Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead

1990

Comedy / Drama

129
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 64%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 88%
IMDb Rating 7.5 10 19,309

Synopsis


Downloaded 13,527 times
April 9, 2019

Director

Cast

Gary Oldman as Ezekiel Mannings
Iain Glen as Philip
Tim Roth as Peter Edgar
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
893.66 MB
1280*720
English
NR
23.976 fps
117 min
P/S N/A / N/A
1.82 GB
1920×1080
English
NR
23.976 fps
117 min
P/S N/A / N/A

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by securityfraud 10 / 10 / 10

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

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...

Reviewed by chaswe-28402 5 / 10 / 10

Interesting idea, indifferent execution

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 ?

Reviewed by James Hitchcock 5 / 10 / 10

Unfilmable Play

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.

Read more IMDb reviews

0 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment