source: Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead

Moviecut—Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead

Okay, so you may want to brush up on your knowledge of "Hamlet" before viewing "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead", Tom Stoppard's big screen adaptation of his own classic play. Please don't let that frighten you away, or you'll miss out on a seriously funny movie. The lead roles are extremely well cast. Gary Oldman is hilarious as sweet, befuddled Rosencrantz. Tim Roth's angry, frustrated Guildenstern is the perfect complement. They make a great team. Stoppard's film has a sprightly step even when raising a few cosmic questions. It's the perfect tonic for some of the more pompous cinematic takes on Shakespeare, and even the Bard would appreciate its sparkling wordplay.

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

To anyone only remotely aware of the works of Shakespeare the names of the two characters would be familiar. My first objection to this work is that it is a mild form of plagiarism by association. if the playwright wanted to; as he should have; given credit to the Bard, then the bards name should appear in the title. The play was the work of a person who has run out of ideas and blatantly and without shame, uses two characters, albeit minor ones, from Hamlet, a very well documented play. It annoyed me to the point of ennui. it is a pity, because Stoddards own work is excellent. IT irritates me beyond belief that anyone thinks they can just do as they wish with other peoples works

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...

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!

I agree with Roger Ebert who gave this film zero stars. I was endlessly bored, impatient, and restless as I sat through this trash. The characters are non-entities, as Ebert accurately puts it, are truly "dead" - there is no spirit in this film, no engaging dialogue, nothing of interest. It was supposed to be a comedy. I think I chuckled once throughout the entire film. "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" gets my vote for one of the worst movies ever made. Absolute garbage. (1 out of 10)

I expected quite something because I love literature and especially witty dialogues, I love film and I had heard about the tennis match before and thought it was very funny. But in fact I was rather disappointed when I finally watched this film. Perhaps I missed a lot because the sound qualitiy wasn't very high (and hence some of the dialogues were difficult to follow), but apart from that I also felt it was very pretentious and confusing. It just left me somewhere in the first half, and afterwards I was rather bored. The nicest parts were when Oldman did his little scientific experiments and, indeed, the tennis match. But apart from that... yaaaaawn! I'd like to read or see the play, though. Because even though I wasn't very impressed I have the feeling that it might still be a brillant idea and just not a very good film.

I found this movie very pretentious and tedious. Like others have said on this forum this movie seems to be saying to itself over and over again, "My goodness, look how _clever_ I am!" While the dialogue is, indeed, clever it's hard for me to imagine even the two most foppish Shakespearian characters conceivable acting the way R & G did in this film. I do like my movies a little more cerebral than, say, "Dodgeball" but this movie goes way too far in the other direction for me. Apparently comments need at least ten lines so I'll conclude by restating that this movie is pretentious and tedious and could have been a half-hour skit and got in all the jokes instead of a 2-hour root canal.