Joe MacBeth

A tightly plotted noir based on one of the most tightly plotted of all of Shakespeare's plays. Joe MacBeth is a hit man for the mob, mean and ruthless and not only good at what he does--very good--but also perfectly content with where his skills have taken him; his ambitious young wife is the voice in his ear, urging him to claw his way higher, all the way to the top if possible, and by any means necessary--including murder. Paul Douglas is a big, intimidating bear of a man, all business all the time; a young Ruth Roman--gorgeous, interesting as always, and costumed in a whole slew of eye-catching gowns--is his won't-take-no-for-an-answer bride. Great performances all around, including from as impressive a gaggle of tough guy types as the movies have ever seen. A "Godfather" for its time, pared down, amped up, and without all the bells and whistles--that still works today. One of the best gangster films ever made. See it.

I have always confounded this film with Russel Rouse's NEW YORK CONFIDENTIAL; I don't know why, maybe because plots are rather close and because I have always also confounded Paul Douglas - here - and Broderick Crawford - NEW YORK CONFIDENTIAL; both actors had more or less the same kind of face and played the same kind of characters too. So this explains that. This Ken Hughes' film is excellent, a gritty, violent crime movie, the rise and fall scheme concerning a ruthless and ambitious gangster and his moll. I would have never imagined Paul Douglas in such a role, and Ruth Roman is excellent in his gun moll role. Best film from Ken Hughes, besides CROMWELL.

William Shakespeare's classic gets a re-telling and new setting to the 1950s in Joe Macbeth. How to make the bloodbath accessible to a modern audience? Make the main characters gangsters, of course! It was a great concept, and since I love the lead actor, Paul Douglas, I was very excited to see it. For the most part, it was a really valiant effort. The plot was pretty close, but with some substitutions that would make more sense in 1955. Instead of three witches, there's a Thelma Ritter wannabe who tells fortunes with tarot cards. Instead of Macduff and Banquo, the characters are renamed Duffy and Banky. King Duncan of Scotland is instead Duncan, kingpin of the American crime gang. Towards the end, it did get a little melodramatic (like the end of Scarface), but I'm sure there are some folks who won't mind. After all, it's a re-telling of Shakespeare - isn't it supposed to be melodramatic?

Ruth Roman, who shows off her lovely figure in some great gowns, plays the evil Lily Macbeth who encourages her husband Paul Douglas to bump off the head of the crime syndicate so he can replace him. She does a great job, reminiscent of Joan Crawford or Eleanor Parker, who could have also played Lady Macbeth. Paul is perfect casting, with his softie demeanor making him an easy target for his wife to manipulate.

Paul Douglas fans will love this movie, although they'll probably wish it had been made with a little bigger budget. I'm always interested in seeing "understandable" versions of Shakespeare stories, since in their native language, I usually can't understand what the characters say. As an unexpected treat, I got the biggest kick out of seeing Sidney James (from the hilarious Carry On series) in a drama, and with an American accent!

Although there are some similarities to Shakespeare's MacBeth and this film, there really isn't a lot of reality involved in the actual events.

Shakespeare is fine for royalty and the behavior of royals, but it does not translate very well for the lowlifes of crime.

Paul Douglas is too sympathetic an actor from his other roles to transition to a ruthless and brutal killer he plays in this one. It is too much of a stretch for him. Ruth Roman, however, is just fine as the scheming wife who eggs him on to climb the mountain of slime and crime.

As in MacBeth, however, there are no sympathetic characters in this film as well, but that is about the only comparison that holds up well. In real life, decisions by crime families are made by committee, not by individuals. There is seldom a succession of one hood taking over from another, after rubbing him out. The syndicate is far more sophisticated than that. The movie is interesting to watch only in parts where there is more than a surface examination of any of the characters. Too heavy-handed and predictable,

A fortune teller predicts a rapid, bloody rise to the top for a mid- level mobster and it soon comes to pass with a little help from the goon's ambitious wife...

I'm sure it sounded like a good idea at the time (still does, actually) but this underworld updating of Shakespeare's MACBETH was criminal in more ways than one and reminded me of those "Classics Illustrated" comics I had as a kid. "Simple" sums it up and a too-old Paul Douglas hammed it up shamelessly, coming off more like "Curly" from THE THREE STOOGES than the Bard's vacillating thane. The idea that the Chicago syndicate (at least I think that's what it was since I heard "the Detroit mob is moving in" at one point) could bump each other off left and right with impunity was only one of the film's many preposterous conceits but this low budget Brit noir (a Columbia picture filmed at Shepperton Studios) still had its moments, nonetheless, albeit few and far between.

The classic tale's all there from "Banky"s ghost to the damned spot on Lady, er Lily, Macbeth's hands trotted out in "Cliff's Notes For Dummies" fashion and Ruth Roman as the power behind the crime kingpin's throne was, well, Ruth Roman. She's like Arlene Dahl, Faith Domergue, Rhonda Fleming, Debra Paget, and a host of others from that era: they knew their lines and didn't bump into the furniture but their acting rarely rose above "competent". "Decorative" was the operative word for these gals and most faded away once their looks went but Ruth actually made a pretty good character actress later on in her career. I understand an underworld-set MACBETH was tried again with MEN OF RESPECT in 1990 and it's gotta be better than this.