Macbeth

The famous Macbeth play is uprooted from old Britain to 2005 Melbourne. The transplant is only successful with immunosuppressant drugs, i.e. & e.g. I was quite melancholy depressed when I saw this movie. The front half of the theatre was empty; sitting in the first occupied row in the centre of the theatre, the view of the dark emptiness blended with the mood of the film.

Rather than the cloud world of kings and queens and nobles, this Macbeth is set in the glamorously untouchable underworld. Guns and drugs and lots of unhappy good-looking people. That kind of stuff. A modern day tyrant king and his world could have been paralleled with a representation of some of the most powerful and wealthy people in the modern world, rather than a petty crime lord. Oh well.

Initially the movie is violent nasty crime. As it goes on it becomes more and more surreal. The hit men and thugs that play for modern lords and nobles seem to more and more live in an enchanted mediaeval world albeit decorated with guns and motorcycles and televisions and security cameras and mobile phones. The strange Shakespeare speech seems less and less ridiculous, more fitting and real. This is true for the weaker actors and stronger actors both.

Macbeth is played by Sam Worthington. He struggles with the Shakespeare dialogue sometimes but he is charismatic, enticing; he does seem like a brave champion with a dark side. Victoria Hill does a similar job as his wife, the Lady Macbeth. She splutters the dialogue sometimes yet always seems to actually be the Lady Macbeth. She's unhappy and cold and charming and manipulative. Gary Sweet is very good as Duncan. Steve Bastoni, Lachy Hulme and Kat Stewart all are very convincing. Mick Molloy drew unintentional laughs of recognition even though he is very good. A famous Australian comedian, he is just right as one of the menacing cutthroats. Bob Franklin and Kym Gyngell are two other famous Australian comedians with small roles well performed.

The film looks very polished and professional from a production standpoint. The film is actually a bit too flashy and aesthetically oriented. The famous psychological struggles of Macbeth and the Lady Macbeth are skimped over and caricatured. Ambiguous things are made unequivocal and one of the most memorable parts of the entire play, involving Lady Macbeth and her hands, is rushed by so quickly that it's almost skipped by entirely.

Overall this production has the same depth of a poor adaptation of a famous book, comic or TV show. Most everything famous about the play is included in some form but not in an emotionally involving or mentally engrossing way. At all. This film is worth seeing once.

I agree there is something lacking in this Macbeth, but i don't think its in Sam Worthington's acting. I thought Macbeth was suitably insane and very hot. wasn't so impressed with lady Macbeth, or the gratuitous nudity. also, Mick malloy was downright odd trying to be serious... maybe we just can't get our head around it because we know what he's usually like. i don't know. and yes, it is very bloody, but how exactly you're meant to make Macbeth without a large amount of blood is beyond me. some graphic violence is involved, not for the very faint of stomach. best character i reckon was Fleance, even thought he doesn't really say much. all in all, i thought it was worth seeing, good, but not mindbogglingly fantastic. i gave it 7.

An interesting concept turned into carnage...

My first seeing feature from Geoffrey Wright (Romper Stomper), When i first took interest in it, it seemed at the time an interesting concept...

Shakespere + Aussie Film + Gothic setting + Melbourne Gangland

A very odd mixed that turned into a disastrous piece of Aussie cinema that gives my country a bad name...

Pros: -Interesting concept

Cons: -Waste of a good cast -Stuffed and stupid plot -Crooked camera angles -Not much variety of locations -Crap use of Shakespearian diologue

Overall: Australia's worst attempt of a Shakespere film, Stick to Baz Lurhman...or Romper Stomper (WARNING: That film is dangerous)

Well actually it is adapted from a play from Shakespeare, but it's not your typical Shakespearian adaptation you'll get here. Although the dialog seems to be spoken as it stood in the book (I don't know it word for word, but they use Shakespearian "language"), the whole thing is brought into a more modern world. It's not the first movie to do so, but I guess it's the first to be quite so brutal about it (literally speaking in this case).

The acting is quite good and with a bit of settling in time, you'll not even notice that this is done after a Shakespeare play, but see it as an action-drama (movie). And if you can do that, than you can enjoy it too (as much as it is possible for you).

A very hyped-up, slick, edgy reinterpretation.

They've fallen into the "because it's modern, it has to be hyped-up, slick, etc." trap.

"Romeo and Juliet" carried this idea off much more successfully, but I really think it's time we move beyond the two extremes here (period piece vs. edgy film).

Just because this is a "modern" retelling, doesn't mean the movie has to look like a magazine ad, or have anything to do with drugs or guns.

If the trappings were as subtle as the honeyed words, Macbeth would be a far more powerful film. As it is, read your Shakespeare. Read it out loud. Ask your Oxford dictionary some questions. Skip the film. Or don't, but you've been warned.

Sorry for the super-long review. IMDb made me do it.