IMDb user comments for
Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 11:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

109 comments in total

---

75 out of 89 people found the following comment useful :-
The Play Without the Play, 17 June 2000
Author: tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) from Virginia Beach

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.

---

42 out of 45 people found the following comment useful :-
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, victims of circumstance..., 13 July 2004

Author: Blair_The_Critic from Perth, Australia

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.

---

43 out of 49 people found the following comment useful :-
plot within a plot within a plot..., 26 August 2004
Author: grlwndr23 from chicago, USA

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'.

---

30 out of 32 people found the following comment useful :-
A comedy... about tragedy, 4 February 2001

Author: NBulanski from Michigan

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.

---

24 out of 26 people found the following comment useful :-
one of the best movies ever made, 21 July 2004
Author: estherstiff

This is a truly unique movie, comic, sarcastic, tragic, ironic, and definitely hilarious. based on tom stoppard's play of the same name (stoppard also directs the film), "rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead" delves into the tragicomic lives of minor characters everywhere, on-stage and off. ros and guild's lives are thrown into turmoil every time they interact with the regular cast of hamlet, leaving them with few clues as to what their purpose is in the play and in life. stoppard's script is dizzying with puns, plays, feints and twists. the cinematography is minimalist to say the least (remember, the script was originally intended for the stage) but the "stage-presence" of the actors more than makes up for any lacks. if you like theatre and the absurd, this movie is for you.

---

13 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
See it more than once!, 6 August 2004

Author: Jennifer Craft from Seattle

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!

---

10 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
The audience knows what to expect and that is all they are prepared to believe..., 12 April 2006

Author: securityfraud

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...

---

9 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Quotable, Witty, Brilliant, 3 August 2004
Author: sparklecat

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.

---

24 out of 40 people found the following comment useful :-
Brilliant tribute to a classic, 28 November 2004
Author: Betsy Lang (cat_eyed_fox) from Sioux Falls, USA

So I was sitting around watching TV on a Sunday afternoon... or

trying too, anyway. Tragically there was nothing on... until my eye

caught a title; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. My inner- geek answered "well duh. Read the play didn't I?" Of course my

inner geek is also curious as anything, so my geek and I turned

the channel sat back and watched as two befuddled, goofy

Shakespearian hooligans find themselves in Elsinor home of their

loony friend Hamlet. Now don't get me wrong, the dialogue goes

about 90 miles per hour, but the topics are Kevin Smith-like in their

randomness and the relationship between these two classic

characters also remind me of one Kevin would write. What's more the only way to know which is Rosencrantz and which

is Guildenstern is to look on the credits. Even they sometimes

aren't sure who's who. This movie is lightning fast and painfully

clever, definitely not for the faint of heart or head, but if you've got it

in you I *highly* recommend it.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Must see, 20 March 2006

Author: justforeverme from United Kingdom

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.

---

---

Page 1 of 11:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history