classicsoncall 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".

chaswe-28402 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 ?

david-sarkies Since this is the only film that I have seen that falls into the genre that is known as 'the Theatre of the Absurd' it would be quite premature of me to call it a classic example of the genre, however an example of the genre is what this film is. Based around two minor character's in Shakespeare's Hamlet, the movie moves through the back rooms of Castle Elsinore while Hamlet is played out behind the scenes. The two main characters step into and out of the play as happens in the play, however the entire focus of this movie is on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.To say that this film gives them a voice is a misnomer. We are reminded, constantly, that they are minor characters and nobodies. As is said at the end of the film, the play ends with the death of a king, a queen, princes, and a couple of nobodies. In fact, when Hamlet is acted out before them by the tradgedians we are told that all in all eight characters die. However they point out that only six corpses are noticed, until their characters are hung right at the end. In the play we do not know of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's fate until the messenger arrives and says 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead'.The film is about the meaninglessness of life and the inevitability of death. At the beginning the Tragedian, when talking to the heroes (if that is what one would call them) about what plays are available to watch, he says that the one compulsory theme is the blood 'they all end in blood. Blood is compulsory'. Further, when one of them picks up a coin and tosses it, and it always lands up heads, it is a key to the inevitability of the end. Further, the Tragedian (who provides a commentary throughout the movie, and who, unlike the other characters, cannot die) says that everybody is to die at an appointed time, and they cannot escape it. Even when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern finally discover their fate, it is too late to avoid it. Even though he say at the end 'maybe there was some time that we could have said no' suggests that they had a choice, but in reality, the did not.There is no purpose or plot to the play, which is what one expects from such a play (I should call it a film, but it was originally made as stage play and adapted to the theatre by Tom Stoppard). It simply follows the action of the play that it leeches from. There is direction, and the direction of the play is towards the death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. However their entire existence within the play is meaningless, which is what we get from the Theatre of the Absurd, that is the meaninglessness of life.Another aspect of this play is the question and answer. They are always talking about questions and answers, though they do not seem to know what the question is to get the answer that they want. They even play a game on a tennis court called question and answer. The goal is to answer a question with a question, and when somebody asks the wrong question, or gives a statement as an answer, then the other player scores. The scores are the same as with tennis, however this is not a sport or a game that they are playing, but an exploration of life, in particular when the questions we ask are answered with questions, and to give a statement as an answer is incorrect.The final thing that I wish to touch upon (and indeed one could explore quite deeply into this play) is the play within a play. Shakespeare loves to use that technique in his plays, however Stoppard takes it to the nth degree here as in one section of the play, it literally goes off into infinity, and are then brought back to reality with the scream of a guilty king. The whole play within a play is seen with the Tragedian being a major character in the film, but the play that they rehearse and show the king is Hamlet. We know this because we see the ending of the play (the sword fight and the two dead nobodies) before we see the beginning, so that by seeing the ending, we know where it is heading. Further, it is when the scene where the players play the play in front of the king, and it is that point in the play, and in the play within a play, and so on to infinity, that the king reacts (as opposed to the beginning where the the king is killed and his murderer marries the queen, thus denying Hamlet his throne).While I could go on more about Hamlet's motives and such, I feel that this should be left for another time, because this play is not Hamlet, and it is definitely not Shakespeare. The themes in Shakespeare are vastly different to the Theatre of the Absurd, and in fact, the whole concept is anachronistic to Shakespearian literature. However, I will mention that this film does provide a commentary to the play, however it pushes the meaninglessness and absurdity of life to the for front and the question of motive to the background.

Lee Eisenberg In what has to be one of the cleverest, most unusual movies of all time, two characters from "Hamlet" wander into the play and try to figure out what to do. These guys are clearly having a great time with the material, and the movie affirms Gary Oldman, Tim Roth and Richard Dreyfuss as some of the greatest actors of our time. "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead" is definitely one that I recommend. I should admit that I've never seen any version of "Hamlet" the whole way through - except a really terrible German TV version that appeared on "Mystery Science Theater 3000" - so I don't actually know the characters' roles in that play, but I still enjoyed this movie 100%. Really good.I would expect a heavy object to fall more quickly than a light object.