Macbeth

Of course Shakespear adaptions are hard to judge, but I'm a bit surprised to see such low rating on this one to be honest. The actors are top class, the cinematography is simply brilliant and the soundtrack by Jed Kurzel is out of this world.

Macbeth is an old classic, and this film re-tells the story in a very creative, fresh way, utilising modern techniques to produce something original and engaging. it combines film-making with a theatre vibe, which is really interesting. nice to watch something different that breaks the mould. the performances of the main actors were great too. give it a watch.

The main drawback I found watching the film was in its conception of Macbeth as complete fabrication. Scenes take place underneath, within or above a transparent phantom house. The actors all have different English accents so there is really no coherent wider/national context to which we can relate unless the impression is to convey a kind of diaspora of corruption (which the king tapping globe image may suggest). It's not that the insistent visual theme of transparency up against Shakespeare's text is anachronistic, it's self negating: the entire impression of text vs. Image becomes meaningless. And although the character of Macbeth descends into nihilism by the last act the movie certainly shouldn't. What is the human recourse when the only measure of structure against insanity is itself a phantom? Fairly bleak considerations here. 3 Stars for the great visuals.

An experiment. present so often in theater. vision about a classic play of a director. to define it as bad or good is, in essence, a question of taste in this case. for me, it is an eccentric proposition.nice for Akiya Henry as inspired Lady Macbeth and for beautiful game of scenography. for the desire to create a large perspective about play universe. the only sin - impression of easy way. the mix between film and scene, the photography reminding the art gallery , the dark spaces and the portrait of Macbeth - Mark Rowley is not the best choice for the lead role - are , in too many moments, only nice tries for be original. all defines it as not exactly an adaptation for a new century but as a form of sketch "ad usum Delphini" . or Macbeth, against time, generations or taste remains Macbeth. but, sure, it could be a film for lovers of challenges. a not bad one. but to obvious be "original".

--Fantastical adventurous retelling. Made for the ever changing scope of cinema and the viewers of this millennium, not yesterdays. Some may call it the worst adaption; but one would have to assume that they are the type that believe theater should remain the same as thousands of years ago and never change. If Shakespeare had technology of today I would believe he would create similar shows with great sets and costumes with surreal backdrops and not consider such work as amateur or savage. In other words He would not work out of a textbook for the way that theater was eons ago. The Greater the Vision, the more people get left behind. That is exactly where they should be left, behind.