StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Benas Mcloughlin Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

videorama-759-859391 If you're familiar with this Shakespearian tragedy, just blend it into a crime movie, while keeping the dialogue in tact, as if spouted out of fellow stage thespians. But remember here, this is film. An interesting and experimental idea, unfortunately while being immensely entertaining, fails ultimately on one level, cause the thespian uttered dialogue doesn't work or gel. If done like 1990's Men of Respect, who knows how this would of turned out. Probably not much better I reckon'. But still, this is a bloody good show helped by some colorful performances from some actors, you'll underestimate. I'm chiefly speaking about Mick Molloy who does his best work, as a merciless hit-man, killing a mother and child with barbwire. The photography is fantastic, from it's hand-held opening. Macbeth boasts style and is something different, from a director who makes very few movies. Wright's 4th pic is almost up with Romper Stomper, although I have yet to see Cherry Falls.

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.

mgr81760 This 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.

dbborroughs Geoffrey 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.