jacobjohntaylor1 This is a great horror story. This was written by William Shakespeare so the story line is great. The acting in this movie is great. The special effects in this movie are great. 4.8 is underrating this movie. I give this 10 out of 10. This one of the best horror movies all time. Macbeth (1948) is better. Thorn of blood which a is a Japan version of Macbeth. Macbeth (1971) is also better. Macbeth (2015) is also better. This is a lot better then Macbeth (1979). This is great film. It is very scary. Sam Worthingtion is a great actor. Victoria Hill is a great actress. Lachy Hulme is a great actor. Geoffrey Wright is a great director. This is a film you need to see.

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.

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.

redmoon8946 The Play Macbeth was written by William Shakespeare between the years of 1604 and 1606. Ever since then, many other versions of the play have been produced, including remakes completed in 1948, 1971, and 2006. Akira Kurosawa even directed a Japanese version of Macbeth in 1957 entitled, "Kumonosu jô." The play starts out with King Duncan hearing about the success of two of his generals, Macbeth and Banquo, in a recent battle with the Irish and the Norwegians. After a quick promotion from Duncan, Macbeth instantly gets an uncanny feeling for lust, greed, and power and does everything in his power to gain access to the crown: even if it includes murder.Geoffrey Wright tried creating his own version of the famous play in 2006 by setting it in the modern Melbourne underworld. Just imagine a lowly Macbeth slaying hundreds of soldiers with an AK-47 and rapping his own rendition of, "Low" at the same time. Just kidding about the latter, but one thing he does do is utter the traditional Shakespeare. And he keeps it going throughout the whole movie. That's right! Shakespeare meets ghetto. It's all you could ever hope for! Not… The newest Macbeth is rough and violent enough to match up with any other modern day action film, but it lacks decent acting, the right lingo, and a good technique of camera work.The modernized movie starts out with Macbeth (Sam Worthington) who works as a hit man/drug dealer for Duncan (Gary Sweet), a drug lord from Melbourne, Australia. After being promoted to the Thane of Glamis by Duncan (as the three witches had predicted), aspiration starts to take over Macbeth as he sets his eyes on the throne. After promoting Macbeth, Duncan invites himself over to Macbeth's house for a night of drugs and alcohol. Before the festivities begin, Lady Macbeth (Victoria Hall) talks Macbeth into killing Duncan to take power over the throne. After the bodyguards are drunk and everyone's asleep, Macbeth sneaks into Duncan's room and stabs him to death. After his murder, Macbeth takes all of Duncan's belongings including hid title and crown. Just as soon as he thinks he's got what he wanted, he finds out that it will take more than bribery and running away to solve his problems. One major flaw of the movie was the acting. A once seemingly flamboyant and empowered Macbeth suddenly turns into a sissy. And he looks like a sad puppy dog throughout the entire film. I don't really know if this was Worthington's or Wright's fault, but either way, one of the two should have realized Macbeth was a king, not a knot on a log that took everything his wife had to say literally. Like I said earlier, Macbeth should have been rude, arrogant, and spiteful. But when his character changes over to a drug lord, he changes personalities as well I suppose. On the other hand, Lady Macbeth really knew how to nip it in the bud when it came to recognizing and personifying her character. She didn't seem quite as spiteful as she was in the play or the 1971 version, but she reminds Macbeth that compared to murder, anything else he could possibly do, wouldn't quite match up. Another thing I found distasteful was all the nudity. This fluke HAD to be Wright's fault. The witches didn't do a bit of acting, unless you call parading around in your birthday suit acting. At one point in the film, I started to wonder if I was watching Macbeth or Unique Positions Vol. 2. Don't get me wrong when I say I find the Shakespearean dialogue out of place. It's spoken flawlessly, but when it's spoken by an Australian gangster, it's just really weird. When Macbeth starts to kill people off, he first lets them know by talking to them in Ye Olde English. Macbeth contains plenty of action, blood, gore, and nudity to last anyone a lifetime. You forget all the positive facts though when you start to think to yourself, "Okay, what in the heck did he just say in that last sentence?" At some points in the movie, I don't even think the actors themselves knew what they were saying. The new age-ness of the movie could have easily been pulled off it weren't for the, "Thou's" and the, "Thee's". The camera work was just simply fair for me. One thing I could not stand was the constant pacing back and forth between characters. The camera technique used gave off that Blair Witch sort of vibe and made me throw up a little in my mouth. Matt Reeves tried to attempt the same concept of camera work in, Clover field but it just doesn't work. It makes me want to get out of my chair and look around for the little barf bags they have conveniently planted on every seat in the airplanes. Looking back on it all, the gangsta' Macbeth holds one positive: plenty of action. Other than that, the movie contains nothing more than uninspired acting, correct English usage, and stomach-turning camera work. The soundtrack holds one or two of the same songs, but each song is edited or remixed differently for every scene. There is never a variation of interesting or captivating media used. From now on out, directors should leave the dangerous drug underworld to Al Pacino and Robert Deniro. Future renditions of Macbeth should be created just as Shakespeare intended the play to be 400 years ago. I would recommend using medieval clothing, Ye Olde English, swords and shields and a soundtrack prepared by Enya. But either way, the modern Macbeth makes you yearn for some good 'ole folk music, a camp fire, and a bustier.