a small part in the scottish play. I had one long speech to remember. It was most daunting, until it was pointed out to me that it was written in iambic pentameter, so that once the actor got into the rhythm, the actual words just seemed to flow. As I matured, I began to appreciate the whole canon more and more. I realised that Shakespeare had contibuted more to the development of the English language than any other single person (with the possible exception of Chaucer). Moreover, it was not only great literature, but if you could tap into the language, it was great theatre as well. Nowadays, it stikes me that any theatre actor worth his or her salt has done, and yearns to do more Shakespeare, as an important aspect of their artistic development. Not only that, but the plays never seem to lose their audience appeal. Finally, I regard myself as a devotee of Australian dramatic works and historical narratives. I value our national heritage to the point of jingoism. Having said that, I regard Shakespeare as just as much a part of our heritage as Britain's. I therefore categorically disagree with the above proposition.