laugh 😂

make Una dey calm down oh

source: Macbeth

Sustained brooding crushing dread! From the superb cinematography of the perfect landscapes to the masterful performances of the principles this was a truly memorable cinema experience. We can only guess at what Shakespeare's reaction to the 'miracle' medium of cinema would be but I suspect, technology shock aside, he would have been moved by this splendid interpretation of his work. Fassbender and Cotillard are perfect. The decision to use the Black Cuillin on the Isle of Skye is inspired and the landscape becomes a star of the show too rather than just a background. I have witnessed some unfortunate 'adjustments' to Shakespeare's text over the years (principally in the theatre!) but the departures here fell naturally into place and felt by no means awkward. A stunning achievement by all concerned. If this film is not highly feted at awards time I'll eat my tartan!

This new adaptation of Macbeth got excited me weeks before and when I saw the cast, Fassbender and Cotillard, I got excited even more! Because they are just great and I am a fan of both. However, from the first minute, the film couldn't catch the viewer's attention fully, because it lacks emotion, depth and thrill. This is not an exactly drama film, because there is not much of it. You can see this even in the first battle of the film. A pretentious way of film making just to be seen poetic and artistic. The movie visually looks beautiful at some moments, but those images serve nothing. Fassbender and Cotillard make us surprised by their "low key" performances, so please don't expect any kind of tour-de-force acting from them. If you do, you are seriously disappointed. In the film, there is no character depth at all and the dramatization of the events was totally ineffective. For example, a character is portrayed evil, but you have no idea or clue why he or she is evil? A character is portrayed brave, but you have no idea, why he is such a brave man? It is mostly because there is no tension which should increase gradually like Akira Kurosawa's masterpiece Throne of Blood. As expected, this is not a "war" film. If you expect a Kingdom of Heaven like film, then you are seriously disappointed. I had not any problem with unusual monologues/dialogs in the film, but some may find it hard to follow. It doesn't ruin the reality of the film which is a success. Especially, in the second act, the film becomes more pretentious with the over the top and "poetic" visuals and just leaves you with no emotion. This new Macbeth is a film lacking heart and soul in the material caused by its pompous narration.

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.

If you take the Shakespeare out of this mess, you would have an amateurish "sword and sorcery", pot-boiler movie which would (and should!) be laughed at. Re-insert Shakespeare (who must be disturbing his own bones by turning in his grave in Stratford-upon-Avon)and you have one of the most mangled versions of "The Scottish Play" that has been my misfortune to sit through. Briefly: scenes chopped, changed but not for the better; significant events simply skimmed over or missed; scenes invented and gratuitously inserted (e.g. the daft opening scene); lines entirely stripped of their power; lines entirely missed out and not for any particularly good reason. There is nothing wrong with interpreting Shakespeare and (say) missing out scenes and lines to give a vision of the meaning of the play as the director sees it - e.g. Olivier missed out nearly 1,000 lines of Henry V in his 1944 film production of Henry V (not a film that I personally care that much for but it was effective and did not do a violence to the play). However Justin Kurzel's effort strikes me as the production of someone who simply did not understand his material. The casting was frequently dire, Marion Cottilard was simply miscast as Lady Macbeth she may be many things but this was a step too far for her in my opinion. Malcolm was, in effect, a bit-player, mostly shorn of the small role he has; there are too many other examples. That said, Michael Fassbender gave an almost creditable/credible performance as the eponymous hero but he had a mangled text to work with. The Scottish accents were a curious mishmash of the genuine (i.e. the role was actually played by a Scot) and the dreadful made up, modern-day "Glasgow" accents that the BBC seems to trot out when it wants to do something about Scotland and show it elsewhere. That said, the diction was very poor - we certainly do not need declamation a la Henry Irvine but having lines mumbled in a hoarse "tough guy" whisper (a la Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry) was neither helpful nor illuminating. The choice of locations was quite bizarre - some were very good and atmospheric - conveying extremis well but others were, it seems, simply plucked at random from something like the Lord of the Rings.

When Shakespeare wrote his plays, he was writing for crowds of restless commoners who craved entertainment. He wrote captivating, expressive poetry for colorful characters to speak in telling magnificent and moving stories. Unfortunately, Hollywood directors have entered a new era of movie making where excessive lip movement or speaking above a mumble is out of style. Anyone who has seen the Mockingjay Trilogy will know what I mean. The words being mumbled seem to be incidental to the opportunity to film long lingering stares, someone standing in a field being wistful, a shot of horses grazing, curtains blowing in the wind, someone standing on a hillside being wistful. Meanwhile, time is passing, the audience is waiting for a story to be told but we are faced with more and more self indulgent cinematography. Everything that happens in this movie happens very, very slowly. Shakespeare didn't need clever cameramen, nor did he see any theatrical value in ten minutes of silent pondering. To make the experience even less pleasant, the sound track is someone playing a cello with only one string. When I say "playing" I mean whining like a petulant child, an unending drone that expresses nothing. The sound track is awful. As for the witches, an integral element in the story of MacBeth, they were about as interesting as suburban Wiccans at a baby shower. Once again, mumbled words through barely moving lips on expressionless faces made them seem more bored than chilling as they should be. If you want to see MacBeth, try one of the versions that came before this silly attempt to be clever.

Being made to study the Scottish play in School, I had always hoped one day it would come in handy, and on this occasion finally it did. I didn't think i'd be going to the Cinema to see Macbeth, but what a pleasant and rewarding surprise. The story and plot are well known, so it falls on the two leads Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard to bring the goods, both do they!! Fantastic performances from both, he is outstanding, strong, powerful, charismatic, when he is on the screen, you watch! Cotillard too, she was just so good, she made Lady M very believable, so manipulative. Great performances from the supporting cast too, Sean Harris in particular, that guy has got something. The locations were superb, beautiful and hugely dramatic, so fitting to the big production. The music was excellent, I loved it, I'm not sure if it was the Cinema's issue, but on a few occasions the dialogue seemed muffled, and was difficult to make out. Excellent, 9/10

I was lucky to see this in a cinema where no one spoke during the entire duration of the film (a rarity I find nowadays) - it may be because people were holding their breath in anticipation of what was to come next. Wow. Had me transfixed the entire way through. Those familiar lines no less haunting for the multiple times my eyes have seen them and my ears heard them. Some clever interpretation of the original text including additions that were only spoken of in the original play script. Some purists might not like these additions and interpretations but I found them equitable to the original. Fassbender was amazing. Understated where needed, alternately a powerhouse. I can and will watch again.