Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990) User Reviews

RNG are Dead

[questl-18592 · 8/10 · 11 March 2021]

I love this movie. I remember first watching it in a college class talking about different takes, different points of view. Watching it again now and I find myself liking it even more. It's such an interesting film with an anti-narrative and such a wonderfully, deliberately bizarre structure. Rose & Guild follows the story of our titular characters but it's really more about what they're doing off to the side of the main story of Hamlet. So much so that they just randomly show up in places when the story demands it and they don't even know how they got there.

It's weird and it absolutely isn't going to work for some people but I love this one. It's so unique and fun, creative and inventive and I try to give props to any movie setting out to be as different as this one especially when it actually succeeds at what it's trying to do. Strong recommend here, whether you're familiar with Hamlet or not, though a loose understanding of the play would likely be beneficial.

What happens in between the curtains...

[pyrocitor · 8/10 · 22 March 2008]

"There is no choice involved. The bad end unhappily, the good unluckily. That is what tragedy means." - The Player

Out of all of the timeless Shakespearian tragic protagonists or even supporting players, few would prove less memorable and recognized than Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, background players in Hamlet who are given no development, little purpose, and, apart from a single line mentioning their offstage deaths in passing, no closure. As such, it is nothing less than a delightfully ingenious decision on writer/director Tom Stoppard's part to re- examine Hamlet from the perspective of the two characters who seldom play any part in it, and in between question their purpose, their reason for being there, what they are attempting to accomplish and their inability to remember anything before being brought into the story. Such a work is Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead: an absurdist, existential take on the tragedy of the Prince of Denmark, for which rational description proves fleeting and incomplete. Consider the film as an amalgamation of its source material, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Beckett's absurdist Waiting for Godot, and the irreverent comedic stylings of Abbot and Costello and Monty Python - and even this fails to exactly capture the unique stylistic blend that is the film.

As with many such experimental works, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead will likely not prove appealing to all tastes, particularly not for those devoid of a healthy tolerance for theater of the absurd and existential or otherwise philosophical ramblings with no real definitive outcome or purpose. However, Stoppard's exquisitely witty and verbose script is rattled off at a breakneck pace, making up for the occasional lull in pacing and absurdist silent interludes which fail to add much to the plot. Despite its theatrical origins, the work makes a surprisingly fluid transition to film, with some fittingly minimalist cinematography helping it feel less stage oriented. The somewhat low budget appearance of the production, as opposed to being a detriment, actually adds an endearing and introspective quality to the film, as if meant to look like it was being performed by a low budget theater group. Similarly, the film's musical score is just bizarre and comically unsettling enough to promote the perfect offbeat mood throughout.

Stoppard's work also deserves tremendous commendations for his work's introspective challenging conventions of theater and audience expectations by leaving many plot points unexplained or up for subjective interpretation. The constant question as to whether the two titular characters are actors, seemingly so into character that they have forgotten the nature of their putting on a play (pages from the script of Hamlet drift tantalizingly around the scenery throughout, suggesting this possibility) or the actual characters themselves within the world of the play, unaware as to their fictional nature, ultimate lack of purpose and inescapable impending fate is never fully resolved, and ultimately never seems to make much of a difference. The play's treatment of fatalism and pre-determination in artistic works is similarly intriguing - as Dreyfus' Player (seemingly the only fully informed character in the play) explains, the events which befall the two bewildered protagonists are not decided, but "written". However, Stoppard never draws the distinction between introspective artistry or just plain absurdity, leaving it up to his audience to fill in many of the film's gaps and come to their own conclusions, but his inspired storyline proves consistently entertaining in the midst of its frequently nonsensical philosophical banter. Similarly, the script's exploration of the frequently misleading and deceptive power and ambiguity of words leads for some turns of phrases worthy of Shakespeare himself, whose dialogue style Stoppard frequently mocks and simultaneously pays tribute to.

Without such an accomplished cast putting their own unique spin on the material, it is hard to imagine such a difficult play being transposed into such a highly enjoyable movie. Gary Oldman and Tim Roth are perfectly cast as the consistently bewildered titular duo, and their quirky chemistry and impeccable comedic timing makes for some of the most enjoyable back and forth routines in recent memory (the verbal tennis match is an abiding classic, but is only a fraction of the comedic brilliance the two muster up) - an absurdist Abbot and Costello if you will, with Oldman's loopy Rosencrantz making a ideal foil for Roth's curt straight man Guildenstern. A fittingly grandiose Richard Dreyfus is a consistent scene stealer, making superb use of many of the best lines in the script as the lead player in the theatrical group performing for the royal family. Similarly, Iain Glen makes a suitably manic Hamlet, and Donald Sumpter and Joanna Miles prove wonderfully theatrical as King Claudius and Queen Gertrude, always lost in the wistful world of the play.

Unconventional, bizarre, thought provoking and consistently funny, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead will certainly isolate certain audiences, in particular those with little tolerance for theater of the absurd. But for those willing to partake in material outside the parameters of the mainstream will experience an intelligent, fast paced and astutely acted metaphysical comedy, one whose blend of unpretentious philosophy and irreverent comedy proves difficult to resist.

-8.5/10

Waiting for Hamlet

[petra_ste · 8/10 · 3 August 2007]

Based on a play by Tom Stoppard, who also debuts as a movie director here, the movie focuses on the two famous sycophants from Shakespeare's masterpiece; while we see glimpses of the bigger picture, we follow the events unraveling at Elsinore through the eyes of Rosencrantz (Gary Oldman) and Guildenstern (Tim Roth), a surreal and perplexed duo striving to keep up with the machinations surrounding them.

But keep up they don't. Apparently unconscious of the narrative tropes of drama, the two watch the major players with feelings ranging from surprise to fright. "What's he doing?" wonders one of them as they spy Hamlet delivering one of his famous monologues. "Talking... to himself" is the quizzical answer. A cocktail between Shakespeare, Beckett and the Monty Pythons. What's not to like about it?

Oldman and Roth are great, playing these two oddballs with a dream-like confusion, and yet making them sympathetic instead of obnoxious buffoons. Roth's Guildenstern is the straight man, while Oldman's Rosencratz displays a bemused, childish confusion. Richard Dreyfuss is charismatic as The Player; Ian Glen is an interesting Hamlet.

But the star is Stoppard's dialogue - clever, funny and very quotable.

7,5/10

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, victims of circumstance...

[Baron_LaCroix · 9/10 · 13 July 2004]

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead was one of my favourite films whilst growing up. The movie follows two irrelevant characters (irrelevant in that although they served a significant purpose, their characters were not developed in any depth... Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, as individuals, were relatively unimportant) through one of the most renowned stories ever told (Hamlet). It is a film about two characters that are completely unaware of the magnitude of the events taking place around them. This carries on throughout the entire film, and is also evidenced in their accidental discoveries of significant historical scientific findings (such as the steam engine or the concept of gravity). The characters stumble their way through the film, unaware of the consequences to their actions or their significance or importance.

The characters spend the entire film coming to terms with their existence. Shakespeare didn't provide any detailed character development of either Rosencrantz or Guildenstern, and as such, they are left confused as to the purpose of their own existence.

The film also looks at the concept of a predetermined destiny. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's fate is already determined before the film begins. And although they play an important role in one of the greatest stories ever told, they are completely unaware of their destiny; they are merely victims of circumstance.

I should also note that the constant banter between the two characters (specifically in their 'Game of Questions') is pure quality.

The Play Without the Play

[tedg · 17 June 2000]

As an architect, I am often asked what is the world's best building. The answer: a small chapel outside Barcelona started by Gaudi but never finished. We have the model (a bunch of strings) and the basement. But when one visits, it is a profoundly lifechanging place. Gaudi exceeded the building's budget, and then that of the whole community (which was to have been built) before getting out of the ground. But the ambition was so grand, one can see it with only the barest explicit minimum. But, you have to have the reference of what the master intended.

Hamlet is the same. It was never really finished, being so large a conception. Shakespeare tinkered and added over decades. So what Stoppard does here is expand Hamlet by shrinking it. The plot is only glimpsed, but that part was always incidental anyway. The play is about reasoning, and when things are real and when not, and about what element of reality is causal. So instead of giving us the language, Stoppard seizes on one device, the play within the play.

In the raw Hamlet, this is pretty rich, but Stoppard weaves new dimensions of inversion and self-reference. There are at least four levels of play here, and we keep switching about, together with most of the characters. This is not just amusing, but elaborates on `Hamlet,' when is fate real? would it change if we could see the larger clockworks of the universe? does language (specifically query) aid in this endeavor? considering that, are ideas tied to time and fate? This last point is comically illustrated as one of the pair (they don't know who is who) keeps `stumbling' on great ideas, which then vanish.

The play (Stoppard's first) seems to have been his one excellent work, followed by the mundane. Some are unhappy because the film is not so frantic as the 1967 play, but I think that is because there is a different dynamic with a film audience than a stage audience. Fewer tricks can be played. But this is a wonderful solution to the problem of language in film: it is just not cinematic, so best to exploit the dissonance.

There's risk here. The film as film is not great, so set that aside. And the notions are dangerously sophomoric. But that's what makes the whole thing so darned funny. Some critics (notably the normally intelligent Stanley Kauffmann) think Roth and Oldham are poor. But this is a strange sort of acting demand, one for which no measures exist: part surreal, part comic (in different traditions, half Monty Python, half Abbot and Costello) and part tragic confusion. They reward my trust and that's what matters I think. Dreyfus is supposed to be over the top, and he complies.

In the great Hamlet sweepstakes, many recommend seeing Mel Gibson and then Gwyneth Paltrow. I suppose that's a colorful route. But the real sense of what this is all about comes through with more real reward via Branagh and then this clever film.

Brilliant story, but not any more special as a film

[Movie_Muse_Reviews · 7/10 · 23 November 2009]

Tom Stoppard's "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead" is a brilliant existential twist on a classic story (Shakespeare's "Hamlet") and classic storytelling. It's sharp, witty, well-acted and thought-provoking in any number of ways, being both memorably absurd and surprisingly truthful.

It's hard to scrutinize, but the truth is that Stoppard's Tony-winning 1968 play doesn't offer an ounce of proof as to why it belongs on the screen. It's a contemplative story, one that's heavy and dependent on dialogue. It's the struggle of all stage-to-screen adaptations, but where others have succeeded in shedding new light through that transition, Stoppard's re- imagining of his own work lacks a visual edge, perhaps explain why he never took up the director's chair again.

The story follows "Hamlet" characters Rosencrantz (Gary Oldman) and Guildenstern (Tim Roth), two remarkably unimportant characters from the play who are part of the tragedy's final body count for no reason other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Stoppard's story explores the play from their perspective: Were they even aware of what was unfolding around them? What was the point of them being there -- their purpose? Why did they die? These questions also fuel the film.

Stoppard paints them as goofball characters that despite great wit and sophistication, remain completely oblivious to everything around them until it's too late and their prescribed fate takes over. Roth and Oldman handle these extremely random conversations that bounce between the literal and figurative playfully yet with great strength. They're a heck of a duo. Rosencrantz also has a knack for discovering basic laws of physics but then losing them amidst his and Guildenstern's struggle to figure out what exactly it is they're doing in all of this Hamlet business. Stoppard uses these examples and a fitting opening bit about the probability of a coin flip to suggest the conflict between randomness and order in life and nature.

Also significant is the group of traveling tragedians led by Richard Dreyfuss, who end up being the ones to put on the play that Hamlet uses to catch his Uncle Claudius realizing his sin. They add the element of theater and tragedy into the meditative stew, reminding us that this story ("Hamlet") is indeed a work of fiction that was created to a purpose. He preaches in fate, that in tragedy everyone who dies dies because that is what's expected of them.

It's a real head-churner, but as philosophically impressive as it is, none of that juicy thought is derived from the visual experience of the film. What characters say in this film is ten times more important than what they do, or namely how they do it. Stoppard throws in some smaller visual elements and undoubtedly he must've added something to the screenplay that wasn't on the stage. After all, he had nearly 20 years to think about his work between the play and the film, so naturally he would've wanted to make some changes. But nothing about the way he films this story enhances the existential dialogue between characters as well as between film and audience.

Having never seen the play, "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead" was an enjoyable, thought-provoking film experience, but I would imagine having already been exposed to its meta-exploratory ingenuity, those coming to the film with previous exposure might not feel anything more fulfilling than simply seeing it in a three-dimensional world.

~Steven C

Visit my site at http://moviemusereviews.blogspot.com

A comedy... about tragedy

[NBulanski · 10/10 · 4 February 2001]

Imagine if you will, two talented actors. They are playing quite small roles... the smallest roles in the play so are given no form of direction or motivation for their parts. They are simply told they are "sent for". They are told they are "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern" but no one fully indicated to them which of them were which. No they are thrust bodily into the play itself (Hamlet) and stripped of all their memories of their life before... they have become the characters. They know their cues, instinctively know their lines, but no one bothered to tell them the plot of the play, leaving them to figure it out (or not) for themselves. Their only source of any kind of direction is a player (Dreyfuss) who gives them a rudimentary crash course on dying and tragedy itself ("Generally speaking, things have gone about as far as they can possibly go, when things have gotten about as bad as they can reasonably get.")... and ("We are tragedians. We follow directions. There is no choice involved.") This is Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. And it is the funniest intellectually stimulating comedy I've ever seen. Oldman and Roth deliver a wonderful performance, always desperately struggling "get it" but never quite fully understanding what's going on around them. Oldman's portrayal of the existentially distracted Rosencrantz... or is that Guildenstern... was brilliant! (G: Is that you? R: I don't know! G: (disgustedly) It's you.) Viewers who delighted in the "verbal tennis" match might also notice that this really goes on through out the movie. (Player: But why? R: Exactly! G: Exactly what? R: Exactly why. G: Why what? R: What? G: Why? Why what, exactly?) It's truly sad that this movie doesn't get the recognition that it deserves. See Hamlet... become familiar with the story line... and then see this movie. It is quite worth the effort. I give it a 10 out of 10.

Witty comedy but nothing special for me

[funkyfry · 6/10 · 28 August 2007]

This is a surprisingly cinematic accomplishment considering it's essentially an adaption of a play. The performances by Gary Oldman (as Rosencranz…. Or is is Guildenstern? We're never quite sure) and Tim Roth (ibid) are excellent, and Richard Dreyfuss returns to form to some extent in a really hammy role as a theater impresario whose troupe is used by Hamlet to embarrass the King of Denmark. It's basically an attempt to turn "Hamlet" from a tragedy to a comedy, which isn't really as hard as it might sound because Shakespeare's particular brand of melodrama is compatible with both comedy and tragedy and he often mixed the two (for example Malvolia is a tragic character in "Twlefth Night" and the court jester is a comedic figure in "King Lear", although in both cases there is a duality in function at work).

By shifting the focus to R&G the playwright Stoppard engages us in a series of existential questions. We have two decidedly minor players who have a part in the larger tragedy of Hamlet's life and death. The characters in this version are seemingly born at the beginning of the play – they must discover why they have been called to Denmark, and can't even remember how their day started much less the fact that they were childhood friends with Hamlet. They also are unaware of which of them is which – just as most audiences probably would be, since these are "minor characters". Stoppard's comedy hinges around the concept of analogizing minor characters to minor human beings, or in other words of a character's self-awareness with his sense of purpose. Each character has a purpose to fulfill in the play, which is analogous to his purpose in life or the "meaning of life" in existential terms.

I wouldn't presume to analyze all the ins and outs of this dynamic because I've only just seen this film for the first time. I didn't laugh all that much at parts that seemed designed to be funny, so maybe this film just isn't my cup o' tea. It definitely wasn't as funny nor as philosophically interesting as most of the actual Shakespeare comedies I've seen, and the post-modern emphasis on self-consciousness doesn't really work in the story's favor or make the characters more appealing to me. Probably the one thing that will stick with me the most was the way Oldman's character kept discovering major physical principals but Roth's character would just miss seeing it. I felt at times that I was being hit over the head with the wit of this film: "WIT! WIT! WIT!". I like an intelligent comedy but this one just didn't appeal to me for whatever reason.

Must see

[justforeverme · 9/10 · 20 March 2006]

A wonderfully witty film masterfully transferred from a marvellous stage script to the screen.

The dialogue is constant and highly entertaining, the meshing of Stoppard's modern day speech of the original parts of the story and Shakespeare's original Hamlet practically seamless and masterfully worked.

Gary Oldman gives a superb performance as Guildernstern (or is it Rosencratz - and, at the end of the day, does it matter?) outstanding in a fabulous cast. All in all this film cannot be recommended highly enough.

The movie is not up to the play.

[tonisavage · 6/10 · 29 December 2002]

While I enjoyed the play very much, I felt the movie padded it in all the wrong places... it dragged a lot for me, starting with the opening scenes... it was enough in the play to just note the number of "heads" that came up, and discuss that.

Unfilmable Play

[JamesHitchcock · 5/10 · 20 October 2017]

According to family legend, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were responsible for my mother's having failed her English Literature A-Level, for which "Hamlet" was a set text. Rather than read Shakespeare's original she prepared for the exam by watching Laurence Olivier's film version, which was playing at her local cinema, several times. Unfortunately, she failed to realise that Olivier had used an abridged version of the text so was quite unable to answer a question about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who do not appear in the film.

I mention this anecdote because Tom Stoppard's play "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" revolves around the idea of taking these two minor characters, so minor that Olivier could afford to omit them altogether, and making them his protagonists. Another minor figure, the Player King, plays an important role, but some of Shakespeare's major characters, such as Hamlet himself, Gertrude, Claudius and Polonius, become minor ones in Stoppard's play. Stoppard's idea was to use Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as examples of the "little men" of history, playing a minor role on the fringe of great events while failing to comprehend their significance, and thereby to raise questions about the nature of reality and of human existence.

I saw Stoppard's play in the theatre during my university days and was enthralled by it. I loved his intellectual daring, his brilliant wordplay and the way in which his protagonists are both comic figures and, at the same time, tragic ones. The plot parallels that of "Hamlet" itself, but with the action seen from a different viewpoint, and includes lengthy scenes in which Rosencrantz and Guildenstern speculate on what is going on around them or try to pass the time (by, for example, playing Questions) while waiting for their brief moment in the spotlight. Trying to summarise the plot any further would probably be pointless; the play has been described as an "absurdist, existentialist tragicomedy" which is probably the best way of summing it up.

I have never, however, been as enamoured with the film adaptation as I am with the original play, even though Stoppard himself not only wrote the screenplay but also acted as director, his only experience of directing a film. As he said, "It just seemed that I'd be the only person who could treat the play with the necessary disrespect". I think that the reason lies in the differences between the theatrical and cinematic media. (I am not alone in this; the critics Vincent Canby and Roger Ebert both criticised the film on this ground). The theatre is primarily a verbal rather than a visual medium, and this is particularly true of the modern theatre which has for the most part dispensed with the elaborate sets and costumes which were so popular in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The cinema, by contrast, started out as a purely visual medium, and although the coming of the "talkies" in the late twenties introduced a verbal element, the visual element is generally at least as important as the verbal.

And Stoppard is an author who loves words. His play is full of puns, quibbles and word-games, written in a language which has little in common with everyday spoken English. In the theatre, which is both more intimate and more stylised than the cinema, you can get away with this sort of thing; it becomes a sort of game between actors in audience. In the cinema, more realistic and more remote than the theatre, and even more so when the film is seen at second-hand on television, it just tends to fall flat or to come across as mere sophomoric rhetoric, silly-cleverness for its own sake. This is a pity, because the acting is often quite good. Gary Oldman as Rosencrantz and Tim Roth as Guildenstern both try hard to overcome the difficulties caused by the cinematic medium; I don't think they succeed, but they do enough to suggest they could have been very good in a stage production.

The film rights to the play were originally bought by MGM in 1968, only a year after its first theatrical production. John Boorman was scheduled to direct, but in the end the project fell through. It has long been accepted in the cinema that there are some novels, including literary classics, which are virtually unfilmable. This film indicates that there might also be such a thing as an unfilmable play. 5/10 A word of warning. I would not recommend the film to anyone not already familiar with "Hamlet". They would probably score it 0/10.

See it more than once!

[jenpcraft · 10/10 · 6 August 2004]

This is one of my all time favorite movies. I love everything about it! The dialogue is ingenious, Gary Oldman, Tim Roth and Richard Dreyfuss are all superb and the concept is original. I found it much funnier on the second viewing; there is just so much to take in. It takes patience; you are thrown in seemingly in the middle of something. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, minor characters in Hamlet wander into the events of the play on call for their dialogue, and in between try to figure out their existence.

Sadly there is no US DVD, and I think the VHS is out of print. I have an old laserdisc, and I have heard that there's a UK DVD. If you do run across this I couldn't recommend it more strongly!

Very Clever

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 2 June 2015]

Two minor characters (Tim Roth and Gary Oldman) from the play "Hamlet" stumble around unaware of their scripted lives and unable to deviate from them.

Hamlet has been told time and time again, in countless films, television adaptations, theater performances. Not that this is a bad thing, but one thing the world hardly needs is another Hamlet adaptation. Luckily, this is not one of them, but rather a very clever send-up. Why not tell the same story from another character's point of view? And for laughs, let us choose the two most silly characters.

Better yet, let us cast two of the greatest actors ever. With all due respect to Richard Dreyfus, who also appears here, Roth and Oldman are among the best out there and to see them team up is something of a dream.

Interesting idea, indifferent execution

[chaswe-28402 · 5/10 · 27 December 2017]

Written and directed by Tom Stoppard, and just possibly a tad too much of both. A bit brilliant but long. If you don't know your Shakespeare, you'll be as much at a loss as R & G. If you know him and his Hamlet, you'll find stuff to intrigue you. But why is it G, or is it R, almost eurekas Archimedes principle, discovers gravity, the equal and opposite reaction, the conservation of energy, mechanical dynamics, invents the steam engine and the biplane? What has this to do with Hamlet, or anything else ? Fantastic settings, lovely costumes. A bit like Bergman's Magician. Great acting. But life gets tedious, don't it? Even when there's a puppet play within a play within a play within a play. Almost overkill. A lot of ins and a lot of outs, but not quite as funny as TBL. Johnson thought Shakespeare's wordplay went on a bit; maybe the same applies here. Tom's a mind to amaze, but he was only learning film direction. Death is a ship, that's true enough. This may not be helpful, but why should a film review be helpful ?

plot within a plot within a plot...

[grlwndr23 · 26 August 2004]

This clever screenplay by Tom Stoppard challenges the viewer to listen and watch closely as the Shakespeare tragedy Hamlet is turned on its ear via taking the perspective of the oblivious rhetorics, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. There are multiple 'plot within plot' twists which intersect and skew at will, sometimes creating a surreal experience for the observer. The script is brilliant, full of double-entendres and mixed reactions executed superbly by Tim Roth and Gary Oldman, along with a solid supporting cast (including American actor Richard Dreyfus). Stoppard felt that the title characters, messengers in the original play, were under represented and so examines their possible perspectives in the tale by way of exploring their destiny and their lack-of-awareness of it. Stunning and hilarious wordplay with excellent repartee between Oldman and Roth. Refreshing and creative spin of the tale of Denmark's 'melancholy prince'.

The audience knows what to expect and that is all they are prepared to believe...

[securityfraud · 10/10 · 12 April 2006]

I first saw the film version of R and G are Dead over a year ago, it is a set text on my course and our prof showed it because we live in the middle of no where civilization-wise and had no other way to understand the action. In a class with 21 16-19 year olds trying to catch the witty banter so important to the play was an irritating struggle so eventually I gave up and focused on just reading it and understanding the main techniques Stoppard used. Then last week my other English prof offered to show the film again, I jumped at the chance and yesterday I got to see it all the way through without interruptions. I loved it from top to bottom, everything was perfect, I was upset that I had been denied the experience a year ago but was delighted that I had that second chance to see it. The three things that I think make the film so wonderful are: the acting, the connection between R and G, and the script it self drawn so well from stage to screen. Scene that are partially Hamlet, partially R and G worked so well, the Shakespearian actors meshed so well with the more modern R and G which gave everything a congruity, from one scene to another nothing was lacking. The sensation of being lost was conveyed so well by Tim Roth and Gary Oldman, the way they always wind up in the same room in the castle and just shrug it off was spectacular, it really conveyed the sense of absurd reality. I was in awe of how well the two actors worked together, they seemed combined, just as intended in the play, and played off each other beautifully. The play itself came alive on screen, certain lines just seemed to stick out and summarize Stoppard's whole idea behind it. The chief tragedian's line I quoted as the title to this comment was spoken beautifully by Dreyfus and the later line about all the directions on a compass encapsulated the main ideas of the play excellently... All in all it was a wonderful experience and I adored it, I am so happy I finally got my chance to see this wonderful film and I suggest to anyone that if they can see this film and be open to it, it certainly isn't standard (which is the idea of absurdism) but it is wonderful and enjoyable. Also don't be scared to laugh at it, some people consider it high art or comparable to Shakespeare and think laughing is unwarranted, this is ridiculous there are scenes which are laugh out loud funny and they should be laughed at, nothing is above being laughed at in theatre, so relax and enjoy... one note though, read Hamlet first if you haven't or watch the film so you get the general idea, R and G are Dead makes no sense without a background knowledge of Hamlet, but I would suggest skipping the Kenneth Brannagh twelve hour snooze-fest version... but that is for another comment...

i used to think this movie was brilliant ....

[vincent-27 · 6/10 · 15 June 2005]

... then I got the DVD. The last time I saw the movie was 13 years ago. I forgot how incredibly boring and inane a good chunk of the movie is, there are a few very clever bits of word play ("there you have it, stark raving sane") and the questions game is well done, but the majority of the movie is excruciatingly tedious. There are bits that draw out very poor jokes about Altman's character discovering various scientific principles that are never funny. Dreyfuss is a hoot and I love most of his lines ("We're actors, we're the opposite of people!") but this movie is mostly just dead air and tedium. Maybe that's the point too? That life is made up of mostly non events with the occasional flourish of brilliance, and then you die. Anyway, the only thing I really liked was the Floyd song at the beginning and the fact that the "ping" sound when Dreyfuss touches his imaginary sword is the first note of "Echoes".

Anyway, overall a pretentious flick that is far too enamored with its own cleverness.

"We are now held within un-, sub- or super-natural forces"

[dabrygo · 9/10 · 12 February 2021]

Two friends wandering a desolate place with little memory of who they are or how they got there meet an enigmatic traveling acting troupe, whose plays are so real that, as the playwright advertises, one may get caught up in the action. The two find themselves to be Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, minor characters in Shakespeare's play Hamlet, summoned by the king and queen of Denmark to cheer up their friend Hamlet (prince of Denmark) and find out what is the matter with him. The two weave in and out of scenes from the play and a modern commentary/banter full of wordplay, logic, mathematics, and philosophy.

I heard about this one from a friend from school, and watched it for the first time about ten years ago with my sister on a day about as peculiar (if I remember correctly, so much dust hung in the air, it was like smoke) as the movie. She recently informed me that she shows it to any of her friends who are willing. It's a good film to watch, I feel, when you don't understand what's going on in the world, particularly when it comes to life and death.

Guildenstern (Roth) is a no-nonsense, logical man trying to get to the bottom of Hamlet's affliction and Rosencrantz (Oldman) is his whimsical, scientific friend helping him where he can. But Guildenstern's logic doesn't quite help him understand Hamlet's problem, and Rosencrantz' scientific discoveries (air resistance, steam-powered turbine, paper airplane, etc.) frequently backfire or otherwise don't work when he tries to show Guildenstern. The duo play a unique variant of tennis, with one player volleying questions to the other, perhaps hinting at the insufficiencies of the dialectic and quantification: one funny moment happens after Hamlet exits the room, they (futilely?) score their discussion with him by its rules. Similarly, in the beginning, they find the mathematical rules of probability don't seem to apply to any coin they flip, a very unlikely event.

The Playwright (Dreyfuss) is the leader of the band of actors they meet on their journey. I recently heard a quote attributed to Iago -- a character in another Shakespearean play, though the quote may be from elsewhere -- that talks about Deo Crudel (cruel God). The Playwright is something like that, but not in a capricious way because he lives according to his rules like: "We can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood," "the bad end unhappily, the good, unluckily," and "events must play themselves out to an aesthetic, moral and logical conclusion." In a rage against what he feels is injustice Guildenstern kills the Playwright, who resurrects shortly after, similar to the Christian Messiah. But there are also parallels between Christ and the duo, who visited Hamlet to help him only to find themselves unfairly executed.

Supporting actors in this play, Iain Glen's performance to me is the embodiment of Hamlet, clearly troubled but also reasonably sane, and Ian Richardson's Polonius is similarly fascinating. Soliloquies especially are delivered memorably by all performers.

There is an intricate structure of plays going on. One facet is Stoppard's play about the two friends, presumably from Shakespeare's play, although given their memory loss they may not be. They meet the Playwright, but when he accepts their payment for a play, he disappears, so it's unclear when his play starts. The Playwright, too, is a character in Shakespeare's play, whom Hamlet hires to put on a play of Gonzago to "catch the conscience of the king." In downtime the band of actors also allude to events that will play out in Shakespeare's play to members of Stoppard's play with shadowplay, pantomime, and puppetry.

I can't think of anything I've seen that's quite like this film, though some plays I've read by Beckett come close. It's dark (tragic) but light (funny). It's absurd but it makes sense. Definitely a favorite!

A truly great and intelligent movie!

[kentekeroth · 7/10 · 23 March 2002]

Gary Oldman and Tim Roth, two great actors, are great in this funny, interesting and very intelligent movie.

It's about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern who are traveling around in a bizarre world, full of mysteries and mind-bending unrealities, all while their philosophical discussions about different scientifical issues continues.

It's a great script, great performances and a dazzling movie that any developed movie-mind has to like!

It's hard to describe this masterpiece so I have one advice for you and that is to go see it!

This IS intelligent entertainment

[asiduodiego · 10/10 · 29 March 2011]

Sadly, I haven't seen the original play of "R&G are Dead". Sadly, because if it's any good as this movie is, then surely it's a masterpiece. This is "Absurd Theater" at its best: I find it a better premise than "Waiting for Godot", which is just, two guys waiting for something which is not clear. In this case, the characters are lost in midst of a play we all know what it is about, so, the mood is more tongue-in-cheek: the feel is much more Kafkaesque this time, when the invisible strings lead these characters to their demises, and also, it's incredible fun and witty.

As a film, the only issue I can think of is sometimes the action moves rather slowly, but I think that was the idea: a surreal and dream like state, in which the characters are constantly in doubt. The scenarios, scenes, script, etc. are just brilliant.

About the performances, there is really not much to say except: excellent. Roth, Oldman and Dreyfus are brilliant in their roles, and A+ performance.

Perfect score for one of my favorite movies of all time.

10/10

Great film for those that know the source material...

[BrockPace · 7/10 · 15 November 2013]

At my last movie night I watched the comedy Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead. I have seen and loved other films by director/writer Tom Stoppard, such as Shakespeare in Love and, one of my favorite films ever, Brazil. I have always appreciated these films for the incredibly detailed writing and plot structure that sets them up, so I was pleased to find a film that he created entirely himself. This film was one of the most deftly constructed comedies I have ever seen. I struggled to keep up with the jokes as they jumped from Hamlet references to literature battles of wit to references to scientific properties. The writing was the best part of the film, as it felt like an extended series of in-jokes for the viewer, who would only understand the movie if they had read the play, Hamlet. For example, one of the main jokes in the film is that the characters are constantly getting their names mixed up. You would only understand why that is if you had read Hamlet, as in the play these characters are interchangeable, appearing only in a pair. There was nothing particularly clever about the camera angles or movements, yet the cinematography succeeded by including subtle references, such as the pages that can be found in each scene, containing text from the bible, or the Shakespeare portraits that are located all around the castle. Unfortunately, towards the end the film began to feel tired as the main plots and jokes were constantly repeated while the newer jokes all just seemed to be silly slapstick humor. Overall, I thought it was an interesting picture and a more important supplement to Shakespeare's Hamlet.

Grade: C+

Energy is all I ask! Vigour is all I seek! Give us this day our daily repeat..

[JSlack · 3/10 · 1 January 1999]

One year, I went to see a play production of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, by Pork Chop Productions. It was a fantastic play. The actors flung themselves around the stage like their lives depended upon it (which, for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, perhaps it did.) and they put every effort they could into making their characters manic, obsessed fanatics who had no idea what was quite happening. Hamlet became truly deranged and a figure who scared you probably as much as he scared Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. The King and Queen became nearly completely incomprehensible within their thick accents and impossible Shakesperian Dialogues. ENERGY was their catch call.

How I wish the guys who made this film had learned the same lessons!

In one respect, it is absolute folly to critique this movie. The genius who wrote the script, Tom Stoppard, wrote this movie adaption and directed it too. But good writer does not equal good director, even if it's your own work you're directing.

The film lacks energy. I wonder, a lot, if perhaps Tom Stoppard over-rehearsed his actors. On stage, rehearsal is very, very important. The audience gives the actors life and spontaneity. But in film, it is equally important not to over rehearse. Mistakes are to be avoided and too many can be costly, but generally a mistake can be reshot. Also, there is no audience to give energy to the actors, and over rehearsal can kill a lot of that energy.

Whatever the cause, the actors (With the exception of the player, and all the best scenes have him in them.) come across as listless and nearly dead. In a movie called "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" you wouldn't think that'd be so much of a problem. But you'd be wrong.

Finally a *good* example of postmodernism.

[jonrock-75159 · 10/10 · 17 May 2020]

Two characters appear, and the only thing they can figure out together is that they are not in reality, but they don't or can't understand what the "rules" of a play/movie actually are. Everyone else tries to get them on board via subtext (so that the fourth wall isn't broken), but the pair don't understand subtext so that becomes the subtext of the play/movie you are watching instead. Doctoral dissertations on literature ensue.

Not your standard comedy. Surreal, surreal, surreal.

[jrabbit-2 · 7/10 · 26 July 1999]

Anyone who knows Tom Stoppard knows what to expect. The movie is simultaneously dark and funny, and tends to keep you just a hair off-balance throughout.

Boring, unwatchable nonsense for the art-house pseudo-intellectual

[bwilkus · 3/10 · 26 January 2006]

While the movie is produced well, and stars two of my favorite actors, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead was an utterly boring display of nonsense. Maybe I am just a "stupid-American", but the whole Shakespeare thing does not, and has not translated into modern film entertainment for me, ever. This film, is just a pseudo-intellectual's wet dream. Be cautious of those who said they liked this movie, because most likely they are just a pretentious, coffee house, art geek who wants to think they are better and smarter than everyone else. All that being said, the enormous talents that are Gary Oldman and Tim Roth could not even make this film remotely watchable. Oh, by the way, Richard Dreyfuss is HORRIBLY annoying....and he just keeps coming back....over and over again.