Macbeth

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.

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.

--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.

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.

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.