Macbeth

If you want to watch Macbeth on film simply type it into your search bar, you'll find so many earlier good versions. This seems intent on not only taking film to theatre but your local amateur dramatics production. The original Globe theatre in London, Shakespeare's hangout, would literally create tapestries to embroider the narrative.This film seems to think a few actors mouthing the words in a cupboard or dark room is artistic interpretation. Well I know a dark place you can shove it, the worst ever.

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".

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.

I watched this on BritBox (I'm American). It isn't bad at all. Macbeth is a female actor's dream because "she" has the best role. I didn't care for the naked sex, and it wouldn't be different no matter who acted it. I just prefer my favorite Shakespeare close to traditional. The actors were good. But good grief, why, oh why, does everyone have to use so much CGI and get "trendy to boot?!" Taking the camera view down winding stairs like the movie "Vertigo" does not add to the movie or the plot. I felt like I had vertigo watching it. The actors playing the Macbeths were as I said before, good. And so were the supporting cast. My husband and I both cracked up laughing at their feather capes. They looked like a couple of tall blackbirds! I rated it a bit below average because it was boring. How can anyone make Macbeth boring?? Unfortunately, it was. If you want to see one of the best experimental versions of Macbeth, watch Akira Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood." It's Japanese, it's drama. This is a Lady Macbeth is chilling, especially when she slowly disappears into a dark room, and comes back with a container of tainted wine.