Interesteg What makes it different from others?

ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Michael_Elliott Macbeth (1948) *** (out of 4)Macbeth (Orson Welles) is told by three witches that he will rise to become the King of Scotland. His wife Lady Macbeth (Jeanette Nolan) talks him into killing the King to gain control.It should come as no shocked that Orson Welles' MACBETH hit theaters to a loud crash meaning that it was a a flop at the box office. The film was re-edited and re-dubbed when it debuted in America but thankfully the complete 107-minute print turned up and is now available for viewing. With that said, this certainly isn't my favorite Welles film and it's certainly not one of the best Shakespeare adaptations out there but at the same time the director did very well considering what he had to work with.You can tell that there really wasn't much of a budget but that doesn't prevent Welles for turning in a beautiful looking film. There are some terrific shots to be found here but what I enjoyed the most was the atmosphere that the director created. There's some very dark scenes and some fog that really packs a nice punch throughout the picture. It also helps that you've got a great cast turning in great performances. Of course, the star is Welles and he manages to work some true magic in the role of Macbeth.I wouldn't call the film great because there really wasn't much momentum anywhere in the picture. I'd say that the film is a bit too stagy at times and I'd argue that a tad bit more energy would have helped things. Still, if you're a fan of Welles then this is certainly a must see.

gavin6942 In fog-dripping, barren and sometimes macabre settings, 11th-century Scottish nobleman Macbeth is led by an evil prophecy and his ruthless yet desirable wife to the treasonous act that makes him king. But he does not enjoy his newfound, dearly-won kingship...Macbeth marked the fourth time that a post-silent era Hollywood studio produced a film based on a Shakespeare play: United Artists had produced "The Taming of the Shrew" in 1929, Warner Brothers made "A Midsummer's Night Dream" in 1935, and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer produced "Romeo and Juliet" in 1936. None of these films were commercially successful, but the commercial and critical prestige earned by Laurence Olivier's film version of "Henry V" (which was produced in Great Britain in 1944 but not seen in the U.S. until 1946) helped to propel Welles' "Macbeth" forward.I am surprised that these films were not successful. And then comes Welles, who has such a large personality. This film is excellent, but he is a dominant part of the film -- directing, starring, and it seems he rearranged the sequences to make even the plot his own. Welles... artist or narcissistic dictator?

lasttimeisaw Very frankly speaking, it's a horrible adaption of Macbeth, which might not be Shakespeare's best masterpiece, but still holds his gold-lettered signboard, I constantly keep myself from any possible idolization even if this time the object is Orson Welles. I am disqualified to evaluate Orson's works as I have not watch enough amount of them, I just articulate my feelings as far as this film is concerned. I guess the only person whom the film satisfies is Orson himself, as he seems to be quite intoxicated with his over-the-top performance while Shakespeare's brilliant lines could intermittently jump out of his mouth. For me it looks like even his co-star Jeanette Nolan (Ms. Macbeth) would like to finish her role (by jumping from the cliff) earlier. The film is merely a second-class Shakespeare's play with a bigger but undeservedly shabby set, actually a burlesque may be more accurate. Of course, no matter what it is still the original Macbeth, so it does has its own charm in spite of its potboiler quality, which could not be attributed to Orson himself (maybe the horror surrealistic background he creates is an exception). So clearly I'm not a B-movie fan, in my opinion the controversy of the film is largely due to the fact that it is made by Orson Welles, a prematurely senile genius, other than the film itself. The performance is un-even, Orson is not Laurence Olivier (in 1948 Laurence's Hamlet was a huge success), on the contrary, Jeanette Nolan became my sole guilty pleasure in this film (the truth is that there is sheerly no other choice for me, perhaps the three witches also stand a chance), I am not familiar with theatrical work, so if someone tells me Orson actually has done a great job in the film, I will be very disappointed by the intrinsic characteristic of an actor.

ptb-8 This 1948 Republic Production polarizes viewers but pleases theater and Shakespeare purists it seems. An almost direct visual transfer from a nightmarish muddy staged play, Republic's Orson Welles' MACBETH has been soundly criticized as a 'movie' but applauded as a 'film'. The whole film is like a nightmare sequence from another film, except here it runs 107 minutes and is the the entire look of the movie. If you have seen the fantasy horror of the Salvador Dali sequence from SPELLBOUND, then you might be prepared for the spiky dark landscape of MACBETH with Welles a dark knight/king haunting its wet cold pits and crags. Like a grimy silent movie from the Russian film studios of the 20s or as one critic said "a riot in a coal mine" MACBETH according to the stark icy black desert presents the viewer with an unrelenting grim mad world of fog witches and vicious tone. It is a nightmare for sure but a stark solid one which will either grab you because of its sparseness or repel you for the same reason. Theatre lovers will get it and those seeking a bit of Errol Flynn style derring doo will run.... Its reputation has grown over the years, and I do believe rightly so.