Pluskylang Great Film overall

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

museumofdave No matter what well-meaning directors decide to do to Mr. Shakespeare, he will survive--and every time some folks decide to re-interpret the play, he is, in some way, enriched--sometimes sometimes just through another exposure, but often as in this mod "Gangster Version," something like the frequently asked question "Did the Macbeths have any children?" will pop up and get discussed.An early scene in this Aussie Macbeth has Lady Macbeth grieving over a dead child's tombstone, giving her a lot of motivation for ensuing diabolical actions; Although there is excessive violence in the film, Mr. Shakespeare can take credit for a good deal of it--consider the dozens of times the word "blood" appears in the play--it's justified.Unless the viewer is familiar with the play, this film may not make a lot of sense, as the original Shakespearian language is used--but cut, considerably. Would that the actor playing Banquo or Macduff had been cast as Macbeth, as Sam Worthington, while adequate, lacks the intense charisma such a tortured soul needs, and looks a little more like an unhappy rock star. Nevertheless, save for some naughty nude semi-orgies, this would be a good film to show to a high school class, comparing it, for instance, to the bare-bones Orson Welles version, which was filmed on unused Republic Film Studio western sets--sprayed with water! The Welles version, sometimes hard to listen to as his actors often use a heavy Scots brogue, shows considerably more strength, has an exciting visual sense and cleaves to the theme in lieu of modern attitude.

shazam_665 Great show for those who enjoy the Gang/Drug Lord/ shoot it out Genre. This portrayal of Will's dark Play will appeal to a younger audience and hopefully create interest in the classics again. Sombre, grisly and morbid just the way it was supposed to be. If you are squeamish Do Not watch. Too many head shots to count. Watch for the Trojan Horse. Another wonderful bow to the classics. Big ups to the Australian Film community for a walk on the wild side. Risking bringing Macbeth to the Twenty First Century. Always been a fan of Australian/ Maori/ New Zealand Productions since I read and watched Once Were Warriors , many years ago. You may also enjoy the version of Hamlet starring David Tennant and Patrick Stewart. Directed by Gregory Doran. Here we have a barefoot, jean and t shirt clad Hamlet bewailing his lot. Great made for TV movie.

DarthVoorhees Bored isn't what I was expecting to be while watching this film. I love Macbeth. I've both read the play and have been in a production of it. It's a beautiful play with some of Shakepeare's finest soliloquies. I can sit through a production of Macbeth and still appreciate the language, this adaptation from Geoffrey Wright even butchers the language of the play. What we have is a relatively slim adaptation of Macbeth with much of its substance left out and grim scenes added in.I didn't expect a film adaptation to include everything. Wright however has taken the original text and edited it with a meat cleaver. So many scenes are barely there. The characters of Ross and Lennox are almost non existent and the Witches are mere props rather than characters. Wright takes the lines of the play and adds his own little changes to them. Well, he didn't realize that once he has done this that it ceases to be Shakespeare. I don't think any character in the film speaks in iambic pentameters for any length of time. What we get is an awkward transition from some lines lifted directly from the play and Wright's creations which include big words. Shakespeare isn't about big words it's about the language. The music of the play is completely gone in this Macbeth and it is painfully noticeable.What really got me though is Wright's inclusion of two scenes that Shakespeare wisely put off stage. We aren't supposed to see Macbeth murder Duncan or see Macbeth look over Lady Macbeth's corpse. Shakespeare could be violent,grimly violent, but these scenes are more effective in building the character of Macbeth if we don't see them. Implied violence is so much more effective than seeing the dagger pierce the skin. Shakespeare could have easily have written a scene where Macbeth murders Duncan, he doesn't and it's brilliant. We only see Macbeth drenched in blood obviously already regretting his sins and haunted by the world's eyes. Not only do we see Macbeth kill Duncan in this version but it is a grim scene. Macbeth stabs Duncan multiple times with a vicious fury. Does Macbeth want to be there? The scene doesn't let us see the turmoil in Macbeth's head. He was a good man turned evil by his ambition. That mental transition is the key to Macbeth and we simply don't get the full effect if we see Macbeth kill Duncan.Macbeth looking over his wife's corpse is detrimental to their relationship in the play. I've read Macbeth many times and I can't answer this question, "Do Macbeth and Lady Macbeth love each other?" I tend to think that maybe they don't but I come to a different conclusion every time. Lady Macbeth is obviously flirting with Duncan during their brief interaction together. Their relationship is complex. All Macbeth says when he hears of Lady Macbeth's death is "She should have died hereafter, there would have been time for such a word." The best soliloquy of the play is delivered immediately after but I think Macbeth's "tomorrow" speech is largely about himself. There isn't time for such a word and it seems almost detrimental to the pacing of the final act to see Macbeth lament over his wife. By this time in the story Macbeth has lost his sanity, love is one of the last things on his mind. Maybe he loved her once but by that moment of the play he is incapable of love.The mob setting is really the only new thing about this adaptation and I think it is kind of clever in terms of staging. In terms of storytelling though it hurts Macbeth. Macbeth is about a mans fall from good to evil, does this work in a gangland setting? Macbeth and Duncan are supposed to be moral men at the beginning. You lose that seeing them as criminals. Is it really so far fetched to expect a gang member to kill to advance himself? It really isn't all that shocking. The thought of a kinsman killing a king he loved to advance himself has much more dramatic tension. While I admit there are some cool staging, the gangland setting isn't original enough to cut down the actual Shakespeare for overlong gun battles.

kosmasp 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).