'A play in which thought often gets in the way of action'. How much do you agree with this assessment of Hamlet?

The three main points that could be made of this statement are:

Hamlet himself is not a man of action, unlike many of Shakespeare's leading men. He spends much of the play brooding and plotting rather than fighting battles, and only truly accepts a call to arms at the denouement of the play in his fencing match with Laertes. Attention could be drawn here to Hamlets age, which is rarely cast as young as he is written. An analysis of the key events of the play, all (baring the fight at the end, and the killing of Polonius) are quiet scenes with generally few characters. A contrast could be made here to plays such as Macbeth & Anthony and Cleopatra, where battles and violent events often for the prelude or aftermath of scenes. In addition, the scenes that are the most known are those with no action whatsoever. Thirdly, there could be the argument made that the entire play is driven by the actions of Hamlet himself, and thus is entirely action (albeit of a different sort to that of most Shakespearean plays). The supporting characters all wish to continue with their lives, and it is the actions of Hamlet which bring events to bear. Finally, a conclusion should sum up the arguments for and against the statement, and reach a consensus.