Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Eric Stevenson "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. ***

Ethan Kaiser Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead blends the laws of nature with the principles of existentialism; Through this 'comedic' duo of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Tom Stoppard gives the audience a clear understanding of the existentialistic lifestyle: no matter what choices they make, they are trapped under the predestined death that awaits them both on the stage and in the film.The similarities between the stage and the cinema can be compared with the similar devices that are used: The camera, much like a stage, is an instrument that is used to see exactly what is placed before it. The objective now becomes not necessarily what to show the audience, but what not to show them. The audience is in full awareness that you have the power to show them anything you want at any given time, and in this case, what not to show them is Hamlet.The film is started with Pink Floyd's soundtrack 'Echos'.And no one showed us to the land And no one knows the where's or why's But something stirs and something tries And starts to climb towards the light -'Echos' by Pink FloydThis musical choice of Stoppard's soundtrack for the film could not be better. 'Echos' begins with faint sounds of radar, which exemplifies Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's search for themselves; however, they are yet do discover that through their inevitable fate, their constant search for identities will never matter. The lyrics (although instrumented for the film) furthermore develops Stoppard's relationship to The Theatre of the Absurd of not knowing how, why, or what they were doing there. This instrumental version of the track shows how Stoppard (knowing that the lyrics are absent) still took on the great integrity to the song's meaning. As far as the echoes go in the film (pun intended), Rosencrantz and Guildenstern shout several different words throughout the movie, and in turn, are faintly heard by the other characters. This phenomenon might just be Rosencrantz and Guildenstern near the edge of breaking through the script, but as much as they try, they are unable to: they simply reverberate and fade back into their state of nothingness: they cannot escape. Guildenstern seems to have an interesting approach to this dilemma, saying that simply choosing 'what you want' overrides the agony of this universal determinism. "There's a logic at work–it's all done for you, don't worry. Enjoy it. Relax. To be taken in hand and led, like being a child again" (Pg 40). This philosophy was distinguished by Davd Hume, commonly referred to as Compatibilism. Compatabilism says that if your not 'enjoying' life, then what's the purpose of living? Stoppard seems to take a stab at Hume's philosophy with this play, showing that regardless of their fulfillment or enjoyment. Throughout the plot, their inevitable death's give them misery and anguish to constantly worry about. The Theatre of the Absurd is not just about existential philosophy, it establishes and questions all the different philosophies as well. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead addresses types of comedy like low, high, farce and even the more philosophical Comedy of Ideas. Between scenes of the film, pages are seen flying across screen, both before and after the scene change. These pages are commonly believed to be script pages; however, when taking a closer look, one would notice that the text originates from the Roman Missal, quite contrary to the anti-religious consistency the play develops. Here, Stoppard is adding yet another element to the play's determinism. Now, it becomes not what is controlling their fate, but who. When adding this religious context, the characters may indeed be controlled by God, and in result may be predestined to death by God himself: He leads us where we are destined to belong. Ros and Guil constantly question their existence throughout the time-frame of the play. With the many layers of philosophical inquiries and comedic ideas, one could agree that the final piece to this existential crisis lies in its many layers of reality. When the tragedians perform the play to King Claudius, Stoppard adds yet another level of existence to this play in the film. The first level, being the story of Hamlet, to the second plot of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern,then on to the Tragedians performance to Claudius, and the final, being the puppet show inside this performance of the Tragedians. This play-within a play-within a play-within a play-within a play exemplifies the many levels of existence and questions the reality of each: which is the real reality? Stoppard uses this clever approach to existentialism to show the true agony and misery Rosencrantz and Guildenstern face throughout their redundant lives, repeating each time the play commences. Both the film and play portray the existential lifestyle Ros and Guil are destined to face. No matter what they do, what they try, or what they don't do for that matter, all result in the same outcome. Even if they decide to enjoy their multi-layered cheeseburger and sail away on boats, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern truly cannot be free, regardless if they are trapped behind the stage, or'boxed' in the screen. Throughout the story, Stoppard ingeniously brought these characters to life–only to let them discover that they ultimately must die.

Jazzminxx A genuine must-see, the allegoric film where every joke and every action are so layered, that you can't even grasp it all. The original interpretation of the Shakespeare's Hamlet, told from the POV of two minor heroes who honestly have no idea how they got caught up in all that mess, trapped within the plot of the Author. The idea that "All the world is a stage, and we are all merely actors" is embroidered skillfully into the canvas of the story, entwined with the problems of choice, freedom, free will, justice, loyalty. Moreover the movie managed to avoid the pathos/affectedness so typical for intellectual films that usually turns us off, the story is told with such irony and lightness that it strikes all the right notes, making us happy or sad, sympathetic to the heroes. The brilliant actors' works are just the cherry on top. Too incredible for words.

bob the moo 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.