source: Macbeth

This version of "Macbeth" was promoted as an "adventurous cinematic experience". So I was expecting, you know, a movie, and an "adventurous" one at that. What this *actually* is, is a stage production. So the concept is basically filming actors doing the Shakespearean play in a theatre, on a stage. If you like going to the theatre to see plays, then perhaps you will like this. Certainly all the actors are top-notch and their performances are excellent. However, if you're like me, and hoping for a MOVIE, then you're going to be disappointed. Like me. If I wanted to watch a stage play, I would go to a theatre. Thanks, but no thanks.

This 2018 Macbeth movie places each scene in a theatrical fantasy setting, actually the same approach the 2021 Joel Cohen film takes, but with a very different look. This production uses very young talent, but that doesn't mean they are not skilled and effective actors... they are. Mark Rowley takes on Macbeth with energy and passion. As to passion, I admire the effective exploration of the erotic relationship between him and Lady Macbeth, something Joel Cohen completely left out of his 2021 film, and it suffered for it. I think Shakespeare wanted that erotic love to be a part of the bond that the couple hold, and makes it easier to understand Lady Macbeth's manipulation. Production values in this 2018 film are very high with fascinating transitions from scene to scene. You are not presented with a realistic setting at all and if you are open to going along with it it's a fun ride. The grand dinner scene is played out much more thoroughly than in Cohen's film. This is when Lady Macbeth learns that her husband has had Banquo murdered and you can see in her response that she sees everything falling apart. The scene lasts ten minutes here and less than three in Cohen's version. I really think Joel Cohen watched this movie, there are numerous similarities in the approach and even the framing of key shots. All the scenes are presented as if wrapped into a giant, transparent 'Globe' and there is the figure of an older man, a writer in his study, who observes everything, sometimes with apparent surprise. I am supposing this is the author himself? All in all this 2018 is worth watching and I admire the efforts of all who were involved.

The main drawback I found watching the film was in its conception of Macbeth as complete fabrication. Scenes take place underneath, within or above a transparent phantom house. The actors all have different English accents so there is really no coherent wider/national context to which we can relate unless the impression is to convey a kind of diaspora of corruption (which the king tapping globe image may suggest). It's not that the insistent visual theme of transparency up against Shakespeare's text is anachronistic, it's self negating: the entire impression of text vs. Image becomes meaningless. And although the character of Macbeth descends into nihilism by the last act the movie certainly shouldn't. What is the human recourse when the only measure of structure against insanity is itself a phantom? Fairly bleak considerations here. 3 Stars for the great visuals.

An experiment. present so often in theater. vision about a classic play of a director. to define it as bad or good is, in essence, a question of taste in this case. for me, it is an eccentric proposition.nice for Akiya Henry as inspired Lady Macbeth and for beautiful game of scenography. for the desire to create a large perspective about play universe. the only sin - impression of easy way. the mix between film and scene, the photography reminding the art gallery , the dark spaces and the portrait of Macbeth - Mark Rowley is not the best choice for the lead role - are , in too many moments, only nice tries for be original. all defines it as not exactly an adaptation for a new century but as a form of sketch "ad usum Delphini" . or Macbeth, against time, generations or taste remains Macbeth. but, sure, it could be a film for lovers of challenges. a not bad one. but to obvious be "original".

Of course Shakespear adaptions are hard to judge, but I'm a bit surprised to see such low rating on this one to be honest. The actors are top class, the cinematography is simply brilliant and the soundtrack by Jed Kurzel is out of this world.

I really enjoyed this version of a play I know well. It's very much theatre on film, so don't go in expecting a movie, but if you love theatre it's a great choice. I really liked the sets, the actors were fantastic, especially Macbeth and it was nice to see Lady Macbeth played without the edge of hysteria so many productions give her. Shakespeare's work is so rich we see new things in it even after 400 years and each generation discovers a way it speaks to them. This production merges the traditional with the 21st century and I think it gets away from the current obsession with realistic violence and high fantasy (looking at you Game of Thrones) and back to the psychology of the individuals, which is timeless and universal.

This Movie Shows You The Art of Acting ...... It's All Depend On Imagination ......... Great Work & Great Crew .

Mark Rowley made me cry. In the "Is this a dagger..." soliloquy, I honest to god cried it was so good. Al Weaver and Akia Henry, they rocked it. Truly amazing. You either like the anachronistic versions or don't. If you don't like them, then this is not for you. If you are open to them, then this is truly a 10 out of 10 version of Macbeth.

Macbeth is the darkest of Shakespeare's plays and this adaptation for the screen matches the genius of Shakespeare's vision. It is breathtaking cinema. Everything about it coheres: the sparse theater sets (enhanced by draftsmanship graphics), the minimalist haunting music, the camera work, the editing out of the comic banter, the anachronistic costumes, the casting (black Scotsmen?) and even the lighting-the sun never shines here. And the acting! Did I mention the acting? What glorious acting: a good man prodded into killing his Liege Lord, the torment of conscience and the madness punishing him like the Eumenides in Greek tragedy. It is a glorious and cosmological work. The vision behind it matches the genius of Shakespeare himself. (Imagine, in it is a recurrent old man, a projectionist, who-throughout the action-is viewing a gaudy Macbeth from the silent film era.) If you approach this film not as mere entertainment, but as a probing into the nature of things, it will leave you dumbstruck. Yes, it is THAT good.