Macbeth Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
The Melbourne underworld. The present time.
A contemporary retelling of Shakespeare's "Macbeth" set in the ganglands of Melbourne.
| Sam Worthington | Macbeth |
| Victoria Hill | Lady Macbeth |
| Lachy Hulme | Macduff |
| Gary Sweet | Duncan |
| Steve Bastoni | Banquo |
| Mick Molloy | Murderer in Brown |
| Matt Doran | Malcolm |
| Damian Walshe-Howling | Ross |
| Jonny Pasvolsky | Lennox |
| Rel Hunt | Angus |
| John Molloy | Murderer in Black |
| Miranda Nation | 3rd Witch |
| Chloe Armstrong | 1st Witch |
| Kate Bell | 2nd Witch |
| Bob Franklin | Siward |
| Geoffrey Wright |
5.10 out of 10 (188 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Flawed, but very likable.
posted on 27 Jul 2009Australian production and low budget that ultimately outputs whats been put in.The actors have done a brilliant job. Their emotions and effort placed into the emphasis and moment are excellent. And the reinterpretation undertaken into a modern day underworld crime syndicate similarity is superb.Although lacking in some crucial moments of the Shakespearian script, it can be forgiven as this is not your usual stage play. It has been remade to invite not just fans of Macbeth, but perhaps bring in a new source of people who may perhaps prefer a lighter dialog with more modern environments. Perhaps a good way of viewing this is the overview of Macbeth has been superposed on these modern day criminals.That with the beautiful soundtrack and bone chilling scenes and shootouts, it produces an enthralling and enjoyable movie. That is enjoyed more if a understanding of the original Macbeth is known.By comparison, one can appreciate and enjoy both. This is definitely a lighter version that the audience can understand, through Macbeth's eyes.7 out of 10.
Loved This Movie. Absolutely Superb.
posted on 21 Jun 2009This is the best movie I've seen this year. I simply loved it, I thought it did a superb job of bringing the concept of MacBeth into the 21st century.First, I want to address the criticisms. It seems to me that people went to this movie expecting the wrong thing: either they wanted a movie like Romper Stomper, and didn't get one, so feel that MacBeth is somehow lacking; or, they're offended by the transplantation of MacBeth and consequent modifications, or they're expecting a performance like that in a theater rather than that of a movie. Those, however, are more their own expectations than the movie's flaws. As a movie, this is quality work, and I enjoyed every minute of it.The transformation into drug lords was really quite effective. I think the movie captured the essence of what Shakespeare (or maybe de Vere) had in mind in writing the play...the English didn't look upon the Scots lords as anything more than petty thugs to begin with, and the squabbling over relatively small spoils at the cost of men's lives works for either medieval Scotland or a drug lord.The violence is also necessary, it brings to mind exactly the sort of violence that Shakespeare has in mind. Does it matter if MacDuff's son is shot or run through with a sword--no, because the point is the willingness of MacBeth to kill children to maintain his position, and how it loses him the loyalty of most of his supporters: brutal and thuggish violence is okay...but spare the children.I didn't mind the Shakespearean language or the acting at all. I've seen a lot of criticisms of Worthington...sorry, but you don't watch this film looking for the next Olivier. And because I wasn't expecting the Royal Shakespeare Ensemble, I thought the acting, with a special nod to Victoria Hill as Lady MacBeth, was more than adequate for the film's need to render Shakespeare's words. In respect to the actual dialogue, the film was strong enough that the Shakespearean lines are automatically converted into your own English...when Banquo tells his son, "Fleance, fly, fly, fly", it's easy enough to hear, "get out of here".I also thoroughly enjoyed the small touches...the basins in which Lady MacBeth and her husband washed the blood off, I loved the "are you riding" to Banquo and yeah, except it's bikes not horses, there were so many little touches that just kept the play in mind even as you watched the movie, you knew that the truck was going to have a sign saying, "Birnham Timber"...one after another the technical renditions of the details into the 21st century kept me with a smile on my face throughout the movie.And I think there's things that you pick up in this movie that you necessarily don't in the play. Lennox meeting with Lady MacDuff after the latter flees...their obvious interest in each other as people going beyond his duty as "cousin"...that's something which, exactly because MacBeth is such a strong stage presence, you're not likely to pick up in the theater because your attention is focused on him, but which is possible to bring to the fore in a movie in which the setting makes their conversation believable and, therefore, meaningful enough to pick up on their feelings for each other.I also thought the movie was very well made. Others have complained about camera angles, something that I thought just kept the movie moving apace...I thought it was very well filmed, very crisp. Some have suggested that it could have been a bit broader in settings and numbers of cast...but that's an example of being unable to please all folks, because had the director opted for that route, those who would have been looking for a more Shakespearian cast to the movie would have been even more disappointed. I thought Geoffrey Wright struck an excellent balance between modernism and traditionalism, both in action and settings, that, once again, kept the movie closely tethered to the play, but fully played out in our own time and place. If I had one criticism of the movie, I would echo another in questioning the change in place, and especially the truncating, of the "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow" soliloquy. I cannot for the life of me imagine why the director chose that way...I guess he wanted to use it looking down at MacBeth and his lady, both dead, as a cautionary third person, but it is so much more effective as MacBeth realizes it, with such deep bitterness, first person in his own life.Other than that one flaw, however, I thought this movie was perfect, and just cannot recommend it highly enough to anyone who wants to see MacBeth come to life in our own time and place.
Melbourne Macbeth
posted on 19 Jun 2009The 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.
"Is that a 9mm I see before me?"
posted on 02 Apr 2009Wright turns this medieval play into a mafia movie, set in contemporary Melbourne - Duncan being the head mobster. The dark lords now have a designer wardrobe and luxury sports cars. Ghosts and hallucinations are rationalized by substance abuse. Plus other clever applications throughout the film.The leads were all very attractive nice to look at. But since the Shakepearean language was kept for the dialog, I thought most of them overacted. However, Victoria Hill was a good Lady Macbeth (she is also credited for writing the screenplay with Wright). Sam Worhington as Macbeth was also worthy of a mention but Steve Bastoni as Banquo was more natural because he did his lines filmically. Others seemed to have delivered them as if they were on stage.Lachy Hulme had great screen presence as Macduff - I got teary (SPOILER AHEAD) in the scene when he was informed of the slaughter of his wife and child, even though I already knew the plot.Though the film was beautiful to look at, the art direction was a bit over the top. Timber mansion plus candles plus dim lighting and no steady cam made the film a little too surreal, like a psychedelic horror film from the 70s. A post-modernist concrete mansion would have been a better fit for a power hungry Macbeth who drives a 2005 Maserati GT.It's clear that this film was made for a younger audience (check out the Sin City like film poster for Australian release). And if that's the case, I think there is some potential. Otherwise another lukewarm rendition of a great classic.
It's no Shakespeare ...
posted on 27 Mar 2009Well 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).
Interesting concept turned into a tragic, deluded and awful nightmare
posted on 23 Nov 2008An 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 GanglandA very odd mixed that turned into a disastrous piece of Aussie cinema that gives my country a bad name...Pros: -Interesting conceptCons: -Waste of a good cast -Stuffed and stupid plot -Crooked camera angles -Not much variety of locations -Crap use of Shakespearian diologueOverall: Australia's worst attempt of a Shakespere film, Stick to Baz Lurhman...or Romper Stomper (WARNING: That film is dangerous)
Shakespeare for the Tarantino generation
posted on 05 Nov 2008Saw this at a preview screening today. I have never seen the Director's most famous film, Romper Stomper, and know it only by reputation. My guess is this very graphic and bloody version will satisfy his fans and many others. Doubt I would recommend it to anyone who was unfamiliar with the play but, taken simply as a film, I believe it is excellent. Superb cinematography and great sound track back up a 'reading' of the play that seems to me to have real integrity.I note the current average rating on IMDb is a fraction over 3/10. Assuming the vast bulk of those are votes by the illiterate and inexperienced voters with a mental age of 12 who usually bulk out the meter, that probably bodes well for what is quite an exceptional film. If you don't know the play, for god's sake read it and don't send your ignorant comments to this forum.
is that a shrimp i see on the bar-bee
posted on 19 Aug 2008Aussie Shakespeare for 18-24 set.with blood ,blood and more blood.and good dose of nudity. this will not be for every one on may levels, to violent for some too cheap for most. done on low budget they try and do there best but it only works sporadically.and this macbeth just seem to be lacking ,its just not compelling. although there is some good acting on the part of most you don't get into there heads especially mecbeths. the best performance came from gary sweet and the strangest mick molly. if your into Shakespeare then see it,but if you like your cheese mature you will love it.it not a bad film but it not that good either. sam peckenpah would of loved it, that is if it was filmed as a western. i was expecting a lot from this, as i loved romper stomper. but this is was a vacant effort.
not as bad as some people say
posted on 29 Feb 2008i reckon people should give this film a bit more of a fair go really, sure the opening scene is confusing as hell unless your really paying attention and there are some awkward moments it still is a good adaptation of this famous Shakespeare play. The acting is mostly very good especially from Worthington who plays Macbeth and the Melbourne gangland setting is an interesting concept to me. the way they substituted certain parts of the play was interesting, for example, the bit where the burnam wood is removed to dunsinane (I've probably spelt that wrong) was intriguing, though using trucks to tow a forest to Macbeth's house seems like a bit of overkill in the plot which is where this movie goes wrong. The concepts are very interesting and intriguing but don't really work in many ways but do work in others so the film is left feeling a little odd. all in all, it is worth a red hot go but don't expect a masterpiece like romeo and Juliette by baz luhrman (i think I've spelt that wrong too).
Bloody good adaptation of Macbeth...
posted on 13 Feb 2008My favorite Macbeth movie adaptation is by far Roman Polanski, which is also one of my favorite movies. This Australian production, directed by Geoffrey Wright, brings the Macbeth story to modern times in the Melbourne underworld. Sam Worthington gives a great performance as Macbeth who along with his crazy Wife Lady Macbeth, plan out to kill the crime boss King Duncan (of course), allowing Macbeth to take over the power. This movie may seem silly at first, I wasn't sure how I was going to like it, but as the movie progresses and the actors recite the Shakespeare dialogue, I found myself drawn into the Macbeth story which I truly love. Along with a very good soundtrack and performances by all, I like this modern Macbeth very much. Shakespeare's Macbeth is a very violent story to begin with, and this version carries that off with plenty of blood and violence. This of course is not for everyone, but being a fan of Macbeth, I enjoyed it.
A refreshing look at Macbeth.
posted on 08 Jan 2008To quote a fellow student, this version of Macbeth is exactly what Baz Lurhmann's Romeo + Juliet tried to be and failed. Here, the story of Macbeth is updated to 21st century Australia, featuring drug deals gone wrong, seductive witches, and laser guns.To say that this is the best Shakespeare movie I've ever seen is an understatement. It completely blows everything else out of the water. The first fifteen minutes sucked me in like no other: witches spray painting blood onto statues in a chilling graveyard scene, Macbeth and company whipping out machine guns to the tune of the Devastations, and Macbeth encountering the witches while on a drug trip - it sounds absolutely ludicrous, and yet the movie is filmed so artistically that you can't help but want more.One of the things that impressed me the most about this film and the actors in it was the dialogue. Oftentimes actors sound unbelievable when they recite lines from Shakespeare, as if they themselves have no idea what they're saying or they can't quite figure out which words they're supposed to emphasize. Sam Worthington in particular was excellent with his lines, delivering them perfectly and with a certain je ne sais quoi that reminded me at times of Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean. Gary Sweet as Duncan was also wonderful. Victoria Hill as Lady Macbeth was at times hit or miss, but she absolutely nailed the scenes in which her character was succumbing to madness.Several people, when discussing this movie, have complained that the original dialogue has been modified. To be honest, this didn't really bother me - after all, the movie is set in modern times, and in order to maintain credibility it is only natural that some of the dialogue would have to be cut or changed. The one grievance I did have was concerning the famous "tomorrow" speech. I didn't mind its relocation to the end of the movie, where it was actually better placed than after Lady Macbeth's death. What slightly irritated me, however, was the fact that the last few lines of the speech were cut off, which was an unnecessary change.Another topic of controversy is the role that the witches played. Turning them into seductresses was a clever move, especially since it contributed to the fantastic scene in which they speak to Macbeth for the first time, but the foursome with Macbeth was fairly gratuitous. I really didn't need to see the witches screaming "Macbeth! Oh, Macbeth!" in ecstasy while they climaxed in various positions; no, really, I didn't.One last thing: for the most part, the violence in this movie is fairly non-graphic. However, Lady Macduff's death scene was extremely disturbing, and I would advise viewer discretion while watching it.Overall, aside from a few minor irritations, this version of Macbeth is a winner. Not only does it throw Shakespeare into modern times, which is always a refreshing change, but it does so without coming across as over-the-top or just plain stupid (a trap its predecessor, Romeo + Juliet, didn't quite manage to escape). The actors are excellent, the alternating rock and trance music serves as a perfect soundtrack, and everything about it is entertainment at its best.This is the movie they should be showing English classes when covering Macbeth - guaranteed, students will pay attention.
Worth Seeing
posted on 27 Nov 2007Perhaps it was the fact that I went to see the movie after reading the (mostly) negative reviews here, but I found that the movie far exceeded my expectations. It's true that the dialog comes off as a little odd when the movie first starts but it was easy to adjust to and by the end, as another reviewer said, it really seems to fit with the movie. Sam Worthington does an excellent job at playing the haunted character of Macbeth. For the most part the other actors do extremely well with their role as well. The action scenes seem to have songs that are actually appropriate as opposed to ones focusing on what big star they can throw in.All in all, I think it certainly deserves a higher rating than it has been receiving. It may not be the movie of the year but it was extremely enjoyable.
Interesting
posted on 14 Sep 2007It's an interesting remake.My favourite would be the transformation of three witches into three schoolgirls. However, Wright just dresses them in school uniform. Their appearance in the film seems at odd times and places- far from realistic or even dream-like if that were the attempt. Could the mere sight of them at the beginning- allow for such crazy- way off- the planet hallucinations later on? I would have somehow liked to have seen their story more integrated with Macbeth's. I also would like to have imagined the Melbourne ganglands a darker and more seedy place than depicted. More Australian culture/angle asides from the accent, would have also made it a little more original. I guess they were going for the universal appeal.Nevertheless, stylistically it made sense. Idea-wise it was fresh. The acting was great for some- with the Shakespearean dialogue surprisingly suiting many. The most enjoyable (occasionally laughable) part was seeing the usual Aussie ocker actor speaking in a sophisticated dialect. Sam Worthington was a Macbeth you felt sorry for and reminds you of someone you know- up until his mad end- unless you do know someone who is a bit on the left side.Still, I walked away satisfied having enjoyed a good night of bloodshed, drama and insanity.
Surprisingly worth the rent
posted on 29 Aug 2007It's not perfect, but this Ausie adaption of the Scottish Play was far better that I thought.The performances were, surprising. Sam Worthington, who I've honestly never seen before, hits more than he misses, and does a fine job as the title character. This could have been a 2 hour brood-fest, but he finds ways to take the character in different directions, if even just for a moment. Victoria Hill, who also had a strong hand in writing this adaption, steals the show as Lady MacBeth. She has a sense of royalty when she enters a scene, which for a lady as young as her, is a rare thing to see indeed.Granted, there are some weak performances in this film, but the energy, or perhaps effort, that the performers put out in each scene make up for it. Another thing to give credit to; the film's small budget is masked through decent cinematography and incredible set design.As a whole, I recommend it, even if you've never picked up the Shakespearian tragedy. Sometimes these films have actors repeating lines, then you have this film, where the actors know their lines. Is it Oscar material? No, no it's not. But as a direct to DVD adaption, you're probably not going to find anything better on the market.A small warning to those familiar with the bard's play; this MacBeth gets heavily abridged in places. This was of course, likely done out of necessity; translating this from England to a modern underworld Australia doesn't beg for an easy transition.So I say take a chance, and rent this one.
A shame
posted on 26 Jul 2007This movie illustrates like no other the state of the Australian film industry and everything that's holding it back.Awesome talent, outstanding performances (particularly by Victoria Hill), but a let down in practically every other way.An "adaptation" of sorts, it brought nothing new to Macbeth (no, setting it in present-day Australia is not enough), and essentially, completely failed to justify its existence, apart from (let's face it, completely unnecessarily) paying homage to the original work. If there's one body of work that has been done (and done and done and done), it's Shakespeare's. So any adaptation, if it's not to be a self-indulgent and pointless exercise, needs to at least bring some new interpretation to the work.And that's what this Macbeth fails to do. As it was done, this film has no contemporary relevance whatsoever. It's the same piece that we have seen countless (too many!) times before. Except with guns and in different outfits.Apart from the fundamental blunder (no other way to put it) of keeping the original Shakespearian dialogue, one of the more cringeful moments of the movie is the prolonged and incredibly boring slow motion shoot out towards the end, during which I completely tuned out, even though I was looking at the screen. I never thought I had a short attention span, but there you go.I suppose the movie succeeds on its own, very limited terms. But as Australia continues to produce world-class acting talent, its movie-makers need to stop being proud of succeeding on limited terms, and actually set high enough standards to show that they respect for the kind of acting talent they work with.A shame. An absolute shame.
odd mix of the Bard and the Modern doesn't fully come together
posted on 24 Jul 2007Geoffrey Wright, who did Romper Stomper and brought Russell Crowe to the attention of the world, brings Shakespeare's Scottish play up to date by setting it in the under world of Melbourne (or is it Sydney?). the speeches are there and so is the flashy trash of Silk Stalkings or one of the other cable (before cable was cool) series that surfaced in the wake of Miami Vice. Its an odd mix of guns and iambic pentameter, which works as well as that description. Not "bad" as such, the mix just doesn't work and the result is more grating then ingratiating. Part of the problem is the need to fit the plot into a new surroundings while retaining the language. the result is some odd sequences with no dialog and music that are suppose to get things across the dialog really can't because it doesn't pertain to now. The longish opening sequence before Macbeth meets the witches (Goth School girls in Catholic School Girl Uniforms) sets up the scenario which is changed from battling lords to battling crime families. This leads into the awkward meeting in an empty disco where Macbeth is holding a hostage. Turning on the lights and fog machine- for no real reason, Macbeth finds the girls coming out of the fog. My interest began to wane almost immediately and the scene where Macbeth's friend tells the drug lord of Macbeth's heroics kind of sealed the deal and I stopped watching and instead began to listen rather than watch(or were the scenes reversed, I don't know I don't care). despite its awards down under the film just doesn't really work especially when the idea isn't a new one with earlier films like Joe Macbeth and Men of Respect floating around. If you must see it it wait for cable.
Macbeth Just Wasn't Meant To Be.......A Drug Lord?
posted on 10 Jun 2007The 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.
Worth a watch but not as exciting as expected
posted on 02 Jun 2007Modernizations of Shakespeare are always a tricky affair. Ones that use the plot but not the dialogue (ie. West Side Story and O) tend to fare better than those that attempt the dialogue as well. Only Baz Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet really shine in the latter category.So, it's with no small amount of ambition that director Geoffrey Wright transports Macbeth from the Scottish moors to the Docklands of contemporary Melbourne. Macbeth and Macduff are drug-trading mobsters working under the command of crime boss, Duncan. Lady Macbeth is the trophy wife with a coke habit. So does it work?Almost.It gets off to a rather messy beginning with short, fragmented scenes inundated with characters and some blink-or-you'll-miss-it backstory. The film doesn't really hit its stride until Macbeth and his Lady invite Duncan to their house and the blood starts to flow. By this point, however, my attention was already beginning to wane and judgement was already being passed.One of the major problems of the film is that what makes Macbeth so great on stage simply doesn't translate to film. Even Polanski's version never quite gets there. There are too many secondary characters that are too similar and they distract you from the main story – Macbeth and his ambition – a part of the film that gets surprisingly little screen time and never really develops any momentum or psychological crediblity.Little snippets of scenes and character come across the screen so quickly and seem to have so little relevance that it becomes quite a frustrating watch. What should be an exciting, adrenaline pumping film (such as Wright's earlier film, Romper Stomper) becomes bogged down and the finale is anti-climactic and has no emotional resonance. One begins to wonder why they bothered to modernise the play or even tell it at all. The theme of murder begets murder doesn't really shine through and Macbeth never seems that ambitious nor do we see much difference in his circumstance as he begins his bloody rise. Maybe the film should have taken a few more chances or liberties with the text– why you'd include the line "merciful heavens" after the announcement of one character's murder and not expect the audience to laugh is beyond me. At the very least, some deeper thought needed to be given to the modernising of the text. It seems a little too much like it's just been run through the "REPLACE" feature on Microsoft Word. Replace swords with guns. Witches with schoolgirls. Dread with campy hissing.Sam Worthington brings his typical Aussie masculinity to the role and once he gets warmed up, does quite a fine job even though he has to compete with some rather odd costumes including a paisley leisure suit and a leather kilt that drew more than few titters from the audience. Victoria Hill as Lady Macbeth is also quite believable and her "come you spirits" monologue, delivered in voice over as she walks down the driveway to greet Duncan, is one of the film's finer moments. The actors who really shine are the ones you least expect though – The Molloy brothers as Macbeth's semi-loyal henchmen nail it while Louis Corbett in the almost silent role of Macduff's son has a quiet intensity that much of the film sorely needs.Stylistically, the film shines. It's probably the best use of HD I've seen so far with great colours and a strong, confident approach to the design – think Scarface goes to Moulin Rouge as directed by Mario Bava. And one should applaud the film for its ambition. It's nice to see an Australian film really take some risks and try something different. But ultimately it's a hollow, unengaging experience that seems to be trying too hard to shock its audience and ends up boring them instead. Maybe they should play it alongside Book of Revelation as two films that should have rocked us but didn't. Disappointing.
eh
posted on 23 May 2007A 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.
- 1
- 2
'All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players'
posted on 18 Aug 2009It is refreshing to rest assured that Shakespeare remains a viable writer and no matter how his plays are manipulated or 'updated' or altered or interpreted, his majesty of the English language remains intact and the impact of his ideas and words sustain even the most bizarre reconsiderations. Such, for this viewer, is the case of MACBETH as condensed for the screen by writer/actress Victoria Hill and directed with intensity and sensitivity of communication by Geoffrey Wright. The result may seem to be a bloody mad feud suggesting a majority of the teen driven films of today, but consider the source: imagining Shakespeare's MACBETH without the gore would mean the meat had been removed.Transferred from Scotland to Melbourne, Australia, the well-known fight for kingship among the Scots is transposed to be the turf struggle for supremacy in the underworld gangland of Melbourne. The script and the direction make this transposition work, using the original dialog from the play, placing it in the voices and bodies of an all-Australian cast, to the point that the allegiance of the actors as to place is far less important than the telling of a powerful tale of ambition. Sam Worthington makes an enigmatic yet strong Macbeth, well paired by Victoria Hill as his conniving and ultimately mad wife Lady Macbeth: the two form a chemistry that serves the original intent of the author well. The many characters who rise and fall in the wake of the ambition of Macbeth tend to blend a bit because of the condensation of the script, but Gary Sweet as the doomed Duncan, Steve Batoni as Banquo, and Lachy Hulme as Macduff are particularly fine. The three witches whose predictions drive the play here become nude seductresses and are well interpreted by Miranda Nation, Chloe Armstrong, and Kate Bell.The battle scenes are appropriately gruesome and the musical score that accompanies this film is an odd mixture of rock and piano transcriptions of Beethoven symphony movements. With the bracing cinematography by Will Gibson it all works well. Unfortunately the Shakespearean language can become lost with the heavy Aussie accents and subtitles would have been helpful. But if your television set has that subtitle option available, this small defect can be overcome. Yes, it helps to know the original play well in order to fully appreciate the transposition, but the script and cast and director make a fine case for involving even the uninitiated into the power of MACBETH. Worth your time, this. Grady Harp