Avis des utilisateurs

William Shakespeare's famous tragedy is brought to the screen on a large scale. Full of his intricate and unique style of writing, this play focuses on Macbeth. .... What I did not expect to see is that the landscape of Scotland becomes not just the scenery background but one of the main storytelling streams. One sees too many modern adaptations of Japanese interpretation of Macbeth that one seems to forget where the story came from in the first place. Truly magnificent cinematography in this version of Macbeth and it really lives up to bloodbath on the battlefields as stated in the Bard' s words. One of the best movies in 2015

Was actually really looking forward to seeing this 2015 film version of 'Macbeth'. The play is one of Shakespeare's best, most famous and most quotable and has leant itself to film, with Roman Polanski, Orson Welles and Akira Kurosawa all giving it splendid treatment. The cast is a talented one, having often admired Michael Fassbender, Marion Cottilard and David Thewlis and ever since seeing him in 'The Borgias' Sean Harris struck me as one to watch.

Not to mention the great reviews. Was a little worried though too, seeing that it was directed by Justin Kurzel who directed the big misfire and huge waste of potential that was 'Assassins Creed'. Luckily, this 'Macbeth' lived up to expectations on the whole if not exceeding them. It is not the definitive version of the play, either on film or filmed production, and did have room for improvement, but for all its flaws the film on the whole surprisingly impressed me.

This 'Macbeth' isn't perfect. It is agreed not always easy to understand the dialogue, which didn't need to be as hushed or as muttered. While the film a vast majority of the time looked absolutely great, there is a gratuitous overuse of slow-motion.

Especially in the first 10 minutes or so, which were more sluggish than arresting. There are cuts and some of the omissions do affect the drama where the storytelling becomes less coherent.

For all those drawbacks, there are a lot of positives with this 'Macbeth'. Other than the slow motion, it is quite an amazing looking film, with hugely atmospheric and grandiose visuals (from the suitably myterious fog early on right up to the boldly bloodthirsty climax). The photography to me was some of the best of that year, especially in the act and those locations are hugely effective in their atmosphere, uncompromising but also oddly beautiful and dark without taking it to extremes. The music is still haunting and Kurzel's direction is bolder and less muddled than it was in 'Assassins Creed' from the following year.

Moreover, although it would have been nice if it was more consistently intelligible, Shakespeare's text is still powerful and hard to forget. The story takes time to get going but does get more compelling and remarkably ambitious, at its most emotionally investable from the point where Macduff learning of his family's murder (which has always been a very moving part of the plot) up to the end. The action is both exciting and ferociously harrowing, pulling no punches without being too unnecessarily over the top (seeing as 'Macbeth' is already a dramatically brutal play).

Some interesting changes here. Really did like that the witches weren't portrayed in a way that was too reliant on witch cliches, and were spooky underneath their deceptive exteriors. Lady Macbeth is still an effective and steely manipulator but it was interesting to see a more conflicted side to her (very different as it is not what the play indicates) rather than her being completely villainous. This is not going to work for some, but to me it was interesting. The performances were on the whole great from all, Fassbender is searingly fierce in the title role without being too brutish and Cotillard contrasts with him effectively as a steely and imperious Lady Macbeth. Paddy Considine's Banquo is suitably noble and Harris proved in 'The Borgias' that he could do creepy but also tortured, and he is very moving here as Macduff. It is somewhat sad that Duncan's role in the play is not bigger because Thewlis, while perhaps a touch young, commands the part extremely well.

In conclusion, intriguing and well done but there are better versions of 'Macbeth' around. 7/10

Fantastic adaptation of Shakespeare's iconic tragedy, Justin Kurzel's drama is a stunning and well-crafted epic, featuring some unforgettable performances from Marion Cotillard, Paddy Considine, Sean Harris and of course, Michael Fassbender in the role of the savage tyrant, Macbeth. Joining the other great Shakespearean masters such as Olivier and Branagh, Kurzel has created a brutal and ambitious depiction, caught by the awe-inspiring cinematography of Adam Arkapaw. Featuring glorious locations across the bleak and wintery Highlands of Scotland, 'Macbeth' is a film adaptation that even the great playwright himself would be proud of.

This version of one of the greatest plays in the English language is worth seeing for the visuals alone. We're placed right into a medieval Scottish countryside with its strikingly beautiful landscapes, lochs, and mountains. That austere and foreboding setting underlies just about every scene. The three Weird Sisters (who look superficially like peasant women but convey a genuinely creepy otherness) stand in fog-shrouded fields as they utter their cryptic warnings and prophecies to Macbeth and lurk in the background off to the side of the battles. Hardscrabble peasants and soldiers dot the landscape, sometimes strangely motionless, sometimes lining the roads, but always enhancing an air of strangeness. Life is brutal, violent death is never far away, and the supernatural world is always just offstage.

I won't worry about giving away spoilers here because this is one of Shakespeare's best-known plays, but if you haven't seen it before, then this is maybe not the best place to start. Two reasons: first, a lot of the text has been cut (even though the complete play is not that long) and it will help a lot if you already know the plot and characters. Otherwise, you might be lost not knowing who's doing what and to whom. I got the feeling that the director Justin Kurzel essentially assumes that his viewers will already know the play and are deliberately looking for a different, postmodern take on it. Second, most of the dialog is (appropriately enough) in thick Scottish accents but often almost whispered, as if the characters are speaking only to themselves or someone right beside them. In places it's hard to pick up. But this too adds to the atmosphere, as if the actors are standing outside themselves both watching and taking part.

Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard make a first-rate pair of leads. David Thewlis (Duncan) and Elizabeth Debicki (Lady Macduff) are also notable, as are the three witches. The various captains and soldiers with speaking parts are hard to tell from each other, but that's another reason to know the play before going in. One added touch I thought was interesting came very early on where we see the Macbeths burying an infant daughter (who's only referred to obliquely in the play) and then losing a teenage son in battle. If they don't have their own children to live for, it maybe makes it easier to understand why they would go ahead and do what they do. Another effective touch, an interesting director's interpretation, is that Lady Macbeth slides over into madness specifically because of her husband's brutal murder of Macduff's family -- she was willing to push him into assassination as a career move but didn't bargain for what it led to, which was outright destruction even of women and children and a reign of blood. "What's done cannot be undone."

See the full play in a live theater, somewhere, and then see this movie for its distinctive ambience. It's an added-value experience.

I am not a big lover of Shakespeares plays but Macbeth is a story few haven't heard at one time or another this movie is a great watch for those who enjoy the story and those who are new to it Fassbender gives an amazing performance as Macbeth and speaks the famous words in a way not heard before a modern day retelling of an old story done right.

I recently saw Macbeth with Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard and directed by Justin Kurzel and is easily my number 1 film of the year so far. While the Shakespearean dialogue may be hard to follow at times, it doesn't matter as this film is a visual masterpiece and not only i the way of shot types but also in the use of colour (which the end scene uses in a truly jaw dropping sequence). The cinematography in Macbeth is truly something to marvel at and is perfectly accompanied by magnificent performances from the 2 leads and also the rest of the cast. Fassbender was born to play this role and portrays Macbeth in a powerful and emotionally engrossing way and Cotillard is a beautiful and faultless Lady Macbeth (she has a great monologue in one scene which gave me goosebumps). Another element that I loved was the score, wonderfully haunting and powerful and matches the scenery and setting of the film. Overall, Do. Not. Miss. This. It is spectacular and I've probably hyped it up too much now but what ever its great. If I had to fault it I would saw that there are some iconic lines from the original play that aren't used in the film which was disappointing but it probably wouldn't have fit with the tone so maybe it was for the best.

Well it was certainly very artistic and certain parts were just gorgeous. However there is not much more to recommend Macbeth. The worst part to me was how the dialogue was spoken, or not spoken since it was mostly whispers and mumbles. Just mumbles and mumbles. Shakespeare's prose just begs to be enjoyed but here I couldn't understand what they were saying half the time.

Also they seemed to have no idea what to do with the talking parts and just tried to invent weird action scenes to go with them that felt out of place. Too theatrical is how I would describe this film. It tries to be realistic and set in historical times, but it just makes the theatrical stick out more in awkward ways.

Performance wise there is nothing to complain about as everyone did a great job. Overall there are sparks of brilliance here but I just get the feeling that the makers gave up before reaching the goal and the final product is hence mediocre.

HAIL MACBETH, HAIL MACBETH, HAIL MACBETH.

WOW, that was a gripping, intense, beautifully shot film with unforgettable performances and has to be the best retellings of not only 'Macbeth' but all of Shakespeare's plays on screen. This movie did an incredibly amazing job at sticking to the source material whilst also incorporating a visually stunning cinematic style. It has a very interesting cinematic style using slow motion effects and sped up film in order to capture the emotions that the characters are feeling at every moment. I was in awe at how beautiful this film was, the wide shots of the landscapes were incredible whether there was something going on or nothing at all. And i don't know where the cgi in this film was if there was much at all because it all looks so incredibly real and grand and it only adds to the scope of the film. The movie's amazing cinematography is accompanied by many amazing performances including two of the best performances this year.

Sean Harris and David Thewlis were standouts in their supporting roles as Macduff and Duncan and really displayed some of their best performances but the show was stolen by the two leads. Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard as Macbeth and Lady Macbeth were absolutely mind- blowing and amazing and encapsulated these characters as perfectly as you could get. They did incredible jobs at playing these extremely complex personalities and led me to see only Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, forgetting their previous roles. They pull of their monologues so well that you are fully engaged in what they are saying and can see that what they are feeling is not only expressed through what they are saying but just from the expressions on their faces. And Lady Macbeth's most iconic scene/monologue was represented so perfectly that it was one of the best and most gripping scenes in the film. The Oscar race is heating up and Fassbender and Cotillard have to be the front-runners for Best Actor and Actress, truly amazing.

Having read the play a little while ago i was able to still recall many of the key events and know mostly what was coming up next. So hearing plenty of familiar lines from the play and seeing these scenes was incredibly rewarding. And reading the play i feel helped to follow along with what is happening at all times. But for someone unfamiliar with the story of Macbeth i think it might be a little hard to follow at times. This is definitely not a film where you can look away for even a minute and still know what is going on. If you miss a few lines of dialogue or zone out during a scene, when you zone back into the film you will probably be lost. The Shakespearean dialogue is probably going to be a barrier for people to understand and if you can't understand that dialogue you really won't like this film. But as i was saying i felt that if i hadn't read the play i would have been quite lost during the film. If you aren't paying careful attention and reading into even the most subtle of hints some scenes will seem random and you'll have no idea what is going on. So i think this is definitely not for general audiences who just want to relax and check out a film, it requires a fair amount of attention.

So in the end, it is beautifully shot, intense, extremely well acted and a great adaptation of this incredible play. Maybe not for the general audience but any fans of the source material or lovers of film should love this movie. - 8.6/10

I wanted so much to love this movie! A stellar cast, wonderful source material, what could go wrong. What went right was the visuals; the film looks great. Locations, costumes, cinematography, all are just splendid. But all that is spoiled because most of the time you can't understand what the actors are saying! Other critics commented on this issue but I went anyway, hoping they were wrong. They weren't. And there is simply no excuse. I've seen all these actors in other roles and they know how to enunciate quite well, so what went wrong? It's Shakespeare, people! The words matter! Now, I don't know if this was sloppy sound editing or deliberate obfuscation, but the result was that a movie that worked magnificently on every other level was totally spoiled, a disappointment to viewers and I'm sure an embarrassment to the cast and, I hope, the filmmakers.

Elizabethan play-write William Shakespeare staged plays of great historical events. Necessarily limited by the stage-setting, these were the masterpieces of carefully crafted words and speeches that we now consider as Shakespearian English. Thus this reviewer considered the film version of Shakespeare's Scottish play as perhaps being too wordy and stagey to go and see. However, I was beguiled by the trailer, that seemed to suggest lots of action and battles. Alas, this was not to be. However, this dull, but worthy product, is a fine showcase for Shakespeare, Scotland, and the performing thespians of the film.

This Scottish-themed film does open up on the battlefield. There are some interesting scenes as the warriors prepare for battle and the battle itself is shown well. (A later battle also has some interesting two-sworded battle scenes). During the battle, witches appear, and make a prophecy about the King of Scotland. The film tells the story of an attempt to fulfil the prophecy and of the aftermath of that attempt.

The male lead is played by Michael Fassbender and the female lead playing opposite him is Marion Cottilard. They are superb in their roles and must have actually suffered hard for their craft. Location shooting for the film was in the Isle of Skye in Scotland. This reviewer has paddled in water there, and can assure readers that even in the height of summer, it is like putting your feet into buckets of ice. Yet, we have Mr Fassbender in water in a scene, and Miss Cottilard, far from her native France, is seen scampering about barefoot and lightly dressed. Bravo! it should be said that there is little sight of the summer in this story. There are many, many, scenes of bleak mountains and bogs and moorland. The climate is cold and wet, with swirling fogs often covering the rough terrain. The scenes are in fact very bleak and compare with those in the Viking film 'Valhalla Rising' (2009).

Elizabeth Debicki, who also appeared in this year of 2015 in 'Everest', here does a standout scene, as relevant to us now as it was in the era it was set in. Sean Harris, who like Michael Fassbender, also appeared in Prometheus (2012), here delivers a brilliant and powerful performance. There is a scene in the 1995 Scottish film 'Braveheart' where William Wallace is floored in shock when he encounters the English champion. Here, in this film, Sean Harris, similarly has his emotions plunged to the depths, more than once. His acting is superb throughout the film.

David Thewlis seems to have an ability to really inhabit his roles. The source material, (book), for the film 'Seven Years in Tibet' (1997) seems to show he got the part just right. So too, for his OTT role in the 2010 film 'Mr Nice' which again matched the source material in the book of the same name. In this year of 2015 though, his performances have seemed more subdued but still true to the source material. I found his portrayal in 'Legend' to be fascinating. Here, in this film, he takes a part and makes it very believable. The part he plays is very like one today and he seems to play it like that too. There are some obvious differences too in that role of course, but that is the essence of the plot of this Scottish film.

We also get good supporting roles from Paddy Considine, David Hayman and Jack Reynor.

Much of the location shooting is on the Isle of Skye in Scotland, though I did spot Bamburgh Castle too. Ely Cathedral is also featured. The cathedral scenes are spectacular as are the castle interiors, however the bulk of the film is shot in realistically grim surroundings. Our thespians spend most of their time wallowing in blood and mud, and the climate and terrain are both as gloomy and grim as the storyline. The use of hand-held cameras does detract though. As do some of the special-effects that take us out of the moment.

This film is a good introduction to Shakespeare and his Scottish play. Political students can learn lessons from this story today, just as they can from 'I Claudius'. For those interested in the subjects of assassination, conspiracy, politics and statecraft, then the writings of the Renaissance Florentine statesman and writer Niccolo Machiavelli may also be of interest.

This film of the Scottish play serves as a good way to engage a modern audience and as such has been a worthwhile project. 9/10.

One of many Macbeths, but a special one. It's strange why it didn't get more buzz in the theatres, but the dialect was hard even for me. Needed English subtitles, and this because it's a great film. Great choice of locations and wonderful cinematography. The interpretation of Lady Macbeth and the looniness of Macbeth is wonderful and fully justified. A joker like Fassbender was a wonderful choice - amazing film!

Macbeth: Yes, it is a Horror Film, even more so in this version with Michael Fassbender as Macbeth and Marion Cotillard as his Lady.

Filmed mainly on Highland Heaths there is a lot of mist and fog for ghosts to lumber from Zombie-like. And they do appear as if they are Zombies especially Macbeth's son and Banquo. Savage battle scenes and gruesome murders.

A great interpretation of a great play. 9/10.

In many ways this is easily the best adaptation to Shakespeare's timeless play. The camera work is truly beautiful at moments, which is helped greatly by the geography of Scotland. The film has almost no reliance on CGI and what is used blends very well to the themes and surroundings. However Macbeth, like many other films adapted from written media, suffers from extensive pacing issues. Most scenes feel just a bit too long which, along with some not so praiseworthy acting, makes the film seem slower than it should be. Of Cause being based on a Shakespearean play you must make the scenes longer in order to fit in all the foreshadowing and metaphors however reaching a middle ground between pacing and metaphors would be much appreciated.

In my opinion this is definitely worth watching especially if you are a fan of the original play, but it is not perfect and a better adaptation can still be made.

William Shakespeare's most famous (and quotable) tragedy has not had a major big-screen adaptation that has stayed faithful to the play in many a year. Justin Kurzel's film attempts to provide a definitive cinematic version of the iconic play with this gritty, war-based work of drama starring Michael Fassbender (Oscar-nominated for "12 Years a Slave, 2013) in the eponymous role and Marion Cotillard, who won the award for her role in Edith Piaf biopic "La Vie en Rose," 2007.

As a quick word of warning: if you've not read any Shakespeare, then I'd advise you not to watch this film. Rife with Shakespearean language told through coarse Scottish accents, this is not a story easy to follow for those unfamiliar with it. Having studied the Scottish play in school, I can bring you up to speed if you're unaware - Macbeth is a Scottish thane (equivalent of a lord) who sees a premonition of witches after winning a battle. The witches' prophecies trigger a spiral which sends Macbeth beyond sanity. And a character-based war drama is, in my opinion, the perfect direction to go in for a Macbeth adaptation. I always thought in school of what a good film Macbeth would be if made with sweeping battle scenes and a rough, gritty take on the tale. This is what Kurzel does, to great success. The first thing to note is the acting. Easily his best role (which is saying something,) Michael Fassbender portrays the flawed deterioration of the eponymous protagonist with gravitas yet often relatable humanity, even as his deeds become more and more ghastly (a scene with stakes is especially hard to watch.) It will be interesting to see how Fassbender's upcoming performance in Danny Boyle's Steve Jobs biopic compares to this. An Oscar nod is almost inevitable; it would be a travesty for him not to gain a nomination for this. Marion Cotillard is not to be over- shadowed in a role which would require a considerable lack of talent to play badly. Luckily the French actress has that talent in spades and at first she brings to the table hardened resolve before the true extent of Macbeth's madness is revealed and her acting changes accordingly with an impeccable change-over.

Also good is the haunting score and stunning Scottish scenery, bleak yet beautiful in a cold, austere way. The supporting turns from David Thewlis as King Duncan, Sean Harris as Macduff and Paddy Considine as Banquo are also all fantastic. In addition the ending is unexpected, but in a good way.

There's little bad to be said about the technique that went into the process of making Macbeth. The only things which detract are the admittedly shallow complaint that the dialogue, and therefore the story, is often hard to understand due to the coarse accents and antiquated language. This does sometimes have the effect of ruining scenes due to being taken out of it trying to understand the speech. Also, the slow motion is used rather poorly. Too much to be used effectively, with the slow motion lingering a little too long mid-battle, but not enough to be part of the visual style like Zack Snyder's 300. However, apart from this Justin Kurzel's Macbeth is a masterfully made film that may not win over those unfamiliar with the source material but will be a true treat for fans of Shakespeare and cinema. 79/100.

While this is not quite as good as Roman Polanski's 1971 version, it's definitely worth watching.

The acting is excellent. The right people were chosen for the roles, especially Sean Harris who is the ideal Macduff. Marion Cotillard gives us a superb performance (perhaps best ever as Lady Macbeth). Michael Fassbender does a credible job as Macbeth.

One major weakness is the cinematography, which was poor by times. There is lack of a detailed background in many scenes. During the final fight between Macbeth and Macduff we just see a reddish fog and some vague figures in the background. And where was the Great Birnam Wood?

Some scenes were filmed in better locations, so there is no real reason they could not have used some of these places background for the "empty background" scenes. Visually Polanski's classic is much better.

That being said, overall this version of Macbeth is very good.

Being made to study the Scottish play in School, I had always hoped one day it would come in handy, and on this occasion finally it did. I didn't think i'd be going to the Cinema to see Macbeth, but what a pleasant and rewarding surprise.

The story and plot are well known, so it falls on the two leads Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard to bring the goods, both do they!! Fantastic performances from both, he is outstanding, strong, powerful, charismatic, when he is on the screen, you watch! Cotillard too, she was just so good, she made Lady M very believable, so manipulative.

Great performances from the supporting cast too, Sean Harris in particular, that guy has got something.

The locations were superb, beautiful and hugely dramatic, so fitting to the big production.

The music was excellent, I loved it, I'm not sure if it was the Cinema's issue, but on a few occasions the dialogue seemed muffled, and was difficult to make out.

Excellent, 9/10

While the movie has its fair share of flaws (quite a few), Fassbenders performance almost makes up for all of them. Also Marion Coutilard of course, she is amazing in this too. So if you don't mind the movie being shot/spoken in Shakespeare English, you will have a very interesting movie on your hand.

I'm also not too familiar with the Macbeth story in detail anymore (have to re-read it), so I can't tell if the movie does steer away at moments or leaves something out. But as it is, it does a good job and while it can not be considered the best Shakespeare adaptation, it still does the job, which comes down to the actors being as convincing as they are

While the strongest features of this version: the locations, photography and production design, are quite outstanding the overall impression is less than memorable. It is afflicted by a meddling director, changes that serves little purpose or revelation in the end, and all the normal problems of cinematic adaptations of Shakespeare.

A major defect is the music which constantly scrapes – telling us that all things are seething with malignancy. It does, however strain the nerves like a dentist's drill, and is just as annoying. In essence that is the flaw with the whole thing, and certainly the first hour which is dour and dreary, though not in a good way because it's so simplistically portentous and saved only by the scenery and the light.

The actors manage quite well, even if they speak in a very mannered sotto voce. In itself this is a weakness as it leads through most of the film to a vocal range that is very narrow. This pitch is evident between Macbeth and his wife as though all relationships are marked by the same register and it is necessarily identical between all parties. Paradoxically this approach leads Macbeth to be nearly unchanged from the beginning to the end, which is not how the play deals with the character. The important "Tomorrow…" soliloquy is rendered lame by the continuity of the low voice which preceded it and so this speech is no different to the rest.

The typical problem of all cinematic adaptations of Shakespeare is apparent here. The two forms, poetic drama and cinema are anathema to each other. The former requires words and once they are edited it's not Shakespeare but an etiolated revision, replaced by montage and glances; which compared to a great text, are of very little consequence. Kurosawa's Throne of Blood was another prism by which to see this drama but it was only cognate in the same plot and story, not the language, and stands in the same way as his superb Ran is to King Lear.

There are several film versions of this play and now there are more filmed staged versions to view and to compare. This particular version looks quite pointless by comparison. It has made some changes, cut some parts, removed the small portion of vulgar humor which relieved the glowering doom, but in the end, it is rather fatuous.

Macbeth is visually stunning. Great landscapes, shots, everything. I didn't like certain slow motion scenes, particularly in the beginning of the film. The very beginning is actually the worst part of the movie. The movie takes some time to get started and it definitely gets better as it goes on. The third act and especially the ending is breathtakingly beautiful.

My biggest problem with this movie is the old English they are speaking. English is not my first language, nor are my academic goals in English literature. It is nice to see that they stayed true to Shakespeare's writing but I can't make myself to enjoy the dialogue when it's spoken.

Other than that the movie is good. Acting is great and the constant ambient score was nice.