Macbeth (I) (2015) User Reviews (279)

"I am in blood, stepped in so far"

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 25 September 2020]

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

Stylish and atmospheric take on a classic

[gcsman · 7/10 · 13 July 2018]

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.

Five Word Review: Extraordinarily Acted Gritty Shakespearean Drama

[BillSims28 · 8/10 · 12 October 2015]

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.

Macbeth

[0U · 13 February 2020]

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

Beautiful to watch, maybe not to listen to though.

[bazookamouth-221-898097 · 6/10 · 27 October 2018]

For: Beautiful scenery, The actors were all terrific. Macbeth's descent into madness. The dark version of MacBeth.

Against: Maybe the actress playing Lady MacBeth could have been Scottish. The Shakespeare speak hard enough to understand usually, even more so here with the incoherence and muffled speak. Sometimes the movie drags like a go slow slug.

MVP: Michael Fassbender. ( He did a terrific job)

A good film overshadowed by the Polanski version

[beverlyhillbillycop · 7/10 · 28 December 2016]

The biggest problem with this film is that the Polanski version exists and casts a huge shadow over this one.

I watched these two back-to-back (on the same day, Polanski first, if you're curious) and not only is the Polanski version better, but this director has not learned any lessons from Polanski. Kurzel could've made a movie that is better by taking the best of Polanski and adding the best from his own.

For better or worse, this film goes its own way.

The images are beautiful, the cinematography amazing, the soundtrack haunting and powerful. The images and sounds are great, the story, in theory, is great, but the transition from paper/theater to film resulted in a weak story.

This is a weak adaptation. For some reason, there are three screenwriters (+ director) for a story that has already been written in full. Maybe it's too many cooks, maybe it's unnecessary meddling, but what Macbeth needed was trimming, not adding (or rearranging), so something is amiss.

The result is strange. For example, upon the the discovery of the dead king Duncan, Macduff walks out and stars mumbling to himself, going full introspective: "Confusion now hath made his masterpiece."

What's wrong, you ask? They cut out him screaming "O, horror, horror, horror" which is his shock. They cut out the shock. So instead, Macduff just mumbles to himself and they have to almost beat it out of him. This production misses the point. Macduff is in shock, he screams horror, has a moment of reflection, then, still horrified, screams ring the bells, sound the alarms. Without the shock, he's simply unaffected by the death and then asks for alarm bells to be sounded out of protocol.

The film is filled with these and I'm not going to go over all of them.

I'm not a fan of theater (but a fan of Macbeth) - film is a stronger medium to convey a message, due to editing and audio-visual tricks. But this film does not take advantage of those techniques when it could. The soliloquies are better as thoughts, as voice over, which is what Polanski did. Internal thoughts. Instead, we have people going over monologues and it feels insincere and fake. You think "no one talks like that," which is not something anyone says about the Polanski version.

Private thoughts are private thoughts, speech is speech. In Shakespeare's time, voice over did not exist, so we saw the lips move, but the intent is to give us an insight into a person's thoughts. Now we just see people give long monologues, almost looking into the camera, which is something that is common with soaps, crappy TV and Neil Breen films. People talking to themselves is never a good idea.

There were things rearranged and re-imagined for no reason. Change for change's sake, I guess, but the changes are inferior to the original and inferior to other changes made by other people.

Kurzel should've watched other adaptations for ideas. Keeping the original, Banquo's ghost would be sitting in Macbeth's place. Keeping it would be good. The 2010 Goold adaptation had Banquo's ghost walk with his boots on the long banquet table, heading towards Macbeth. It's a haunting image, it is a ghost after all. But here, Banquo is sitting calmly as a guest. This is the worst of all options. Walking towards you, scary. Sitting in your seat, scary. Sitting quietly having his soup? Uh, try again.

Then there are strange decisions made. Fleance was watching his father getting killed by one man, while two men stood and watched the scene instead of capturing Fleance. Fleance only ran when his father was dead and only after he started running did they go after him. What? What were the other two doing?

I also don't understand why Duncan spent his night in a tent. I thought he was visiting a well off lord (Cawdor). They cut out the two references to "in our house" because that doesn't make sense, but why is the king sleeping in a tent? Lady Macbeth asks "what happened?" while she's standing inside the tent a few meters from the bloody bed of their king.

The speech quality/audibility is really low. Casting and accents are strange too.

Okay, so there's a lot that's wrong in this film, but a lot that's great. It has a Dune- like quality and just like Dune fans wish there existed a single work of two separate works, I wish that too.

I wish that someone would take the best of Polanski's and Kurzel's versions and make something better.

Gripping, Intense, Beautifully shot, with Unforgettable Performances

[stephendaxter · 9/10 · 14 October 2015]

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

Oddly unemotional retelling

[neil-476 · 6/10 · 9 October 2015]

During Scottish civil wars, nobleman Macbeth and his friend Banquo receive prophecies from witches: they tell Macbeth he will become King. Macbeth's wife pressures him into making this prophecy come true by murdering King Duncan. He does so, but the assassination causes him more problems.

Shakespeare's tragedy of predestination has been filmed many times before and, here, stars Michael Fassbender as Macbeth and Marion Cotillard as Lady Macbeth. I was expecting great things from a film of a play I know well and love. And I got some great things, principally the look of the film which is truly bleak. I loved some of the visuals presented here.

But I wasn't terribly impressed with much of the rest. The determinedly Scottish accents mean that the dialogue is very often difficult to make out. Some of the performance and directorial choices are truly puzzling - Sean Harris' reaction on learning of the murder of his wife and children was strangely dispassionate (by contrast, showing their brutal murder directly at Macbeth's hand was very effective), and the decision for Lady Macbeth to deliver the "Out damned spot" speech in rather gentle fashion, while very much not washing her hands, was utterly mystifying: her descent into madness made little sense as shown.

In fact, the overall impression I got from most of the performances was emotional distance. This story, and the dialogue in which it is told, is visceral but, apart from some of the action, this film is not. The actors are all first rate, so the blame for a rather dispassionate reading of a classic play must lie with director Justin Kurzel. I highlight one major exception: Fleance's reaction to Banquo's death was wonderful.

The music, heavy with celtic pipes and, especially, groaning cellos, is intrusive, distracting, and composed by the director's brother. I did not feel it improved the film in any way.

Overall, I was pretty disappointed.

A great interpretation of a great play.

[Pairic · 9/10 · 10 May 2018]

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.

Definitely not without flaw

[connorwburnett · 6/10 · 23 May 2019]

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.

Mumbles And Mumbles

[AliceofX · 5/10 · 15 December 2015]

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.

Phenomenal

[NeonRaptor · 9/10 · 18 October 2015]

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.

Very solid adaptation

[btrainer · 7/10 · 20 February 2020]

Macbeth was overall a well-rounded film. It was a wholesome adaptation with some additions to the Shakespearean version, wanted and unwanted. The film was shot beautifully and features some really incredible acting. Although, the mumbly shakespearean language warranted the captions being turned on. It was hard to understand at parts for sure. Some of these changes include: Macbeth and Lady Macbeth having some intimate scenes. Personally, I felt this was a bit unnecessary, but it better represented their relationship as in the play they feel just like business partners. At the end, Lady Macbeth never actually kills herself. There is just an allusion to her dying. I feel like this takes away from the drama of the situation, and her actually committing suicide is a representation of how crazy she has gone. A good change: at the end after Macbeth is killed by Macduff, Fleance returns and takes Macbeth's sword and starts running. Malcom is also seen not putting on the king's crown at the castle. I feel like this tied up the loose end of the prophecy of Banquo's sons being king. It tied it up really well and in a cool way. Otherwise, the plot was pretty consistent with the original, including scenes like Macbeth seeing the ghost of Banquo at the royal banquet (a pretty painful scene to watch). Overall, if you are a fan of Shakespear, I highly reccomend watching this movie!

Shakespeare - it's about the language, stupid!

[vstefani-260-404872 · 3/10 · 18 December 2015]

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.

A Stunning And Savage Epic Drama

[CalRhys · 3 October 2015]

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.

Marvelous, If You Don't Mind Subtitles...

[rachelcarl-24118 · 7/10 · 24 April 2018]

As many other reviews will tell you, much of this movie's dialogue is mumbling or whispering, but I think this adaption's greatest flaw is that it takes itself far too seriously. It seemed to cut any scene that took away from the gritty darkness of the script, but a good tragedy doesn't need to omit funny moments to remain tragic.

Michael Fassbender makes a wonderful Macbeth, beautifully showing a refreshingly raw and vulnerable side to him after he becomes king that we rarely see depicted. It really reminds us of who he once was and how much he has changed. This, in addition to a magnificent set, perfectly selected costume design, and good acting all around, makes Macbeth overall worth the watch.

(I would recommend reading the original text first, but I understand that Shakespeare is not everyone's cup of tea.)

A mad Fassbender, a mesmerising Cotillard, beautiful visuals, great costume design. What's not

[mehobulls · 7/10 · 16 September 2020]

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!

An excellent adaptation of one of Shakespeare's most legendary works

[imacdonald-49115 · 9/10 · 21 February 2020]

This adaptation is a very accurate representation and depiction of 'Macbeth.' This film ties a critical loose end that the original work failed to. The movie continues the character progression of Fleance by including him in the very last scene. This ties up the loose end of Banquo's sons becoming kings. Also, the film very accurately portrays the setting that the story of 'Macbeth' takes place in. The movie is filled with beautiful cinematic shots of the Scottish highlands. Additionally, the film precisely depicts the intense, raw violence of middle age battle. However, the film inaccurately exaggerated the intimacy between Lady Macbeth and Macbeth. And also fails to include some little things that occurred in the original, like the role of Hecate, Lady Macbeth's suicide, and the presence of Siward and young Siward.

Fassbender is mesmerizing

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 25 July 2016]

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

Great Cinematography

[skepticskeptical · 9/10 · 13 December 2019]

If you´re going to make a film of a Shakespeare play, it better be beautiful. Otherwise, what´s the point? Fortunately, this version of Macbeth provides what no theatrical production ever could: top-notch cinematography. Above all, the viewer is treated with gorgeous images of the barren, forbidding Scottish landscape. I also thought that the acting was quite good, by everyone involved, from the witches to Macbeth to Macduff to Lady Macbeth and everyone in between.

I am not sure why this film has a lower rating at imdb than many easily forgettable movies devoid of anything but brash spectacle and with no real reason to exist. I do see that some people are complaining about the characters´ enunciation. Having watched this on Prime video with the subtitles on, I always knew exactly what everyone was saying. (I recommend this approach for Shakespeare films more generally, as the language is centuries old...)

Everyone can agree that the story of Macbeth is great, and I happen to believe that it is executed well and convincingly in this production.

Macbeth 2015

[Freedom060286 · 7/10 · 5 February 2016]

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.

a muddled effort that fundamentally misunderstands the play

[guycox65 · 3/10 · 14 December 2015]

Not sure what I just watched. Every scene was cold and lifeless. Lady Macbeth could not decide if she were Scottish or English.... mostly she was just shell shocked and incapable of any emotion, particularly the passion she should have for her husband. Macbeth's castle, where he is supposed to defend the king, is worse than a poor Mongol's circle of yurts. Any wandering cow could have passed the tent entrance and gored the king to death.

The most important scenes are turned on their heads for no apparent reason and to the great diminishment of the work. The dagger doesn't float. It is carried by a ghost over to the king's bed. The King's ghost skips the feast perhaps the most important scene in the play - clearly spelled out by the bard. No ghost occupies Macbeth's chair. The director favors having a less important ghost at a side table, thereby removing the force of King Duncan's presence and the cause of Macbeth's madness.

The most intriguing prophesy in all of Shakespeare - Birnam wood moving to Dunsinane- - it goes up in smoke, literally. The forest doesn't move, so there is no reason for Macbeth to fear failure, yet he falls anyway, which makes it a pointless and inaccurate prophecy. So why not cut it out? In the end Macbeth is replaced (as king) by a child killer. Good does not prevail. The new king takes up a sword and goes chasing a child across the moors, despite the fact that Shakespeare goes to great lengths to establish Prince Malcolm as an honest and mild virgin.

The film is beautiful, in many respects, but it is a scandal to say it is Shakespeare's play - or that it is good.

Roman Polanski did a version that was true to the play. This version felt like Peter Jackson took over and tried to make it more-better.

We are not amused.

Great Cinematography, A Tidily Bit Dark

[dhenger · 8/10 · 20 February 2020]

While watching the film I was impressed to see what director, Justin Kurzel, was able to do with the beautiful yet tragic story of Macbeth. Director of Cinematography, Adam Arkapaw, was able to make so many innovational shots of the characters and was able to manipulate the tremendous geography of England and Scotland to his benefit. Through different shots and angles, Arkapaw was able to really bring out the intended intense emotion of Macbeth.

Throughout the entire film, the acting of all was truly riveting. The way that all of the actors portrayed the Shakespearean characters really drew me into the plot. One thing I would recommend would be turning up the brightness a little. If you are not watching in a pitch black room, you are not likely to see all details. Overall.... 8/10, not too bad, definitely worth the watch.

The Madness of King "Macbeth"

[texshelters · 6/10 · 13 December 2015]

From the beginning, Captain Macbeth and kinsman to the King is cursed with the witches' prophesy telling him that he will be King. How is that for a dramatic foreshadowing? And it is a curse. His desire to be King, a test of his prowess, will make and undo him.

Why does Macbeth want the Scottish crown that wears so heavy? Why does Lady Macbeth lust after it so? What is the benefit of being queen? Is it just so, that all men lust for power and all powerful women lust for men with power? The play, and thus the film, offers little explanation. And unlike King Lear, there is no fool character to reflect the king's madness, only other lords and kinsman afflicted with a similar infliction.

The acting is uneven. Fassbender does well with the material, but he doesn't live up to expectations. Cotillard as Lady Macbeth fails to impress. She does little to convince us that she is pulling Macbeth's strings and when Macbeth does his worst deeds, her madness and guilt over those actions misses the mark. What she expresses is a weak sadness, not the guilt and shock of an accomplice.

Whether it is is the direction or the acting, Lady Macbeth often didn't strike true. In Kurosawa's version of Macbeth, "Throne of Blood", Lady Macbeth is a clearly conniving, manipulative terror. In this version, not so much. I like the more diabolical Lady and the more clearly falsely grieving version of the Kurosawa adaptation. And I understand how extremely unfair it is to compare anything to the master of cinema, Kurosawa.

Macbeth was played only slightly better. Fassbender is unable to really honor and show the true bloodthirsty nature of character. He holds back, seeming to think that by holding back on his psychopathology, that it shows a complex character. It doesn't. It shows an unwillingness to commit. In the scene where he grieves his choices, he is much more powerful.

Sean Harris, on the other hand, plays the complex Macduff to its fullest. Harris shows incredulity at the actions of King Macbeth, a confused anguish over the king's vengeance, while at the same time demonstrates a hatred and purpose. On hearing of his lost family, Macduff states that he will " dispute it as a man" but he will also "feel it like a man." And Harris/Macduff does just that. His recognition of his fate is the most powerful scene in the film. I like the way the film treats the witches as spirits as not as demonic as in other portrayals. That leaves room for the real manipulators of Macbeth, his wife and his unconscious and barely subsumed desire for absolute power, to come to the fore. His lust for power is barely hidden under a shroud of honor and love, and it only takes the lust of his future queen to bring it out.

At its best, "Macbeth" is a tale of honor, country, family and megalomania. At its worst, the film is a confused jumble of motivations that are seldom clear, except in the case of Macduff. It didn't help that director Kurzel couldn't decide whether this version of the play should be more cinematic or theatrical, using elements of both and not always successfully. The best moments are on the moor, though one would assume the play favored the bedroom scenes between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. Their chemistry was fine, but Cotillard in no way convinces us that she could manipulate Fassbender to do anything but bed her.

Aye, there's the the rub. My mind is too modern to accept such simplistic motivations, and it will take more than reading words on a page to get me to accept the premise.

Rating: Matinée

It looks great in the Scottish and Northern English countryside. The sets and costumes are well done and even the Scottish warpaint, often a distraction in other films of Scottish warfare, is both powerful and subtle. The film is visually appealing, and despite its uneven performances, there is enough worth watching on the big screen.

Peace,

Tex Shelters

Fatuous

[ferdinand1932 · 4/10 · 20 January 2016]

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.