Memorable, crazy movie

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

I'm a sucker for folded, reflexive and referential narrative, and especially so when built on Carroll or Shakespeare. So take this comment in that spirit. You will probably find this movie juvenile, but there are some clever things going on.The overall shape is based on the play and not on people or romance. Each performance of Hamlet in this world is a reincarnation of a complex being at war with itself. Over thousands of performances, it tries to resolve its inner conflicts, sometimes going back. There is a complex secondary karma as these performances sweep up the actors and sometimes the audience, "infecting" them with energetic plasma.To negotiate this story, we enter through the eyes of a potential savior, each intelligent director being the next fresh soul to attempt to bring order to the play. His life has its own dramas and the players and situations in his life fold into the play. Tensions involve sex, death, blood, being. It springs from Stoppard as much as from Shakespeare.So far so good, a standard Hamlet.The key participants are the sons of John Lennon and Dustin Hoffman. They have no idea what is going on, none. There are some women, and some attempt to weave a universal female around Ophelia, but she is played by a talentless model. Everyone involved in the actual staging of this play decided to pretend to be inept so as to hide their ineptness.Good stuff spoiled. We could have had a "Shadow of the Vampire" crossed with "Tampopo." What we have instead is unwatchable, except for the first few moments with Bijou Philips in a fairy costume. The camera loves her.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

ROSENCRANTZ & GUILDENSTERN ARE UNFUNNY. Despite a clever concept and one or two witty moments, the film (which deals with vampires, not zombies) isn't all that amusing. The good news is that the film is well produced with good production values all around. Bit parts are filled out by the likes of Ralph Maccio, Jeremy Sisto and Chip Zien (the Baker from Sondheim's INTO THE WOODS). But in place of comic bite, R&G delivers a muddled plot that wouldn't be feasible to the least lively corpse. I found it amusing that the lead character Julian Marsh shares his name with the lead character in 42nd STREET, the ultimate show-biz flick. But is this cleverness, or mere coincidence? I'm not sure - and therein lies 'the rub'.

This movie is so different than the other vamp movies out there, the plot, cast and camera usage creates a genre on its own. It does not conform to any monster/comedy movies I have seen out there. Sort of like a Frankenstein of its own with parts sewn on from a variety of different genres that you would not think would work, but it comes together!! New Comer Jordan galand filters the creation of this movie through fresh eyes and the viewer never knows what is going to happen next. The Performance by Devon Aoki was quite noteworthy as well, as I think this is the first speaking role I have seen her in. other interesting appearances are Ralph Machio and Jake Hoffman. Whose deadpan acting wants you to see more.

I should have known, but curiosity got the better of me. A movie titled like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Undead is something irresistible to me, much like Rugsuckers from Outer Space or Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead. Whether or not the movie itself is very good always remains to be seen. The film purports itself to be clever just by its title- a take off on Tom Stoppard's play which itself was a take-off on the classic Shakespeare tale. It could perhaps even work as a Troma movie. But what it turns out to be is a, ahem, romantic comedy with vampires and a weak, limp-noodle screenplay by first-time feature-filmmaker Jordan Galland, who writes stuff that should be clever but isn't clever enough by half.I'm sure some will find the dialog witty and spot-on for the tone Galland is after, which I suppose is something of a cross between straight-up horror and romantic comedy. The story follows an unlikeable theater director, Julian Marsh (played with equally lame and dull screen presence by Jake Hoffman), who responds to an ad looking for a director to helm an upcoming off-off-off Broadway production of Hamlet. Turns out the ad was really looking for a director who could "easily be controlled", this being Theo (John Ventimiglia, who all but steals Robert Downey Jr's persona for the performance), who is in fact a vampire but hides it oh-so-not conspicuously... except, of course, from Julian, who thinks this re-vamp (no pun intended) of Hamlet called Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Undead and is a take-off on the classic, is just dandy.That is, alas, until several things happen, which include his best friend and actor Vince (funny but not really that funny played by Kris Lemiche) is bitten by Theo the vampire and his two 'girls', and Julian's friend-girl (not quite girlfriend due to his philandering) is cast as Ophelia and, also, turned into a vampire, AND that he gets an instructional video from a society that is looking to get a Holy Grail Theo has that he will use to kill the whole cast and the audience opening night. As all of this goes on, we see scenes and dialog roll along that are, at best, amusing. There are few laughs to be had in some scenes, such as the actors playing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern suggesting some changes to their characters (albeit one of them becoming a running gag that turns less funny as the film goes along), and it's also a pleasant surprise to see Jeremy Sisto appear as a detective, however in only a few precious scenes where he can only do so much.I can't say how this will do with audiences. Some will come to already knowing that they'll enjoy it, or perhaps their sense of humor goes for the more obvious than mine does. I love over the top horror and bad puns and jokes, but the problems in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Undead all come back to a few key things: the script is full of lame running gags and one-liners, the characters save on occasion for Ventimiglia's Downey-like vampire or Aoki's sexy girl-turned vamp, aren't interesting, and the lead character (and actor) are not convincing as a protagonist. In fact, the script takes itself a little too high on itself as a meta-work to really be a crazy over-the-top horror comedy, and when it could be a good horror movie, save for the first time we see Theo and his girls sucking the blood out of a guy in an alley, it's not scary or much atmospheric.Some laughs pick up in the climax, when things start to turn around and Hamlet finally appears (!), but by then it's a little too late to save the rest of the movie. No one has dimension enough to care about them and to take it seriously, and it's not funny enough to be a funny-crazy-bloody comedy. I really came in hoping for the best, and it's been given a nice little grass-roots promotional campaign (outside the theater in NYC there was a guy with a full poster hanging around his neck and with fliers and discount beer at the local bar et all), but the film itself was just... weak. It needed more teeth gnashed at the viewer, or a sense of 'screw it all' and go for broke, instead of such clever insights like, say, title cards with "Long Day's Journey into Fright." Ho-Hum.