Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1991)

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

It's not as Shakespearean as Branagh, but close enough to be wittingly entertaining. The concept of two minor characters from 'Hamlet' questioning their own circumstances and destiny while events of a more consequential nature swirl around them is a pretty clever idea. Gary Oldman and Tim Roth play off each other well as the movie's title characters, ably supported by Richard Dreyfuss in a role suitably positioned as 'The Player'. It's not necessary to be all that familiar with Shakespeare's most well renowned play to enjoy this, and the lack of the famous bard's dialog is not a detriment to the story. The mugging and sight gags are cleverly rendered, all adding up to the idea that in this film, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have a lot to do with putting the 'ham' in "Hamlet".

"Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead" has a unique record in that it's actually the most critically acclaimed movie that Roger Ebert gave zero stars to. It has a 64% on RottenTomatoes (which admittedly isn't that high) but a 7.6 here so it's easily the best one he ever thought was one of the worst movies ever. The weird thing is that in this review he honestly doesn't go into much detail on why it's so horrible. He just says it isn't meant to be a movie and better off as a play. Well, I guess that makes sense, but really zero stars? While not a masterpiece, I ended up enjoying it.This wasn't directly based on a play by William Shakespeare, but actually based on a play based on "Hamlet". The conversations in this movie are very nice and really do get philosophical. Oh, and they do die at the end. There's nothing wrong with these characters at all, especially with how they end up meeting the same fate as the other main characters showing how well they are connected. The backgrounds and sets look very nice and I like how an actual play is part of the story, sort of doing a satire on the very play they're performing in real life. Have to disagree with Ebert, this film is fine. ***

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

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are on the road to somewhere, although they are not entirely sure where to. They feel like they are in some sort of limbo, a feeling only encouraged by the fact that a tossed coin has just come up heads consecutively over a hundred times. A travelling theatre troop offers them entertainment for money but no sooner have they stepped on the stage than they find themselves in a ballroom of a palace. While they try to work out what is happening they find that they are ever more being drawn into the middle of events that are bigger than them.A mixed curiosity this film, that has some great moments but doesn't work that well as a total product. The narrative throws up some interesting ideas of fate and the roles of minor characters but unfortunately the scenes where it has to overlap with Hamlet that it is not so good and doesn't work. I'm sure he was not making a point but it is hard to ignore that the scenes that are all Stoppard are the best while those that are lifted or adapted from the Hamlet text are weak and appear to be there just because they have to be. It is a shame that the interweaving with the Hamlet narrative doesn't work better because the original scenes have a delicious playful tone to them in regards language and the nature of minor characters; I found these specific scenes to be fun and engaging and only wished the film could have maintained this energy and approach.A big part of these scenes working is down to the delivery and both Oldman and Roth are really good not only with the fast pace of the dialogue but with the "out of it" attitude and sense of detached bewilderment that they need to carry for the majority. It is telling that their scenes are by far the strongest and the supporting cast are not as good in Glen, Roth, Sumpter etc, although I did enjoy Dreyfuss' turn in it.An interesting movie with some great dialogue driven scenes that gives the viewer a lot of fun with language and character. Unfortunately these scenes do not make up the whole film and it has many scenes that are wooden and drag. Still quite fun but not as good as the strongest bits made me think.